Giddens and Giddens - [2010] FMCAfam 994

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GIDDENS & GIDDENS

[2010] FMCAfam 994

FAMILY LAW – Parenting orders – time spent with – child’s wishes – child’s health – application for time spent with dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Applicant:

MR GIDDENS

Respondent:

MS GIDDENS

File Number:

MLC 7412 of 2007

Judgment of:

Hartnett FM

Hearing dates:

7 & 8 September 2010

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

8 September 2010

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant:

In person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Hutchins

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Lampe Family Lawyers

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer:

Mr Combes

Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer:

Agricola Wunderlich & Associates

ORDERS

Order 2 and 3 of the orders made 12 August 2005 and any other extant restraining orders prohibiting the child’s departure from the Commonwealth of Australia are discharged such that the child [Y] born [in] 1995 has her name removed from the Airport Watch List and she be permitted to travel outside the Commonwealth of Australia.
The child [Y] spend time with the father as initiated by [Y] and with the assistance of her treating medical practitioner. There is to be no time spent with until same is initiated by the child and then as agreed between the child, the mother and the father and such time spent be in a therapeutic setting at the commencement and until otherwise agreed between the child, mother and father.
The father is hereby restrained from seeking any further parenting orders with respect to the child [Y] without first obtaining the leave of this Court.
The order appointing the Independent Children’s Lawyers made
12 April 2010 is discharged.
The application of the father filed 31 October 2008 is otherwise dismissed.
The costs of the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer of these proceedings be reserved. The mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer are at liberty to quantify these and have the matter listed in the future upon appropriate notice to the respondent.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Giddens & Giddens is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLC 7412 of 2007

MR GIDDENS

Applicant

And

MS GIDDENS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

History

The applicant father commenced these proceedings seeking parenting orders with respect to both his daughters, the elder being [X], born [in] 1991, and the younger [Y], born [in] 1995. The proceedings were initiated by the father in October 2008. There had been earlier proceedings involving the father’s time spent with his daughters resulting in consent orders for supervised time spent with them. At the time the father filed these proceedings, [X] was 17 years of age, nearly 18, and she had not seen her father since April 2006. [Y] likewise has not seen her father since that time. Although [X] was soon to turn 18 (and in the currency of the proceedings did so) the father at trial initially sought parenting orders with respect to both his daughters. By this time, [X] was 19 years of age, and the Court indicated to the father that it could not make orders with respect to [X] and would not do so.
These proceedings have had a long and somewhat unusual history. The wishes of the child [Y] have remained constant throughout, namely, that she does not wish to see her father at the present time. The parties separated in February 2004. Proceedings ensued with a number of family reports being prepared by Ms L, clinical and forensic psychologist, with the final report being prepared by her on 8 August 2005. Earlier reports were in June 2004, August 2004, and October 2004. The final report was annexed to the affidavit of the mother, filed 15 June 2009 and it provides some historical context to these proceedings.
In February 2004, the father returned home from a psychiatric hospital. The mother wished him to stay at a location other than the former matrimonial home for a time in order for his mental functioning to stabilise, and to protect the children from what she perceived to be the damaging effects upon them of his mental health instability. The father took the request of the mother as meaning that she wished to end the marriage. That was incorrect, but nevertheless, that evening an incident occurred in the parties’ bedroom where the husband had a large knife. The police were called, and the husband was removed from the home. Each of the parties have differing perceptions as to what was intended by the husband that evening. The wife claims the husband threatened her, and the husband claims he did not do so. Following that incident, the husband did not return to the former matrimonial home to reside, and the wife sought intervention orders against him and parenting orders with respect to the parties’ two daughters. Since that time, the two daughters have lived with their mother at a location kept from the father, and the father has sought orders that he see the girls, these being the second instigation of proceedings in which the husband has applied for time spent with orders.
In the earlier proceedings and in March 2004, orders were made for the father to have telephone contact and supervised written correspondence with the girls. The outcome of those proceedings was that orders were made by Walters FM on 12 August 2005 which included consent orders with respect to the then contact the father would have with each of [X] and [Y]. At the time, an independent children’s lawyer was a party to the proceedings. It was noted at the bottom of those consent orders that the mother would facilitate an increase in contact in the event that the children, or either of them, wished for such an increase.
The orders of 2005 provided that the father would have contact with [X] for a period of two hours in a 12-week cycle in the first and ninth week of the cycle commencing 11 September 2005 or as soon as the supervision referred to in paragraph 5 of those orders was available, and that he would have contact with the child [Y] for a period of two hours in a 12-week cycle in the fifth week of the 12-week cycle. Such contact was to be supervised by [service omitted] or other similar body, and indeed, those orders commenced to operate in September 2005 and continued in operation until April 2006.
On 30 April 2006, [service omitted] ceased their involvement by reason of the father’s inappropriate behaviour toward the child [X] as detailed in a report prepared by Ms H of [omitted] Children’s Contact Service. That report was annexed to the affidavit of the mother filed in these proceedings and sworn by her on 15 June 2009. That report also detailed how contact progressed, commencing Sunday 11 September 2005 and concluding in April 2006.
The report of those contact periods is concerning in that throughout each of the periods, the father verbally harassed the girls and constantly asked them as to where they lived. On 30 April 2006, the father brought the contact session to an end, walking off, leaving the child [X] and further indicating that he “can’t take this anymore”.
Between April 2006 and October 2008, the father took no steps to renew his relationship with the children, and the children expressed no wish to their mother to renew their relationship with their father.
The father’s initiating of this application resulted in a further family report being prepared by a family consultant namely Ms F. It is dated 29 November 2009. It was introduced into evidence in the proceedings, and Ms F was cross-examined by each of the parties. Ms F’s recommendation at the time she completed her report in November last year was that the father and [Y] attend family therapy and that time arrangements for [Y] with her father commence within the context of the family therapy. She also recommended that the father undertake a psychiatric assessment and comply with all treatment recommendations, she being concerned about his mental health functioning in the preparation of her report.
The father did undertake such psychiatric assessment, and an affidavit was filed in the proceedings sworn by Dr N, consultant psychiatrist, sworn 8 July 2010. Dr N was not cross-examined by the parties. Dr N saw the father on 5 February 2010 for the purpose of making a psychiatric assessment. His assessment was that the father was not suffering from any psychiatric illness at the present time, though he may well have had an episode of depression six years previously. His report was informed by the history as provided by the father and a single report, being that of Ms L, dated 8 August 2005. Dr N was not provided with the completed report of Ms F, and nor was he given an accurate history by the father. His assessment must therefore be seen in that context. Dr N refers to the father having had an episode of depression in 2004. He notes otherwise his mental health to have been good. Dr N said of the father there was:
...no reason to think that he is currently suffering from any psychiatric illness either from his history or from his presentation at my assessment today. I have not had access to

Mr [Giddens’] file from [omitted] Hospital, but assuming that his account of what happened is correct, I doubt if that is likely to lead me to change my assessment.
In fact, the father’s history includes a number of hospital admissions with respect to his psychiatric health being both voluntary and involuntary.

The child’s wishes and health

Critical to this case is [Y]’s age of 15 years and six months and her expressed wish to not see her father and only to do so when initiated by her. I accept that as the expression of [Y]’s wish. [Y] has expressed that wish to her mother, to the independent children’s lawyer, to Ms F, and to Dr G, her treating psychiatrist. To force her to spend any time with her father or communicate with him in any way at the present time would be highly detrimental to her health.
Her health at the present time is very precarious. The father has notice of this as contained in the affidavit of the mother sworn 27 August 2010. The evidence contained in that affidavit and that given in the witness box and in her report of Ms F is overwhelming and leads the Court to conclude that the father’s application must fail. Further, that the father bringing any application into the future with respect to [Y] will not be in [Y]’s best interests; that any orders made could not be enforced, and that ongoing litigation is highly harmful to the child. For those reasons, the father must not bring an application without leave. The father lacks the necessary insight to understand this, so it is important that an order to that effect be made.
The wife’s evidence in respect of the child [Y]’s current health and mental functioning is as follows, and I set it out in full in these reasons, because it is such compelling evidence. I note also that [Y] and her older sister [X] have now a close and loving relationship which was not always so because of the father’s attitude toward [Y] which caused friction in the girls’ relationship and resulted in [Y] feeling guilty for being favoured over her sister. The mother’s evidence is that in the last number of years when the girls have not had contact with their father, their sibling relationship has developed into a strong and loving relationship, and the girls are mutually protective of one another. That relationship is extremely critical to [Y] and should not be disturbed.
The mother’s evidence in respect of the child [Y] is as follows (as set out below in part in her affidavit sworn 27 August 2010):
6.Although [Y] suffered sexual assault in approximately March 2009, she recovered with the help of school counselling and my help. I say that prior to May 2009, [Y] was generally an emotionally stable child. I say that I first detected that [Y] showed symptoms of emotional distress in May 2009 and since this time I have observed the following changes in [Y]:
(i)Following the service of [Mr Giddens’] application on me in front of both [X] and [Y] at our home in May 2009, I detected an instantaneous decline in [Y]’s mental and emotional health. On 20 July 2009, two days prior to the hearing of [Mr Giddens’] application before this honourable Court, [Y] suffered physical symptoms (including loss of sensation and power to her arms and legs) which were so concerning that [Y]’s general practitioner immediately admitted [Y] into hospital for treatment. Subsequent to [Y]’s discharge from hospital at an outpatient review in late July/early August 2009, concerns were expressed by [Y]’s treating practitioner about her psychiatric condition. [Y] was referred to an early adolescent intervention centre to assist her in dealing with psychiatric problems. [Y] was referred to a psychiatrist at this centre, and following consultation, the psychiatrist diagnosed [Y] as suffering from clinical depression for which [Y] was prescribed antidepressants and antipsychotics. At this stage, [Y] was not only depressed, but also having visual and audio hallucinations of a middle-aged man she named “[first name omitted]” who would tell her she was useless and that she should die. In her hallucinations [first name omitted]” would abuse and hurt [Y]. The psychiatrist advised that [Y] presented as a suicide risk, and upon the psychiatrist’s recommendation, [Y] was admitted to a psychiatric unit for immediate treatment. Thereafter [Y] was referred to CAMHS for treatment.
(ii)On 27 October 2009, [Y] and I attended an appointment with Ms F three days prior to [X]’s first VCE exam. On the same evening, following the appointment, I observed that [Y]’s emotional state had changed significantly to the extent that [Y] was engaging in suicidal behaviour. I recall that on the same evening [Y] had located a packet of medication and attempted to overdose on the medication. Fortunately I prevented [Y] from overdosing by discovering her with sufficient time to prevent the overdose.
(iii)When I returned home from the Court hearing on

10 December 2009, [Y] gave me a hug and asked, “Is it over?” When I told her the proceedings were continuing, her mood changed. She became very sad that the court case was not over and that her thoughts and wishes had not been listened to. In order to prevent her from getting to the level where she was suicidal again, I had [Y] focus on positive things in her life. This included the upcoming Christmas and a camping holiday she had been looking forward to.
(iv)In or about late December 2009/early January 2010, I observed [Y]’s condition gradually begin to improve. [Y] ceased to engage in self-harming behaviour, and her depression symptoms appeared to gradually dissipate. [Y] ceased having hallucinations, and by March 2010, her psychiatrist had decided to start gradually decreasing the dose of her antipsychotic medication.
(v)Following the hearing on 12 April 2010, [Y] once again asked, “Is it over?” I told her that the proceedings were continuing. Up until this time, [Y]’s mood had been improving, but I noticed her mood change when I advised her of the continuation of proceedings. She became very quiet, and her physical movements became slow. The following day she told me that she felt ill. Over the following weeks, her mood and behaviour deteriorated. She told me that she had started to have visual and audio hallucinations and was again having suicidal thoughts. Her hallucinations were of the man named “[first name omitted]” and also included a young girl she names “[first name omitted]. [Y] was trying to protect [the young girl] from [the man] and said to me words to the effect that if anything happened to [the girl] or if [the girl] went away, she would die. Following an urgent appointment with her psychiatrist, [Y] was once again prescribed antipsychotic medication. She became very depressed and suicidal and could not be left on her own. She was having daily sessions at CAMHS and was hospitalised between May/June 2010.
(vi)More recently, [Y] has again been hospitalised in May/June 2010. [Y]’s behaviour which led to her being hospitalised consisted of severe suicidal thoughts. I was told by her medical practitioners that [Y] should be under my continuous watch, and therefore during this time [Y] remained in my presence 24 hours each day. She slept with me in my bed and went to work with me each week day, as she was unable to cope with attending school.
7.Throughout the period from September ’09 to the date of swearing this, my affidavit, [Y] has been a patient at CAMHS. When she is doing well, she has fortnightly meetings with a case manager, and when things are not going well for her, she can have weekly meetings. Indeed, in May 2010 she was having daily meetings with her health professionals, was very suicidal, and could not be left on her own. She told me that she wanted to die, that she could not trust herself and was having frequent hallucinations telling her to kill herself. During this time, I was concerned for her health and safety, and she slept with me and came to work with me.
8.[Y] has been suicidal many times during the last 12 months. She has attempted hanging, strangling herself, overdosing, burning, and cutting. I am aware of these attempts because on most occasions I have caught her in the act of trying to attempt suicide. When I have done so, I have endeavoured to remain calm and keep her safe. I recall the following incidents where [Y] has attempted suicide:
(i)In or about August/September 2009, I walked into [Y]’s room and found her in her wardrobe with a scarf tied around her neck and onto the hanging rail. I calmly said words to the effect that it wouldn’t take her weight and waited for her to untie herself, which she did.
(ii)I recall a number of occasions when I have gone into [Y]’s room and found her lying on her bed with a scarf or a shoelace tied tightly around her neck with the other end tied to her bedhead. Each time I have calmly untied it and asked her to come with me.
(iii)All medication in the house is hidden and kept in small amounts. Unfortunately, even with the precautions I have taken, [Y] has overdosed twice. The first occasion occurred in November ’09 when she overdosed on her antipsychotic medication at bedtime. I realised she had done something when I went into her room to say goodnight. I asked to see her arms, but they were clear. I then asked if she had taken something, and from the look on her face, I knew that she had. I asked her what she had taken, and she told me it was her medicine. I asked her to show me where she had found it, which she did, so I knew the medication and the amount she had taken. I telephoned the poisons line and was advised the medication would not be fatal but that she would need to go to hospital, because it would make her very sleepy and possibly affect her heart. I drove [Y] to the hospital where she remained until the following afternoon and spoke with the CAT team on duty.
(iv)The second incident in which [Y] overdosed on medication occurred in May 2010. On this occasion, [Y] overdosed on antidepressants. I realised she had overdosed within minutes of her having done so, telephoned the poisons line, and was advised to take [Y] to hospital immediately. She remained in hospital for a number of hours and spoke with the CAT team on duty.
(v)[Y] has said to me that burning is a good way of self-harming, and I have to watch her carefully when she is near kitchen appliances or using a hair straightener. She has thought about setting her hair on fire.
(vi)[Y] has cut herself on a number of occasions. Fortunately, these have only been superficial cuts which have healed well and caused no serious injury. As a result, all sharp items such as knives and scissors are kept hidden by me. Unfortunately, there are many everyday household items which [Y] could use to cut herself, and I therefore continue to have concerns.
9When [Y] is very low, she has said that it feels like an unbearable pain inside her and that cutting herself is a way of releasing the pain. On the occasions when she has been suicidal, she has said that death is the only way that she will ever feel better again.
10.[Y] is now trying very hard to return to school full time. I have managed to take her to school most days, but she continues to find it very difficult to attend school on a regular basis. To date she has not attended a full week. She is, however, looking to the future and is excited about her subject choices at school next year and her future career choice. She is trying hard to catch up on missed work, and the school is being very supportive. Annexed hereto and marked with the letter “A” is a copy of [Y]’s 2009 and 2010 school reports. I have edited the reports to remove any information that might identify the school [Y] attends. [Y] is finding it hard to resume her social life in and outside of school, which is the reason she has not managed to attend a full week of classes. She is desperately worried about her appearance in front of others, especially because as a result of her hallucinations, [the man] is shouting abuse at her, and she cannot hear anyone else attempting to converse with her. [Y] has confided in a couple of close friends who are a good source of support for her. [Y] does have friends over to visit at our home and also on occasions stays at friend’s houses. Her close friends’ parents know what [Y] is going through and are supportive. Unfortunately, because [Y] has missed a lot of school, she has missed out on parties and other social events.
11.[Y] has told me that she does not wish to have contact with [Mr Giddens] at the current point in time. However, should [Y] express a desire to have contact with [Mr Giddens] in the future, I say that I will use my best endeavours to abide by [Y]’s wishes and facilitate contact with [Mr Giddens]. [Y] is very determined and strong-willed. She has expressed her views to me about not presently wanting to have contact with [Mr Giddens] very forcefully and clearly. I have grave concerns that if [Y]’s wish not to have contact with [Mr Giddens] is not followed, then there is a possibility that [Y]’s mental health may adversely suffer.

The mother has also made application that [Y]’s name be removed from the Airport Watch List. Her name has been on this List since orders were made on 20 April 2004. The father refuses to consent to a removal of [Y]’s name from the Watch List. Although the mother does not contemplate overseas travel for [Y] presently, she does not wish to return to Court on another occasion, should that become necessary, seeking a discharge of this order. When she earlier sought that [X]’s name be removed from the Airport Watch List in order to allow her to go overseas as part of an interschool trip, the father refused to consent to same, and the mother was required to again return to Court. She does not have the funds to do this, and I determine that it is in the child’s best interests that her name be removed in accordance with her wishes. I accept the mother’s evidence that she would not allow [Y] to travel overseas unaccompanied at the present time and, indeed, would not have her travelling with the school in the absence of her mother with her present level of mental health functioning. The father’s reasons for opposing the removal of [Y]’s name from the Watch List ignored what would promote [Y]’s best interests. The reasons he gave were facile.
Ms F, having read the affidavit of the mother sworn 27 August 2010 and spoken with [Y]’s psychiatrist, Dr G, altered her recommendations. She spoke with Dr G, child and adolescent psychiatrist, on the day before giving evidence in the proceedings. Ms F’s evidence was that the matters set out by the mother in her affidavit depict severe demonstrations of emotional distress by [Y]. Ms F commented that [Y]’s overall functioning is severely affected. Her evidence was that she had changed her recommendation such that family therapy was helpful only if [Y] consented to attending same. Her evidence was that [Y]’s best interests will only be promoted when she sees her father on her own terms – that is, that she seeks him out and that such time spent with, occur in a safe environment. Ms F gave evidence that Dr G had disclosed [Y]’s emotional state to be vulnerable and that if [Y] was required to see her father by order of the Court, it would not be helpful for her recovery. He noted that she was still in a vulnerable emotional state and would see herself as disempowered by the whole system.

Dr G relayed to Ms F that [Y] needed to express a wish to see her father and that such contact would be clinically appropriate in a therapeutic environment when [Y] so expressed such a wish.
Ms F was asked about the mother’s view with respect to [Y] spending time with her father presently. Ms F thought the mother to be supportive of contact between the girls and their father but that she wanted such contact to be safe and happy. Ms F had also spoken to

Ms R, psychiatric nurse and a therapist of [Y], who has been centrally involved in the care and management of [Y] and whom is referred to in the report prepared by Ms F in November last year. Ms R is with CAMHS Southern Health. Ms R indicated that [Y] was not ready to see her father now and that although she had curiosity about her father, she did not wish to see him. The litigation process was stressful for [Y] and did not promote her welfare.
The history provide by the father to Dr N was not an accurate one. The father had told him that he had suffered on one occasion from mild depression. In fact, in 2004 and over many months, he had been diagnosed as suffering a major depressive disorder, was on medication, and was attending upon a psychiatrist. For the purposes of these proceedings however that psychiatric report is not determinative. Given [Y]’s age and state of health, her wishes must be acceded to. [Y] has made it clear to the independent children’s lawyer and her mother that she wants an end to proceedings. In fact, an end to the proceedings is essential for her ongoing recovery. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, the father submitted that the only danger to [Y]’s mental health functioning currently is to not reintroduce him to her. This showed a complete lack of insight into the depth of her distress. Ms F found [Y] to be relatively emotionally mature upon interview, a child whose wishes should be taken into account and given considerable weight.

Other matters

The mother was a very impressive, sensible and compassionate witness. Although quite terrified of the father, she withstood cross-examination by him as a litigant in person and conceded appropriate matters to him. She could not help but transmit some of her anxiety to the children, that anxiety as referred to in her report and observed by Ms F. [Y] is heavily dependent upon her mother’s care. The mother needs to be put in a position where she can act protectively in relation to [Y]. I am satisfied the mother is not trying to prevent a relationship between [Y] and her father and is governed by the expression of [Y]’s wishes and her mental health functioning. Her assessment that for [Y] to be forced to see her father and that same would be detrimental to her health must be taken as an accurate assessment. It is reinforced by [Y]’s treating doctor.
In the intervening period from when the father last saw the girls, the father has worked for his brother in Queensland and undertaken various courses, including [omitted]. He is, however, unemployed, and he pays no child support to the mother for the support of the parties’ two daughters. He has never done so.
The cause of [Y]’s mental illness is unknown. Although the father deposes to he and the mother having a happy marriage until shortly prior to what he describes as his ejection from the home in early 2004, the mother describes a marriage that was happy initially, but, as the children became older and the father’s mental health functioning deteriorated, the marriage became more problematic with the father being very verbally abusive to both herself and the children and ultimately with the father threatening her with a knife. The father maintains his denial that he did not threaten the mother and that he was holding a carving knife for the purposes of cutting an apple. The father thinks the incident on the night of the separation had no effect on the children, but rather, the children may have been affected in their attitude toward him by what the mother may have told them about him. The father maintains that it is still his desire to explain to the children the correct version of what happened on 13 February 2004 and that is one of the things he would wish to do in spending time with [Y]. [Y] in fact told Ms F that she had heard the parental argument during the knife incident and that although she did not witness the events, she heard them and said, “He knows he did it. He’s not taking responsibility for what he did.” [Y] also then said, “I don’t think mum would have a problem with me seeing dad.” [Y] went on, however, to say that she was not ready to see her father at the moment and wanted to wait until she was older to make such a decision. When asked about the positives for her father, [Y] had spontaneously said to Ms F, “I love him so much, his humour, his smile. I love his personality, but he has problems.” She then went on, “I don’t prefer any parent over anyone. I just don’t want to live with dad. I don’t hate him, but he didn’t put in much effort before. I want to wait until I’m older to make decisions. I don’t want to think about it right now. I’m having fun.” And further, “I’m not used to seeing him. It would be really weird. I don’t feel comfortable with him. I know what he did.”
In the course of these proceedings, the father at times lost control. In an earlier proceeding he referred to Counsel for the mother as “a fucking arsehole.” It was necessary to call security as a result of his behaviour in Court. He put his behaviour at the time down to a lack of sleep and his anxiety about his daughters. He also earlier stated, “I have a right to know who is treating my daughter, and if I am refused that right, I will get very, very angry.”
The father’s evidence was that he would not accept the expression of [Y]’s wishes through any means other than her telling him face-to-face. He did not accept the statement of her wishes as accurate in evidence from the wife, Ms F, or the independent children’s lawyer. This was despite him describing the mother as loyal, hardworking, honest, a magnificent mother with the best interests of the girls at heart. His purpose in re-establishing a relationship with [Y] is in part to explain to her what has happened in the last six years.
In respect of [Y]’s name being removed from the Airport Watch List, the father’s evidence is that he does not know if it will be good for [Y] to travel overseas with her mother and that he has fears for her return. This is despite the mother living and working in Melbourne, owning a home in which she has considerable equity and no stated intention of residing elsewhere. The father’s objection was simply as her father, he was not prepared to let her travel overseas and that it mattered not whom she travelled with. He was not concerned that the mother had no funds with which to make a further application at a time when [Y] may indeed be proposing to travel overseas. The father accepted that the mother would never put the girls in danger and was a considerate, careful mother. However, his refusal was an example of him being cautious and caring as a father. I find that not to be the case. The father indicated in the proceedings that he would never give up on his daughters and if denied time spent with [Y] he would appeal such a decision.
The mother noted the past history of contact between the father and the girls as being by phone, which was unsupervised, with the father becoming abusive; by letters, which were censored and sent back to the father; and by supervision, which did not work as a result of the father’s inappropriate behaviour. The mother described these proceedings as slowing down and affecting [Y]’s recovery, as in fact “torturing her.” She thought that the girls would initiate contact with their father in the future, that they would do so together and on their terms. Both girls know their father’s contact details, and [X] has been able to contact him at any time in the past year. I accept the mother’s evidence that the girls know that she is not opposed to a resumption of contact with their father but that she needs to know it would be safe. As to now, she is correct and supported by the Court in her opposition to [Y] being forced into meeting with her father [Y]’s recovery is the priority. These reasons are not reserved. The child the subject of the proceedings needs to know the proceedings, as far as possible, are over.

I certify that the preceding twenty-six (26) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Hartnett FM

Date: 14 September 2010