Gazal and Belros

In *Gazal & Belros* [2013] FCCA 1268, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application by the father (Mr Gazal) for his time with his children to commence, following a psychiatric assessment. The mother (Ms Belros) opposed the application. The Independent Children’s Lawyer also made submissions regarding the father's contact with the children.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the father should be permitted to spend time with his children, given the history of the proceedings, the findings of previous judgments, and the outcome of a recent psychiatric assessment. This required the Court to determine if the father's circumstances had changed sufficiently to warrant contact, and if so, on what terms, always with the paramount consideration being the best interests of the children.

The Court's reasoning was heavily informed by its previous judgment of 9 December 2011, in which it found the father to be an unsatisfactory witness and accepted the mother's evidence and the findings of a family report by Dr M. This report detailed allegations of family violence, controlling and domineering behaviour by the father, and significant fears expressed by the children towards him. The Court had previously ordered a psychiatric assessment of the father, noting serious concerns about his mental health and lack of insight. The recent psychiatric assessment by Dr D, while finding the father did not present with a mental disorder and was jovial, also noted his denial of all allegations of abuse and violence, his lack of insight, and the significant inconsistency between his self-report and the findings in the Family Report. Dr D also noted that if the allegations of abusive behaviour were validated, the father would be a poor candidate for intervention. The Court found that the father's continued denial of violence, coupled with the previous findings of validated violence and his poor prognosis for intervention, meant that his time with the children should not recommence.

Consequently, the Court ordered that certain previous orders, which had discharged the father's time with the children, remain in full force and effect. Other extant orders, save for specific preserved orders, were discharged, and all other extant applications were dismissed. The Court noted that the father's psychiatric assessment had not been helpful to him and that continuing concerns about likely violence by the father meant his time with the children was reserved.