Gorley & Gorley
[2023] FedCFamC1F 523
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Gorley & Gorley [2023] FedCFamC1F 523
File number(s): SYC 8819 of 2022 Judgment of: MCGUIRE J Date of judgment: 29 June 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application by the mother to review a decision of a Senior Judicial Registrar in respect to interim parenting arrangements – Where the children live with the mother and spend no time with the father – Where current orders provide for the father to spend supervised time with the children - Where the mother alleges inappropriate sexual conduct by the father towards the children – Application dismissed – Hearing de novo Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA and 60CC
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021(Cth) r 14.07
Cases cited: Eaby & Speelman (2015) FLC 93-654; [2015] FamCAFC 104
Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286; [2006] FamCA 1346
Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-092; FedCFamC1A 97
Napier & Hepburn (2006) FLC 93-303; [2006] FamCA 1316
SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 70 Date of hearing: 7 June 2023 Place: Hobart Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Gillies Solicitor for the Applicant: Matthews Folbigg Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Clifford Solicitor for the Respondent: Barkus Doolan Winning Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Campbell Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Bowral Legal ORDERS
SYC 8819 of 2022 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS GORLEY
Applicant
AND: MR GORLEY
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
order made by:
MCGUIRE J
DATE OF ORDER:
29 June 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Application for Review filed on 21 April 2023 be dismissed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Gorley & Gorley has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MCGUIRE J
APPLICATION
Before me is an Application for Review filed by the mother, Ms Gorley, in respect of a decision and orders made by a Senior Judicial Registrar on 31 March 2023 following a defended interim hearing which provided for the parties’ three children, X born 2015 (aged eight years), Y born 2019 (aged four years) and Z born 2022 (aged one year), to spend interim time with the father which is to be professionally supervised for two hours per week.
The mother seeks orders that time for the children with the father be reserved, at least until such time as the Court and the parties can have the benefit of a Single Expert Report, which I am now told will be prepared after interviews to be conducted in November 2023.
The application is opposed by the father who is content in the interim for a continuation of the Senior Judicial Registrar's orders.
The Court and the parties have the benefit of an Independent Children's Lawyer ("ICL"), who, after some prevarication where it seemed that the ICL preferred an adjournment of this application to obtain a ‘Limited Issues Report’ but where neither party supported the immediate need for such a report, expressed support for the position of the father.
APPLICANT MOTHER'S CASE.
The mother relies on her affidavit sworn 4 June 2023 and an affidavit of the maternal grandmother, Ms B, also sworn 4 June 2023. She also relies on an affidavit of Ms C affirmed 5 June 2023 who is an acquaintance of the parties and the children, X and Y.
The mother says that both X and Y have made disclosures consistent with inappropriate sexual conduct to them by their father. She lists a chronology of such disclosures from Y dating from mid-2022, with particulars alleging, prima facie, that her father had “touched [her] private parts.”[1]
[1] Affidavit of Ms Gorley filed 5 June 2023, paragraph 8.
The mother says that Y has drawn pictures illustrating her assertions. The mother says that Y’s statements have also been made to the maternal grandmother, maternal aunt, and a friend (D), with the latter being witnessed by other adults.
The mother asserts the following from April 2023:[2]
I observed [Y] to pull a sword out of the toy box at home. [Y] said to my mum in the presence of myself, my parents, [X] and [Z] words to the effect of "this is the sword daddy poked my [genitals] with."
[2] Ibid.
That statement was allegedly repeated the next day.
The mother particularises statements made by X from 2020 which she says can be interpreted as incidents of sexual abuse including the following:[3]
[3] Ibid.
•Lockdown 2020 – [X] told my mum words to the effect of "I don't like when dad pokes me".
•In September 2022 - My mum said to me words to the effect of, "I overheard [X] talking to his cousin [E]. He told her that his dad touched his and [Y’s] private parts".
•Approximately September 2022 – [X] asked me to wipe his bottom saying words to the effect of, "harder like dad" after using the toilet.
•[In] October 2022 – [X] told me his father poked him. He pointed to his ribs, hips and anus.
•[In] March 2023 [X] disclosed to my mother at her home, "I cannot tell mum" and my mother had said to [X], "well I am not your mother so you can tell me".
•[In] March 2023 – [X] wrote in his journal words to the effect of, "my dad touched my nuts". That afternoon he showed me the entry. My mum, [Y] and [Z] were present.
•[In] April 2023 – [X] wrote further diary entries in his journal.
•[In] May 2023 – [X] disclosed to his psychologist during his sessions.
•[In] May 2023 – [X] was interviewed by the Child Abuse Squad and provided disclosures.
The mother also deposes to behavioural problems X which she argues may be indicators of sexual abuse.
The mother says that the Court should consider the veracity of the children's statements as reported by the mother and grandmother within the context of there being no significant disharmony in the parents’ relationship at the relevant times, in the sense of no overt ulterior motive by the mother, and where the separation of the parents occurred contemporaneously with the disclosures made by the children.
The mother says that X's disclosure to his psychologist brought about mandatory reporting and the police subsequently obtaining an ADVO for X. The mother says that where the father opposes a final ADVO, then the appropriateness of the children spending time with the father in the interim is questionable.
The mother states that whilst supervised contact can provide adequate physical protection for the children, it does not protect them from psychological/emotional harm by exposing them to the alleged perpetrator of sexual abuse.
Hence, the mother argues that there is an unacceptable risk of harm to the children, even from supervised time with their father.
The mother's argument is couched on the parties and the Court obtaining a forensic expert report, and that the Court should act cautiously and conservatively in the protection of the children in the interim until such forensic material is available.
The maternal grandmother deposes as to a high involvement in caring for the children and as to working with children for 27 years. She recounts the following:[4]
[4] Affidavit of Ms B filed 5 June 2023.
4.About 5 pm, we were about to start getting dinner ready. I was watching television in the loungeroom. I was sitting on one lounge and [Y] was sitting on the lounge opposite me.
5.[Y] was laying on her belly with her arm underneath her and it looked like she was rubbing her [genitals]. [This] is a [Country F language] word for vagina. The family uses some [Country F language] words when speaking.
I said, “[Y] what are you doing?”
[Y] said, “Stop it go away. Go away. Don't look at me, don't look at me” I said, “Stop what you're doing we are going to have dinner now”.
6.I saw that [Y] was getting quite irate and upset with me and she continued to yell “stop, go away”. I left the room to prepare for dinner and [Y] was left in the loungeroom by herself…
8.While I was with [Y] in the loungeroom I said to her "[Y] why were you touching your [genitals]". We had the following conversation:-
[Y] said, "Because daddy does"
I said, "'How does he touch your [genitals]".
[Y] took my right hand she moved my thumb and moved my two end fingers so only the index and middle finger were pointing.
I said, "How does that make you feel?" [Y] said, "I don't like It"
I said, "Does daddy do anything else?"
[Y] said, "He has a sword and he poke, poke poke."
9.I saw that [Y] pointed over her body including her [genitals] whilst she was saying “poke”
10.I asked [Y] if she had told her Mum. [Y’s] response was that she was “not to tell mum or anyone as this was a secret”… [12] …[Y] and I were in the laundry and I was putting her shoes on. I said to [Y] “[Y] can you draw me what daddy does to your [genitals]” [Y] said, “Yea”…
13.I took [Y] back to the kitchen table and said, 'Okay [Y] can you draw this for me?” I gave her a big sheet of A3 paper and a pen. I said, “Can you draw what daddy does?”
14.I saw that [Y] placed her hand down and went to trace her hand. She removed her hand and drew her [genitals] besides it… [17] I said to her '"Tell me about your drawing [Y]". [Y] said to me "That's daddy's hand, that's his thumb and that's my [genitals]". I then saw [Y] drew a cross on her [genitals] and then scribbled over it. [Y] said, "I don't like it". I said to [Y] "Can you draw me something else?" [Y] drew me her heart. I said to her "Can you draw me the sword?'…
18.[Y] drew a sword with a line underneath it. [Y] pointed to the sword and said, "'That's the sword". [Y] pointed to the line and said, 'and that's my [genitals]". [Y] drew a cross over the sword and said, "I don't like it". I said, "Where does the sword come from?" [Y] said, "From the bathroom."
The maternal grandmother deposes to reporting these matters to the mother. During the time of the Covid lockdowns the maternal grandmother reports X as complaining that:[5]
32. …“I should tell dad to stop poking me I do not like that.”
[5] Ibid.
The grandmother deposes otherwise as set out in the mother's chronology above.
Ms C deposes to Y, in mid-2022, stating:[6]
6. …”My dad is very naughty he touches my vagina.”
[6] Affidavit of Ms C filed 5 June 2023.
Ms C deposes to two further occasions when Y and D were playing and she has heard Y say “my dad touched my private parts, he’s naughty.”[7]
[7] Ibid, paragraph 9.
The mother has also obtained an affidavit from a psychologist, Ms G, dated 5 June 2023. Objection is taken to the contents of the report annexed to the affidavit given the context of the interim hearing and the late filing of the affidavit. I determined to consider the report within the context of the objections being primarily as to the author moving into the realms of a 'Single Expert Reporter'.
The deponent is a psychologist. She deposes to X being referred to her in late 2022, “for support to process a family breakdown in the context of alleged sexual abuse of his younger sister.”[8] She says that the referrals were made by the mother and the mother had attended two sessions on her own with reference to “child sexual behaviour.”
[8] Annexure “C“ of Ms G’s Affidavit filed 5 June 2023.
The author of the report is aware of the notifications to the Department of Community and Justices ("DCJ") and the children having no contact with their father. X has attended 10 sessions. Y was referred in early 2023 and has attended five sessions.
The deponent has neither met the father nor observed the children with the father.
Ms G deposes that she “offer[s] opportunities for the children to engage, build a safe therapeutic relationship and share if they choose.”
Each of the children indicated “sadness” not seeing their father. Within the context of discussions about “safe adults”, Y reported that is “mamma but not daddy.”
Specifically in response to a question as to the impact on children of commencing time with their father and any impact upon their therapy, the deponent says:
It is possible that contact with [Mr Gorley] could cause some emotional and behavioural dysregulation for the children, however this is difficult to predict. Changes in child behaviour following supervised contact can result in a need to increase the frequency of sessions to allow the opportunity to process emotions/implement functional behavioural analysis to provide parenting support for the primary caregiver with a focus on reducing stressors for a child before and after supervised contact visits. If the children's mental health were impacted, often observable through changes in behaviour (such as but not limited to explosive behaviour, emotional reactivity, increased tearfulness or defiance, withdrawal, dinginess, change in general demeanour, impacted sleep, increased psychosomatic symptoms such as stomach aches/headaches), this may warrant an increase in the frequency of sessions, with a focus on self regulation strategies and attuned, co-regulation parenting strategies…
To mitigate potential risk of psychological harm, it is strongly recommended that a comprehensive family assessment is conducted by an unbiased expert party…
This finding of this assessment can be used to determine the potential risks and benefits of supervised contact with [Mr Gorley] and will ensure that the psychological wellbeing of the children is at the forefront of decision making. It would also be beneficial for both parents to receive parenting support from one of the aforementioned clinicians with expertise in this field to support the most optimal outcomes for the children.
THE FATHER'S CASE
The father, without admission, concedes interim supervised time and says that this will adequately protect the children from the allegations of physical abuse aimed at him.
The father denies any abuse of the children and implicitly argues, therefore, that the children will suffer no psychological/emotional abuse by spending limited time with him.
To the contrary, the father argues that he was a ‘hands on’ parent with a close relationship to the children, and that the children being denied direct contact with him will impact negatively on them and on their relationship with him. He supports these assertions by comments made by the children to the effect that they ‘miss him’ and are desirous of spending time with him. To this end, the father argues that there is no evidence consistent with the children being potentially subjected to emotional harm, save that their continued exposure to the set views and conclusions of the mother and the maternal grandmother have a potential to influence the children against him.
The father says in circumstances where the disclosures were made to a vigilant maternal grandmother who proceeded to 'interview' Y inexpertly, the process could be both contaminated and have led the grandmother and the mother to incorrect conclusions. Consequently, the father argues that there are plausible fact-based alternative explanations for the observations of the grandmother and to the statements made by the children. Firstly, he alerts the Court to the mother's own earlier affidavit of 25 January 2023 where she deposes as follows:
25.Around the same time [Y’s] behaviour began to change her vulva was frequently irritated. I would primarily treat the irritation by applying [cream] to her vulva, however on occasion [Mr Gorley] would also apply the cream. The irritation to her vulva was recurrent despite receiving treatment…
27.[Mr Gorley] or I would attempt to apply cream to [Y’s] irritated vulva we were met with resistance from [Y]. She would be become nervous and hesitant to allow us to touch her to apply the cream. When [Y] would resist us applying the creams we would explain to her that the creams were going to help the irritation. Over the course of the treatment [Y] would become more at ease and allow [Mr Gorley] and I to apply the creams to the irritated area however, when the irritation would flare up again she would resist receiving treatment.
Further in her January affidavit:
54.[Y] had irritations to her vulva for over one (1) year prior to her disclosures of sexual assault. Her irritation would come and go and when I took her to the doctor, she would usually suggest to me it was caused by incorrect wiping, even though I always wiped [Y] properly.
55.[Y] was prescribed [creams] to assist. [Mr Gorley] and I shared the responsibility of applying these creams, but I applied them predominantly…
57.Throughout 2022, [Mr Gorley] and I observed [Y] to begin to rub her vulva over her pants. Initially, I believed [Y] was rubbing her vulva as it was either itchy or sore. I would apply [cream] to her vulva when I observed her rubbing to soothe the area. Both [Mr Gorley] and I would encourage [Y] to stop rubbing her vulva as it would cause further irritation and soreness…
62.I cannot recall my mother's exact words; however, I remember her suggesting to me that [Mr Gorley] was touching [Y’s] genitals. I responded to her suggestion by saying words to the effect of "yeah, of course, we both do all tha[t]” referring to caring for [Y’s] hygiene, including bathing her and applying cream to her vulva.
(My emphasis added)
The father's Counsel referred the Court to a Magellan Report dated 14 March 2023. That report noted an interview by police with Y in mid-2022, where Y disclosed that the father had touched her vagina, but where she was, “unable to provide further context or detail around this disclosure, and wasn't able to particularise a specific incident”. The report also references an interview with X as follows:
[In mid-2022], [X] participated in a police-led interview at [City H] JCPRP. During the interview the reported concerns were raised with [X]. [X] said [Mr Gorley] pokes him everywhere except his private parts. [X] did not make any disclosures of sexual harm.
It is clear that any risk and safety for the children was determined by the fact that the father was not living at the home and not having contact with the children, where a no contact Apprehended Domestic Violence Order had been obtained for the children in mid-2022.
The Court has the transcripts of police interviews with Y and X. They are of little assistance given the factual dispute being allegations by the mother of sexual abuse and assertions of innocent plausible explanation by the father. Indeed, X does disclose being "poked" by his father, but specifically denies being poked in his private parts.
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
The parties were married in 2012.
The mother deposes to observing changes in X's behaviour from as early as 2018.
The mother deposes to observing issues with Y's irritated vulva from mid-2020 and she consulted a doctor the following month.
In 2020 X told the maternal grandmother that he did not like it when his dad "pokes me".
Y exhibited an irritated vulva throughout 2021 and 2022.
In mid-2022, Y made a disclosure to the maternal grandmother which the grandmother interpreted as possible sexual abuse.
Three days later, the mother consulted the police and child protection authorities
The parties separated on 14 August 2022.
The children remained living with the mother since separation and have not had contact with the father.
On December 2022, the father commenced proceedings in these Courts.
On 31 March 2023, after a defended interim hearing, the Senior Judicial Registrar ordered supervised time for the children with the father for "not less than two hours per week".
The Senior Judicial Registrar also ordered a Single Expert Report. It is anticipated interviews for the report will take place in November 2023.
Pending the hearing of the Review Application before me, the children have not spent time with the father pursuant to the Senior Judicial Registrar's orders.
RELEVANT LAW
The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) provide that the hearing of an Application for Review should proceed by way of a hearing de novo before a judge of this Court.
The orders that I am asked to make are interim parenting orders and I am mandated, therefore, pursuant to section 60CA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") to have the best interests of X, Y and Z as my paramount consideration. In determining those best interests I am to reference the proposals of the parties and the ICL, together with the probative evidence before me to the numerous considerations set out in section 60CC(2) and (3) of the Act against the background of the Objects and Principles of the legislation provided at section 60B. Not unusually in matters such as this, the two primary considerations at section 60CC(2), often referred to as the 'twin pillars', are emphasised in their balance for the Court's consideration as to the best interests of the children. To this end, those subsections provide:
(2) The primary considerations are:
(a)the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents; and
(b)the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
Significantly, later amendments to the Act at section 60CC(2A) provide:
(2A)In applying the considerations set out in subsection (2), the court is to give greater weight to the consideration set out in paragraph (2)(b).
The remainder of the considerations at section 60CC(3) of the Act deal with more pragmatic issues such as the children's views, the capacity of the parents, and the attitudes of the parents and parenting responsibilities. They were not the focus of the submissions in this matter, save and except for, the suggestion of the children’s comfortablity with the father and their desire of a relationship with him where they miss their contact with him.
This being an interim parenting application, it proceeds by way of affidavits and submissions from Counsel. There is no opportunity for the Court to test the evidence given and adduced by each of the parties and the ICL by way of cross examination. Where such proceedings are truncated, it is often difficult for courts to make determinations of disputed fact or credit. Despite these limitations and difficulties, the Court remains obliged to follow a course of statutory and intellectual consideration in accordance with the well-known decision of the Full Court in Goode & Goode[9] where the court observed:
68.…the procedure for making interim parenting orders will continue to be an abridged process where the scope of the enquiry is “significantly curtailed”. Where the Court cannot make findings of fact it should not be drawn into issues of fact or matters relating to the merits of the substantive case where findings are not possible. The Court also looks to the less contentious matters, such as the agreed facts and issues not in dispute and would have regard to the care arrangements prior to separation, the current circumstances of the parties and their children, and the parties’ respective proposals for the future.
[9] Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286.
Nevertheless, a later Full Court in Eaby & Speelman[10] commented on the above as follows:
18.… that does not mean that merely because the facts are in dispute the evidence on the topic must be disregarded, and the case determined solely by reference to the agreed facts.
[10] Eaby & Speelman (2015) FLC 93-654 at [18].
Similarly, a majority in SS & AH[11] also commented on the limitations of the interim hearing as follows:
100.…Apart from relying upon the uncontroversial or agreed facts, a judge will sometimes have little alternative than to weigh the probabilities of competing claims and the likely impact on children in the event that a controversial assertion is acted upon or rejected. It is not always feasible when dealing with the immediate welfare of children simply to ignore an assertion because its accuracy has been put in issue.
[11] SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13 at [100].
Where the basis of the mother's application is one of "unacceptable risk" of either physical or emotional harm to the children by reason of direct contact with the father, the notion of unacceptable risk has recently had specific Full Court attention and consideration in Isles & Nelissen[12], where the Court at [71] commented:
71.The primary judge also understood the way in which a positive finding of sexual abuse could only be made according to the civil standard of proof, but the situation was quite different when assessing the level of risk posed to the children, saying:
213.In respect of these serious allegations, the Court is asked to make positive findings that either the father has abused [the child] or that the mother has either made or manipulated a false allegation. Such findings may not be enabled by reason of the relatively high standard of proof. Nevertheless, and where the overall consideration for the Court is the best interests of children including their safety and welfare, the notion of the ‘unacceptable risk’ assumes critical consideration and an inability to make a positive finding does not impede a determination of unacceptable risk. Suffice to say that a conclusion of there being unacceptable risk may be had from the cumulative consideration of factors where each individually might not be proved to the requisite standard. As mentioned above, however, this is not to be a ‘default’ position by the Court but one requiring active and discrete consideration including as to the implications of a finding of unacceptable risk which will almost inevitably impact on the relationship between child and parent.
(Emphasis added)
[12] Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-092 at [71].
Whilst accepting the statutory edict at section 60CC(2A) of the Act to place "greater weight" on the protective issues for the children, the exercise remains one of balance with the consideration at subsection (2)(a) of the benefit for the children in having and maintaining a relationship with each of the parents. As the Full Court noted in Napier & Hepburn[13]:
84.There remained an obligation on the trial judge to not only evaluate the harm that might befall the child if there is a future act of abuse, but to also evaluate the prospect of such an act occurring. This is not a search for a solution that will eliminate any prospect of serious harm. It is a search to balance the harm that will follow if the risk is not minimised and the harm that will follow if a normal healthy relationship between parent and child is not allowed to prosper.
[13] Napier & Hepburn (2006) FLC 93-303 at [84].
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
I accept that the children's disclosures were made during the course of the parties' marriage and seemed to be the catalyst for their separation, which in turn negates any overt allegation of ulterior motive in the mother such that might not be uncommon in parenting disputes before these Courts.
I accept on the evidence that the father had an active role in the care of the children and that the children had established and attached relationships with both of their parents prior to separation.
It is an agreed fact that the children have now not seen their father since August 2022, being a period of some 10 months.
The evidence, such as it is, causes me to find that the children are essentially desirous of a relationship with their father and that they miss him in their lives.
Unsurprisingly, at this interim stage of proceedings and without the full forensic preparation and then testing of the evidence, I am unable to make any positive findings that the children have been sexually abused by the father.
I accept that, prima facie, the statements made by Y and X could reasonably be interpreted by the maternal grandmother and the mother as disclosures of inappropriate sexual conduct or touching by the father.
I do, however, equally accept the father's proposition that there is (yet untested) plausible alternative innocent explanation for the children statements. There is empirical evidence to support the father's contention not least being the historical genital irritation suffered by Y, where the mother concedes that both parents were active in attending to that condition, including the application of creams. Similarly, X's statements of "poking", including to the area of the anus, are quite capable of alternative plausible and innocent explanation and where indeed X specifically denies any "poking" by the father of his genital area.
Whilst I generally accept the submission of Counsel for the mother that the Court should take a "cautious or conservative" approach at an interim hearing with emphasis on the protection of children, it remains that the Court is obliged to balance the considerations at section 60CC(2)(3) of the Act on the evidence before it, and ultimately make a determination on the basis of the evidence.
It follows that I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the children will be adequately protected from any risk of physical impropriety by reason of professional short-period supervised visits with their father.
I accept as a general proposition that children who have been sexually abused may, immediately or in the future, suffer psychological or emotional harm by being exposed directly to the alleged perpetrator. Nevertheless, in this matter I have no evidence to support such a contention. To the contrary, the children appeared desirous of a relationship with their father. They "miss" their father. Neither child seems to exhibit any fear or trepidation and reluctance in contact with their father, and despite what may have been difficult or confusing interviews for the children with the police and/or others, and where it seems that their mother and the maternal grandmother have reached conclusions in respect of these issues.
Where these children have previously enjoyed a close, enjoyable and active relationship with their father, it must be that his complete removal from their lives causes them some confusion and probable loss. The children are young but at various ages where the development of attachments, and in the case of Z, recognition, are best established and maintained by direct contact.
CONCLUSION
Taking all of these matters into account I am of the view that the children's best interests are served by spending, in the interim, supervised time with father which will serve to both maintain their relationship with him and protect them from the risk. As such, the Application for Review will be dismissed, thereby preserving the orders of the Senior Judicial Registrar of 31 March 2023.
I certify that the preceding seventy (70) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice McGuire. Associate:
Dated: 29 June 2023