HALLORAN & HALLORAN

[2018] FCCA 2825

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HALLORAN & HALLORAN [2018] FCCA 2825

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Interim parenting – whether the mother’s already limited time with the children should be suspended pending final hearing – s.91B order – transfer to the Family Court of Australia.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA, 91B

Cases cited:

Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346

MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4

Applicant: MS HALLORAN

Respondent: MR HALLORAN

File Number: WOC 348 of 2016

Judgment of: Judge Altobelli

Hearing date: 22 August 2018

Date of Last Submission: 22 August 2018

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 5 October 2018

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Humphreys

Solicitors for the Applicant: Melea Mullard Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Steggall

Solicitors for the Respondent: McNamara & Associates

Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr Grew

Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Illawarra Family Lawyers

ORDERS

1. The Mother’s application for the children to spend time with her, pending the Final Hearing, be dismissed.

2. The proceedings are transferred to the Family Court of Australia at Sydney to be listed for Final Hearing before Justice McLelland on 18-21 February 2019 at 10:00am at the Federal Circuit Court Wollongong Registry.

3. Pursuant to section 91B of the Family Law Act 1975, the Secretary of the Department of Family and Community Services is requested to intervene in these proceedings in relation to the Children [V] (born 2002), [W] (born 2003), [X] (born 2007, [Y] (born 2010) and [Z] (born 2011).

4. The Independent Children’s Lawyer is to forward to the Solicitor for the Secretary of the Department of Family and Community Services a copy of these Reasons for Judgment by no later than 4:00pm on 19 October 2018.

5. Upon request from the nominee of the Secretary the Registry Manager permit inspection of the Court file to enable consideration of the request to intervene in the proceedings.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

A.For the purposes of this notification, the subject Children presently live with the Respondent Father, MR HALLORAN.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT WOLLONGONG

WOC 348 of 2016

MS HALLORAN

Applicant

And

MR HALLORAN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This case about five children: [V], 15; [W], 14; [X], 11; [Y], 8; and [Z], 6. These Reasons for Judgment explain the Orders that the Court has made for the children to spend no time with their Mother until the Final Hearing of this matter, which is listed in February 2019.

Background

1. Both in the substantive Application and the one presently before the Court, the children’s Mother is the Applicant. She is 42 years old. The children’s Father is the Respondent. He is 35 years old. The children currently live with him, and the four younger children spend time with their Mother on a weekly, daytime basis, whilst the oldest child, [V], spends time with her Mother in accordance with her wishes. Both the Father and Independent Children’s Lawyer submitted to the Court that all existing Orders for the Mother to spend time and communicate with any or all of the children should be suspended. The Mother opposed this and, indeed, proposed that her time with the children be extended.

2. At the outset, it must be recognised that this is a complex case, and the present decision has been a very difficult one to make. This family has, historically, suffered great adversity. It is, in many respects, a family in crisis. The children are vulnerable, as, indeed, are both their parents.

3. For example, this is what the evidence tells the Court about [Z], the youngest and only son of the parents. Mr P, a child and family Psychiatrist in practice in the Region 1 region of New South Wales, is the treating Psychiatrist for all the children. In evidence is a Report dated 29 June 2018 relating to [Z], Dr P explains in his Report to the children’s general practitioner that he has known the family over many years and describes them as having “seen far more than its far share of stress and strain over the years.” He described the ongoing family law proceedings as an additional vulnerability. He referred to [Z]’s “significant behavioural difficulties in preschool and in kindergarten”. He states that “[Z] is physically aggressive and has damaged property at school. He will also have angry episodes where he will ‘shut down’.” Dr P also refers to [Z]’s difficulties with behaviour and concentration at home, concerns about soiling and bedwetting, playing with his soiling, urinating in inappropriate places, and aggressive episodes. He can eat to excess. He is often late to fall asleep. In one of the closing paragraphs of this Report, Dr P states:

   In summary, I share concerns for [Z]’s behaviour. A portion of his difficulties are understandable as a reaction to past and ongoing difficult environmental circumstance. However, there is also a strong family history of impulse control problems, and in my opinion, [Z] does show evidence of attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity. He will need to be closely monitored for any learning difficulty.

   Dr P prescribed dexamphetamine for [Z].

4. Dr P provides a Report in relation to [Y], again on 29 June 2018. He explains that [Y] also qualifies for a diagnosis of attention deficit disorder. He refers to her behavioural difficulties at school and refers to her currently being prescribed dexamphetamine.

5. Dr P provided a Report dated 17 May 2018 in relation to [X]. She has ongoing behavioural and emotional problems. He explains that a large part of her difficulty remains understandable as a reaction to past and ongoing difficult family circumstance. He opined that she suffers from attention deficit disorder. The main concern related to extremely difficult behaviours at home. This includes aggression, defiance, running off and sleep disturbance. [X] had been trialled on multiple psychotropic medications, the most helpful of which appeared to be Ritalin/Concerta. Dr P mentions, however, that he discussed with the Father that medication will only go so far to help [X] with her difficulty. In the penultimate paragraph of his Report, Dr P seemingly laments that “unfortunately, I suspect that there will be many challenging times ahead [for [X]]…”.

6. By way of a Report dated 17 May 2018, Dr P refers to [V]. He explains that [V] has struggled with anxiety and depression, as well as having to deal with ongoing difficult family circumstance and issues as regards her relationship with her Mother. Dr P records [V]’s report to her of depressed mood, significant anxiety and disrupted sleep. He prescribed Lexapro, five milligrams daily, with a possible increase up to 20 milligrams according to her response. In his penultimate paragraph, Dr P refers to some increasing signs of resilience for [V] whilst acknowledging “that there will be many challenges ahead…”.

7. In relation to [V], there is another report from Dr P dated 19 May 2018. In this Report, he introduces himself as the Psychiatrist working with [V], who has been a long-term patient of his. His diagnosis is major depression and anxiety disorder. The letter appears to explain that [V] cannot attend school.

8. The child [W] is probably the most disadvantaged of the children. She suffers from cerebral palsy, as well as autism spectrum disorder. She attends a school for children with disabilities.

9. In relation to the parents, the Father admits that he suffers from and has been diagnosed with depression. The Mother admits that she has a diagnosis for bipolar disorder.

10. Clearly, this family presents with many, many challenging features and issues. Indeed, there are multiple levels of complexity. The problems are seemingly generational in nature.

11. The first relevant Interim Orders in this matter were made on 23 May 2016. Both parents were represented, and importantly, the children were represented by their Independent Children’s Lawyer, Ms Collis. These Orders provided for the children to live with their father and for [V] to spend time with her mother in accordance with [V]’s wishes. The Mother was to have supervised time with the children. If that supervision could be provided by the agency which was, at that time, providing respite to the Father in his care of the children, then they would supervise the Mother’s time. Failing that, however, the children were to spend time with the Mother at the supervised contact centre in Town A.

12. The matter came before the Court for its first Interim Hearing on 31 August 2016. The Court made the first of the s.91B of the Family Law Act 1975 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’) Orders in this case, inviting the Secretary of the Department of Family and Community Services to intervene in the proceedings. Intervention did not take place. The prior Orders of the Court were continued but on the basis that, pending the availability of the supervised contact centre, the four youngest children would spend time with their mother supervised by the Paternal Grandfather for 2 hours every third Sunday.

13. The matter came before the Court again on 1 May 2017. The Court made an Order for the children to live with their father and for [V] to spend time with her mother in accordance with [V]’s wishes. The Mother’s time with the younger children was extended to 3 hours each alternate Sunday supervised by the Paternal Grandfather or, if he were unable or unwilling to act as supervisor, the Maternal Grandmother.

14. On 15 November 2017, the Court made a second Order under s.91B of the Act. Once again, the Department did not intervene.

15. When the matter came before the Court on 25 February 2018, directions were made for a 3 day Final Hearing commencing on 25 July 2018. The Orders in relation to the children living with their father were continued. An Order was made for the Mother to spend time with the children each Sunday between 10:00am and 2:00pm with one child on a rotating basis, starting with the youngest child and progressing to the eldest child. In addition, and relating only to [Z], [Y] and [X], each Wednesday from after school for a period of 2 hours. [V]’s participation in time with her Mother was subject, in effect, to her veto.

16. On 4 June 2018, there was a further variation to the order for the children to spend time with their mother.  By consent, the Orders for the younger children to spend time with the Mother were discharged and specific dates were nominated for the children to spend time with the Mother until the Final Hearing in July 2018.  The Consent Orders also specified that [V] would spend time with her mother in accordance with her wishes.

17. When the matter came before the Court for what was supposed to be the Final Hearing, the Hearing had to be vacated because vitally important documents that had been produced by the Department of Family and Community Services were not available. However, the matter was allocated a special fixture before Justice McClelland of the Family Court of Australia, who agreed that the matter would be transferred direct into his docket following the conclusion of the present interim proceedings, and listed before him for Hearing in Wollongong for 4 days commencing 18 February 2019. The Interim Hearing was held on 22 August 2018.

18. It should be clear from the history set out above that the Orders were changed, relatively frequently, to deal with the changing circumstances of the family, the crises they confronted and the attempts by all parties, their legal advisers, the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the Court to find a sustainable, child-focused arrangement for the children to spend time with their mother.

Chronologies

1. The First Schedule to these Reasons for Judgment reproduces the joint chronology prepared by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, pursuant to a trial direction. The Second Schedule to these Reasons for Judgment contains the detailed chronology prepared by Counsel for the Mother, in preparation for the Interim Hearing. Both of these documents are of great assistance in digesting the extensive factual background in this matter. A close study of these chronologies reveal that many facts are uncontested by the parties, and many other facts appear to be contained in what might be found to be business records.

2. The following may be gleaned from the evidence before the Court, summarised in these chronologies. The adversity faced by this family has been present since the parents married. [W]’s physical problems became evident shortly after her birth. Her formal diagnosis with cerebral palsy occurred in 2008, at 5 years of age. [V]’s diagnosis with depression and, indeed, possibly schizophrenia appears to have first taken place in 2008, when she was 6 years old. The Mother alleges that the Father started drinking heavily and was violent. The Mother’s mental health issues, particularly her depression, manifested itself as early as 2010. Indeed, it was in 2010 that [V]’s violence, particularly directed to her Mother, commenced. By 2012, when [X] was 5 years old, she started displaying very challenging behaviour and was first referred to her Psychiatrist, Dr P. [X] disclosed that she had been sexually assaulted at school. In 2012, there appears to have been a diagnosis that the Father had bipolar disorder. That year, the violence between [V] and both her parents became worse. The family was clearly in crisis at that time. The Department of Community Services, Barnardos and Mission Australia provided assistance as they could. The Father spent some time in a mental health facility in 2013. That year, the Mother assaulted [V]. The Mother was charged and convicted for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. She moved out of the family home for a period. [V]’s aggressive, violent behaviour continued.

3. In August 2015, the Mother voluntarily admitted herself to a mental health facility following what appears to have been a self-harm attempt. By that stage, the relationship between the parents appears to have ended. Concerns started to be expressed about the Father’s capacity to care for the five children.

4. On 19 February 2016, a final ADVO was issued for the protection of the children against the Mother. That was shortly before the commencement of the present litigation. The Mother breached the ADVO. The evidence seems to suggest that the children struggled to attend school consistently or in a timely fashion.

5. As will be discussed below, a Family Report was prepared by Dr A, together with a short supplementary Report.

6. During the course of 2018, the evidence before the Court creates the impression that the Mother was sometimes struggling with caring for the children, particularly disciplining and controlling them in an appropriate fashion. Moreover, there is evidence before the Court to suggest that the Mother was making reports to both the Department of Family and Community Services and New South Wales Police about the Father’s care of the children. The Father seemed to struggle in his care of [V].

7. In July 2018, the Maternal Aunt filed an Application in a Case seeking to be joined to the proceedings, but this was ultimately dismissed.

The competing proposals

1. As foreshadowed earlier in these Reasons, the Mother sought, in effect, to extend her time with the younger children, noting that the Consent Orders made on 4 June 2018 discharged the spend time with arrangements and nominated specific dates for the children to spend time with the Mother until July 2018. The order that she sought is reproduced in the Third Schedule to these Reasons.  Both the Father and Independent Children’s Lawyer proposed that, in effect, no further Orders be made for the children to spend time with the Mother.

The evidence before the Court

1. In the Mother’s case, she relied on the following documents:

   a)Amended Initiating Application, filed 29 June 2018;

   b)Affidavit of Ms Halloran, filed 29 June 2018; and

   c)Affidavit of Ms S, filed 29 June 2018.

2. In the Father’s case, he relied on the following documents:

   a)Amended Response to Initiating Application, filed 29 June 2018;

   b)Affidavit of Mr Halloran, filed 20 August 2018;

   c)Affidavit of Mr Halloran, filed 29 June 2018

   d)Affidavit of Mr G, filed 29 June 2018.

3. The following materials were tendered as evidence during the proceedings:

   a)Family Report prepared by Dr A dated 19 October 2017;

   b)Updated Family Report prepared by Dr A dated 16 August 2018;

   c)Documents produced in answer to subpoena on the Department of Family and Community Services;

   d)Documents produced in answer to subpoena on Interchange Region 2;

   e)Documents produced in answer to subpoena on Ms H (Clinical Psychologist);

   f)Documents produced in answer to subpoena on New South Wales Ambulance;

   g)Documents produced in answer to subpoena on the Region 1 and Region 2 Local Health District;

   h)Documents produced in answer to subpoena on Mr D (Psychologist);

   i)Documents produced in answer to subpoena on Dr P (Psychiatrist);

   j)Documents produced in answer to subpoena on School 1 High School,

   k)Documents produced in answer to subpoena on School 2 High School;

   l)Documents produced in answer to subpoena on School 3 Special Needs School;

   m)Documents produced in answer to subpoena on New South Wales Police; and

   n)Documents produced in answer to subpoena Town B Medical Centre.

The applicable law

1. The applicable law is found in Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In determining parenting matters under Part VII of the Act the Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration: s.60CA.

2. The objects and principles of Part VII are set out at s.60B:

   60B  Objects of Part and principles underlying it

   (1)     The objects of this Part are to ensure that the best interests of children are met by:

   (a)     ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child; and

   (b)     protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and

   (c) ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and

   (d)     ensuring that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.

   (2)     The principles underlying these objects are that (except when it is or would be contrary to a child’s best interests):

   (a)     children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together; and

   (b)     children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with, and communicate on a regular basis with, both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development (such as grandparents and other relatives); and

   (c) parents jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children; and

   (d)     parents should agree about the future parenting of their children; and

   (e)     children have a right to enjoy their culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture).

   (3)     For the purposes of subparagraph (2)(e), an Aboriginal child’s or Torres Strait Islander child’s right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture includes the right:

   (a)     to maintain a connection with that culture; and

   (b)     to have the support, opportunity and encouragement necessary:

   (i) to explore the full extent of that culture, consistent with the child’s age and developmental level and the child’s views; and

   (ii)     to develop a positive appreciation of that culture.

1. At the very core of Part VII of the Act is the creation of a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in s.61DA. Section 61DA provides:

   61DA  Presumption of equal shared parental responsibility when making parenting orders

   (1)     When making a parenting order in relation to a child, the court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.

   (2)     The presumption does not apply if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent of the child (or a person who lives with a parent of the child) has engaged in:

   (a)     abuse of the child or another child who, at the time, was a member of the parent’s family (or that other person’s family); or

   (b)     family violence.

   (3)     When the court is making an interim order, the presumption applies unless the court considers that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances for the presumption to be applied when making that order.

   (4)     The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that satisfies the court that it would not be in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.

2. If the presumption applies, the Court is required to consider certain things:

   65DAA Court to consider child spending equal time or substantial and significant time with each parent in certain circumstances

   Equal time

   (1)     If a parenting order provides (or is to provide) that a child’s parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, the court must:

   (a)     consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child; and

   (b)     consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents is reasonably practicable; and

   (c) if it is, consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order) for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents.

   Substantial and significant time

   (2)     If:

   (a)     a parenting order provides (or is to provide) that a child’s parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child; and

   (b)     the court does not make an order (or include a provision in the order) for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents; and

   the court must:

   (c) consider whether the child spending substantial and significant time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child; and

   (d)     consider whether the child spending substantial and significant time with each of the parents is reasonably practicable; and

   (e)     if it is, consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order) for the child to spend substantial and significant time with each of the parents.

   (3) will be taken to spend substantial and significant time with a parent only if:

   (a)     the time the child spends with the parent includes both:

   (i) days that fall on weekends and holidays; and

   (ii)     days that do not fall on weekends or holidays; and

   (b)     the time the child spends with the parent allows the parent to be involved in:

   (i) the child’s daily routine; and

   (ii)     occasions and events that are of particular significance to the child; and

   (c) the time the child spends with the parent allows the child to be involved in occasions and events that are of special significance to the parent.

   (4)     Subsection (3) does not limit the other matters to which a court can have regard in determining whether the time a child spends with a parent would be substantial and significant.

   Reasonable practicality

   (5)     In determining for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) whether it is reasonably practicable for a child to spend equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the child’s parents, the court must have regard to:

   (a)     how far apart the parents live from each other; and

   (b)     the parents’ current and future capacity to implement an arrangement for the child spending equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the parents; and

   (c) the parents’ current and future capacity to communicate with each other and resolve difficulties that might arise in implementing an arrangement of that kind; and

   (d)     the impact that an arrangement of that kind would have on the child; and

   (e)     such other matters as the court considers relevant.

3. Because s.65DAA refers to the best interests of the child the Court must then go back to consider s.60CC which specifies how the Court must determine what is in a child’s best interests.

   Determining child's best interests

   (1)  Subject to subsection (5), in determining what is in the child's best interests, the court must consider the matters set out in subsections (2) and (3).

   Primary considerations

   (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.

   Note:         Making these considerations the primary ones is consistent with the objects of this Part set out in paragraphs 60B(1)(a) and (b).

   (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).

   Additional considerations

   (3)  Additional considerations are:

   (a)  any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child's maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child's views;

   (b)  the nature of the relationship of the child with:

   (i)  each of the child's parents; and

   (ii)  other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);

   (c)  the extent to which each of the child's parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity:

   (i)  to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and

   (ii)  to spend time with the child; and

   (iii)  to communicate with the child;

   (ca)  the extent to which each of the child's parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent's obligations to maintain the child;

   (d)  the likely effect of any changes in the child's circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:

   (i)  either of his or her parents; or

   (ii)  any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living;

   (e)  the practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child's right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis;

   (f)  the capacity of:

   (i)  each of the child's parents; and

   (ii)  any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);

   to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs;

   (g)  the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child's parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant;

   (h)  if the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child:

   (i)  the child's right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture); and

   (ii)  the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right;

   (i)  the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child's parents;

   (j)  any family violence involving the child or a member of the child's family;

   (k)  if a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child's family--any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order, taking into account the following:

   (i)  the nature of the order;

   (ii)  the circumstances in which the order was made;

   (iii)  any evidence admitted in proceedings for the order;

   (iv)  any findings made by the court in, or in proceedings for, the order;

   (v)  any other relevant matter;

   (l)  whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child;

   (m)  any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant.

The case law

1. In MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4, the High Court referred to s.65DAA(1) and said

   9.  Each of sub-ss (1)(b) and (2)(d) of s 65DAA require the Court to consider whether it is reasonably practicable for the child to spend equal time or substantial and significant time with each of the parents.  It is clearly intended that the Court determine that question.  Sub-section (5) provides in that respect that the Court "must have regard" to certain matters, such as how far apart the parents live from each other and their capacity to implement the arrangement in question, and "such other matters as the court considers relevant", "[i]n determining for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) whether it is reasonably practicable for a child to spend equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the child's parents".

2. A little later in the judgment the High Court said:

   13.    Section 65DAA(1) is expressed in imperative terms.  It obliges the Court to consider both the question whether it is in the best interests of the child to spend equal time with each of the parents (par (a)) and the question whether it is reasonably practicable that the child spend equal time with each of them (par (b)).  It is only where both questions are answered in the affirmative that consideration may be given, under par (c), to the making of an order.

3. At [15] the High Court emphasised the need for a practical approach:

   15.    Section 65DAA(1) is concerned with the reality of the situation of the parents and the child, not whether it is desirable that there be equal time spent by the child with each parent. The presumption in s 61DA(1) is not determinative of the questions arising under s 65DAA(1). Section 65DAA(1)(b) requires a practical assessment of whether equal time parenting is feasible.

4. The Full Court’s decision in Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346 provides some guidance about the interpretation of Part VII and the way to proceed in interim hearings.

   68. In our view some of the comments of the Full Court in paragraph 18 are still apposite. For example, 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.

   …

   72. In our view, it can be fairly said there is a legislative intent evinced in favour of substantial involvement of both parents in their children’s lives, both as to parental responsibility and as to time spent with children, subject to the need to protect children from harm, from abuse and family violence and provided it is in their best interests and reasonably practicable. This means where there is a status quo or well settled environment, instead of simply preserving it, unless there are protective or other significant best interests concerns for the child, the Court must follow the structure of the Act and consider accepting, where applicable, equal or significant involvement by both parents in the care arrangements for the child.

   …

   82. In an interim case that would involve the following:

   (a) identifying the competing proposals of the parties;

   (b) identifying the issues in dispute in the interim hearing;

   (c) identifying any agreed or uncontested relevant facts;

   (d) considering the matters in s 60CC that are relevant and, if possible, making findings about them (in interim proceedings there may be little uncontested evidence to enable more than a limited consideration of these matters to take place);

   (e) deciding whether the presumption in s 61DA that equal shared parental responsibility is in the best interests of the child applies or does not apply because there are reasonable grounds to believe there has been abuse of the child or family violence or, in an interim matter, the Court does not consider it appropriate to apply the presumption;

   (f) if the presumption does apply, deciding whether it is rebutted because application of it would not be in the child’s best interests;

   (g) if the presumption applies and is not rebutted, considering making an order that the child spend equal time with the parents unless it is contrary to the child’s best interests as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in s 60CC, or impracticable;

   (h) if equal time is found not to be in the child’s best interests, considering making an order that the child spend substantial and significant time as defined in s 65DAA(3) with the parents, unless contrary to the child’s best interests as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in s 60CC, or impracticable;

   (i) if neither equal time nor substantial and significant time is considered to be in the best interests of the child, then making such orders in the discretion of the Court that are in the best interests of the child, as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in s 60CC;

   (j) if the presumption is not applied or is rebutted, then making such order as is in the best interests of the child, as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in s 60CC; and

   (k) even then the Court may need to consider equal time or substantial and significant time, especially if one of the parties has sought it or, even if neither has sought it, if the Court considers after affording procedural fairness to the parties it to be in the best interests of the child.

The Reports of Dr A

1. Dr A is a consultant forensic Psychologist appointed by the Court to provide a Single Expert Report in this matter. The interviews with the family were conducted on 3 and 4 October 2017, and her Report dated 19 October 2017 was released to the parties on 23 October 2017. At the time of the interviews, Dr A had available to her all of the evidence of the parties, including a substantial volume of documents produced on subpoena.

2. Dr A’s executive summary, found at pages 6 and 7 of her Report, is a very useful digest of her evaluation and is reproduced below:

Issue	Evaluation
1)        The benefit to the children of having a meaningful relationship with either parent or any other persons.	All children will benefit from a lasting sense of family belonging. Meaningful relationships between mother & [V], [W] or [X] seem impossible now
Whether the children are at risk of any physical or psychological harm from abuse, neglect or family violence.	At risk of neglect of medical needs ([W]) & emotional needs in care of father (all); at risk of physical harm in care of mother (older three).
The nature of the parents’ relationship, the impact of this relationship on the children.	Toxic. Source of trauma for all the children. No prospect of co-parenting.
Any views expressed by the children and any factors that may affect the weight to be accorded to those views.	[V] has run away; [W] cannot speak; [X] asks for no contact with mother /residence with father: [Y] & [Z] show some interest in seeing mother. These are traumatised children who cannot evaluate their best interests objectively.
The relationship between the children and with each of their parents and any other relevant person.	[V]: hostile to mother, father cannot control her; [W]: physically dependent, non-verbal; [X] close to g/p/parents & father; [Y] seems closest to p/g/parents; [Z] has affectional ties to both parents.
The willingness & ability of parents to facilitate/ encourage relationships between children & the other parent.	Apparently neither willing nor able during the marriage or since.
The likely effect of any changes in the children’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the children of any separation from either parent/ other person	[Z] (and perhaps [Y]) might draw inferences harmful to their self-esteem if they had no contact with mother.
The capacity of each parent or any other person to provide for the needs of the children, including emotional and intellectual needs.	Suboptimal due to their intrinsic personal characteristics. Abuse of older siblings was previously substantiated for the mother. The father is not authoritative, cannot parent strategically and seems not to be a proactive advocate for [W].
The attitude to children/ responsibilities of parenthood of parents /relevant persons.	Father- marginally adequate for [X], [Y] and [Z]. with support. The p/g/parents seem committed to the children.
The extent to which each parent participates in children’s lives/decisions	Court findings about whether the father has been negligent about the NDIS/wheelchair will cast light
The effect on children of spending equal/significant time with each parent	Deleterious. Out of the question
The mental state of the both parents in so far as it relates to parenting issues.	Neither is sufficiently stress-hardy to effectively parent 5 children, one of whom is seriously disabled
Whether parents have any psychological issues affecting parenting capacity	Both show warped information-processing and evasiveness of responsibility. See previous point.
Whether or not any treatment or therapy is recommended for parents or children.  If so, the nature of any treatment or therapy.	1:1 adult counselling has not been helpful for the family situation in the past and is unlikely to be helpful now. The children benefit from supportive counselling
Whether the practical difficulty & expense of the children spending time with other parent will substantially affect the children’s direct contact with both parents	Interim – no, Long-term-probably. Supervision by grandparents on either side is unsuitable. Agency supervised contact will be costly long-term
The maturity, sex, lifestyle, background (including lifestyle, culture and tradition) .	Not a determining issue
Any family violence order that applies or has applied to the children/ family member	Not currently in force
Any other matter the Court Expert considers relevant.	This is a child protection matter better suited to the Children’s Court. [W] needs advocacy to obtain NDIS benefits. She urgently needs a wheelchair.

1. Even a cursory reading of the executive summary raises issues of concern about this family. The second Order under s.91B of the Act, made 15 November 2017, was clearly informed by Dr A’s Report.

2. In that part of Dr A’s Report which is described as background to the dispute, it is clear to the Court that Dr A was aware of the competing contentions made by each parent against the other.

3. Dr A was also aware of, and indeed referred extensively to, the Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum dated 26 August 2016.

4. At the time of the interviews, the children were living with their father and spending time with their mother for 3 hours each alternate Sunday (in the case of the four younger children) and in accordance with [V]’s wishes. The time was supervised.

5. Dr A met with the Father, the Mother and the Paternal Grandfather and sets out, at length, what took place during those interviews.

6. Dr A administered a number of psychological tests. For example, she administered the Paulhus Deception Scale and found that the results indicated that the Father had answered truthfully, whereas the Mother’s profile suggested she may not have answered candidly, as she wanted to make a good impression. Dr A administered the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). The Father returned an invalid protocol, which suggested a failure to properly attend to the questionnaires, possibly due to reading difficulties, carelessness or random responding, confused or idiosyncratic thinking or possible disregard of test instructions. The Mother’s protocol was valid despite indications of positive impression management. She represented herself as unrealistically socially desirable and displayed great reluctance to identify any negative consequences of her behaviour, thus implying that she tends to minimise personal problems with respect to disruptive effects of such problems on her life and the lives of others. The Mother’s clinical profile indicated a marked elevation on the paranoia scale. Her self-descriptions indicate significant suspiciousness and hostility in her relations with others, hypersensitivity to slights and a tendency to harbour strong feelings of resentment about perceived insults. A detailed discussion of the Mother’s PAI protocol is found at paragraphs 57 to 59 of Dr A’s Report. There is no need to reproduce these paragraphs in full. Whilst the matters in relation to the Mother give rise for concern, it is important to recognise that the Father’s test protocol was invalid, and thus, little is known about him, from the perspective of this assessment.

1. An important test that was administered was the Child Abuse Potential inventory. Dr A deals with the topic of child abuse potential at paragraph 61 and 62 of her Report, and these paragraphs are reproduced in full:

   [61] The CAPI or Child Abuse Potential Inventory is a 160 item self-report instrument with a third-grade reading level designed to probe parental characteristics, some of which have been found to correlate reliably with the maltreatment of children. An elevated CAP score indicates that the respondent shares characteristics with known, active physical child abusers. Normally-nurturant parents do not display this specific pattern of psychological maladjustment, and usually return very low scores on the Child Abuse Potential scale of the CAPI.    Like all such tests, the CAPI is prone to misclassification error, but is much more likely to misclassify a potentially abusive parent as normally nurturant (false negative) than classify a normally nurturing parent as abusive (false positive). The CAPI tests response distortion. When someone consistently responds in an unrealistically positive way about their own social desirability they obtain a high “faking good” index.  A high faking-good Index invalidates a low CAP score, but not the reverse. In fact, some argue that a high faking-good combined with a high CAP score identifies the “real perpetrators…..who have both the most unrealistic expectations of both their own and their children’s behaviours.” Such parents are likely to automatically scapegoat children who behave unacceptably rather than searching for flaws in their own parenting methods.  The parents’ results are shown below:

Child abuse potential score	Faking good
Mr Halloran	Low	Low
Ms Halloran	High	High

[62] On the basis of these results Mr Halloran can validly be assigned to the non-abusive group (95% of the sample) and Ms Halloran can validly be classified into the actively maltreating group (top 5%)  Those who score as highly on the CAPI as Ms Halloran tend to be immature, moody, restless, evasive of responsibility, and prone to depression; emotionally over-reactive to normal parenting stress; slow to calm down when upset; prone to interpersonal discord, inefficacy in social problem-solving and confused thinking. These descriptors accord with her PAI results and recorded case history.

1. Dr A met with all of the children but did not interview [W], as she is non-verbal. The children were brought to the interview by their Father and Paternal Grandfather. Dr A observed a warm and friendly family interaction.

2. Dr A’s interviews with [X], [Y] and [Z] will be reproduced in full below:

   [70] [X] (10) spoke confidently and fluently.  She was polite, friendly and cheerful. She is in Year 5 and School 2 PS. She said she wants to be a doctor and “save people’s lives” and this is possible because she does “really well” at school. She described her NAPLAN results in specific detail, noting she was above average in all areas but one. She mentioned a best friend with whom she would like to walk, ride her bike to school or catch the school bus (“except Dad forgot to fill in the form and pay”). She also mentioned bullies who called her “Goldilocks” – who broke the baby bear’s chair – to mock her chubbiness. [X] noted proudly she had been helping Dad with [W] while [V] was away, but said she missed her sister as it was “more work for me”

   [71] [X] said she had seen a psychiatrist because she has ADHD and ODD. She listed her medications (including Ritalin, Concerta and another medication for “sleeping and for stress”) and their dosages. “When I don’t take my medicine, I get angry about nothing. It’s horrible to be like that.” [X] said it would be OK to talk to Ms H if I wanted more information about her problems managing her feelings. She complained about chronic tonsillitis which causes her problems swallowing and that her father had been slow to do something about (unclear what) so “Grandad has been nagging him”

   [72] [X] opined that it was much better at home without Mum. “I feel calmer. I used to get angry a lot. I liked it when she went to hospital and we got a break” She said she did not want to see Mum or talk to her because “I get nightmares about her that night if I do.”  [X] confided that her mother hit and was “very mean to [V]. She yanked her hair, yelled and said mean things.”  Mum also used to “push and pinch” [W], according to [X] but was not usually mean to [Y] and [Z]. She also said her mother had scared her once by opening the car to jump out while Dad was driving. Her account of the incident at the park in which [V] had confronted their maternal grandmother was similar to the account of the paternal grandfather ([X] was in the car with him). She said that [V] was very upset because her grandmother blamed her for her mother’s problems, and cried in the car on the way home.

   [73] [X] also described the recent violent incident with [V] who was “angry and hitting Dad” because he would not take her to Uncle Mr T. [X] rang the police and the ambulance – twice to ask: “How long?” the second time. She noted that [V] “scratched Dad and Grandad” and threatened to destroy her Xmas guitar, saying: “She’s normally angry but not that angry.”  [X] seemed to think that [V] wants to live with Uncle Mr T (who is “sometimes nice” but he “mainly sits and drinks”) to move to get away from where bad stuff happened (i.e. cruel treatment at school and at home seemed to be the implication).

   [74] [X] declared her intention to refuse visits. She was not worried about [Y] and [Z] visiting Mum just for the day. She seemed to think her younger siblings might miss Mum but said “they are not calm when they come back from Mum. [Z] gets nightmares.” [X] said she had been sleeping on the mattress on the floor beside Dad’s bed to “feel safe”

   [75] At the outset a child-friendly explanation was given about the purpose of the interview and limited confidentiality in the report or the Judge, and the Judge’s role. Q: If you could tell the Judge one thing what would it be? A: “I love my Dad more than my Mum. I want to live with my father and never be with Mum after what she did to me and my older siblings.”  

   [76] [Y] (7) presented as an elfin dark-haired child who was suitably dressed and groomed. [Y] seemed self-possessed and expressed her views with minimum prompting. She said [V] had “scratched Dad when she was angry” although it was not clear whether she was repeating hearsay or had witnessed it as she said she often spends the night at Grandma’s and “[X] sometimes does too.” [Y] says that “[X] gets nightmares after she talks to Mum on the phone but I never get nightmares. If I do [X] wakes me up.” [X] confirmed that Mum used to be mean to the older three children but “not me and [Z]. She must like us more.”  [Y] noted that she calls her mother “Mum” on the phone, but that “When [X] talks about her with Dad and Grandad they call her (omitted).”  [Y] indicated enjoyment of some activities during visits and said she had met her maternal grandmother once at (activity)“She was nice.” [X] spoke of the activities she enjoys with her paternal grandmother, who seems to be her secure base in the world

   [77] [Z] (5) was shy at first. He seemed tongue-tied compared to his ebullient sisters. He reported enjoying going to the park, the beach and the movies with Mum. Last time they saw “(omitted)” he told me, with sparkling eyes and a laugh, adding that “Granddad didn’t like it so much.” [Z] said “Mum’s at a different house. I miss her” but gave contradictory views subsequently. Q: “Would you like to go to see Mum more?”: “Not so often.”  Q: “What about when Mum rings up? What is a good time to talk to Mum? A: “Better if not so much” (no explanation given). [Z] did not stick to one topic for long and rarely gave a direct any to any question.  It was hard to elicit further elaboration on any views her tersely expressed. [Z] denied anyone was mean to him at home or preschool. He reported waking up when the ambulance came because [V] was upset. He may not have witnessed the violent altercation, but said “I felt sad” without elaborating.

3. The observations of the children together with their Mother are recorded at paragraph 78:

   [X] declined to be interviewed with her mother. When [Z] and [Y] greeted their mother in a friendly manner when they entered the room where she was waiting. [Z] went to sit on his mother’s knee, where he looked comfortable. [Y] chose to sit on a chair facing her mother and did not attempt to climb onto her knee at any stage. [Z] was physically affectionate towards his mother, snuggling up.  The general conversation was cheerful and upbeat. They discussed past enjoyable activities and future plans. [Z] was keen on the cinema. The mother interacted with the children appropriately – providing warmth and structure. The children were well-behaved and cooperative with directions. [Y] spoke more than [Z]. She did not seem to feel repressed in any way by her mother and expressed her views freely. When it was time to leave the children departed without fuss or tears, exchanging tokens of affection with their mother. Both children were friendly and polite to their mother, although [Z] seemed to be fonder of Ms Halloran than [Y].

4. Dr A’s summary of her clinical findings commences at paragraph 82 and concludes at paragraph 87. These bear reproduction in full:

   [82] Aggregated information supports the conclusion that individually and jointly these parents were unable to provide the executive leadership necessary to cope with a disabled child in a large family. Both parents seem evasive of personal responsibility for solving parenting problems. Both exhibit an external locus of control: which is to say they tend to blame circumstances or others for causing their predicaments, and by the same token, expect rescue to come from outside rather than the inside. Due to this (and other) maladaptive personality trait(s) these parents became overwhelmed by cumulative adversity - beginning with the birth of a seriously handicapped child in 2003, closely followed by the father’s back injury to the father in 2004. Chronic pain combined with Mr Halloran’s long standing mental health problems would have compromised his parenting capacity – both directly (e.g. mood symptoms of demotivation/lethargy or negative emotional reactivity) and indirectly (e.g. soporific side effects of medications). The results of this assessment indicate that Ms Halloran’s personal characteristics significantly impede parenting capacity, particularly in a high stress context.

   [83] These parents were not an effective, united executive team. That they decide to produce three more children after [W], despite their material difficulties and marital discord, attests to their inability to make wise decisions in the best interests of their two older children. They raised their children in a chaotic, conflict-ridden household. After 2012, when Mr Halloran was homebound due to his disability, child safety risks seem to have exacerbated rather than abated.

   [84] By all reports, [V] was developmentally overloaded with inappropriate expectations of her helpfulness, and was scapegoated by her mother - who continues to make hostile attributions about the child’s motivated behaviour. Currently [V] is described as displaying serious emotional dysregulation and successfully using coercive conflict resolution tactics to get her own way. These are dysfunctional personality characteristics which will impede normal psychosocial adjustment.

   [85] I conclude that in addition to the maternal deprivation [V] would inevitably have suffered as the older normal sibling of a handicapped child, the chaotic, high-conflict home environment in which she was raised, and the chronic abuse by her mother caused her serious psychological harm. She has been exposed to toxic stress since infancy, which can cause lasting neurological harm to the developing brain. Unfortunately, the “brain adapts to past and current circumstances and this can constrain individuals to those circumstances” (cf. Toxic stress in early caregiving, appended). I note that [V]’s school attendance and behaviour have not normalised since Ms Halloran left the home.

   [86] The older three children were maltreated more than the younger two, but all were traumatised by witnessing violent family conflicts. It is hard to assess [W] due to her disabilities but PTS symptoms could safely be assumed for her as well as for [V] and [X]. Given the range of difficulties [W] displays, it is possible that neurological atypicality makes some contribution to the emotional dyscontrol reported for [V], [X] and [Y] but the major contribution is assumed to be inadequate parenting. 

   [87] About from physical care, the main job of a parent of young children as an external stress-regulator for their immature young.  Effective external stress regulation provides a basis for the developing central nervous system to develop self-regulation.  It seems that Ms Halloran was more often a source of stress than of comfort to her children. Even if he was not actively abusive Mr Halloran allowed an abusive situation to endure far too long. Mr Halloran is deemed to be marginally neglectful because he is passive, inefficient and cannot wisely balance the competing and diverse needs of his brood despite his stated good intentions.

5. A number of observations, from the Court’s perspective, are necessary. The clinical findings at paragraph 82 refer to the aggregated information that was available to Dr A. The same information is available to the Court. Dr A does not identify the individual pieces of information that she relied on to support her conclusion. It is her professional opinion based on all the material available to her, which is identified in her Report. This Court, of course, has further evidence before it but nonetheless concludes, again having regard to all the aggregated evidence before the Court, that Dr A’s conclusions appear prima facie sustainable on the material before the Court, recognising, of course, that the evidence has not been tested.

6. It is possible that Dr A is unnecessarily critical in paragraph 83 of her Report. The parents may well be unable to make wise decisions in the best interests of their children, but to impliedly criticise them for not stopping at 2 children is perhaps unnecessarily strident when Dr A and, indeed, this Court has the benefit of hindsight. Nonetheless, her opening conclusion that the parents were not an effective, united executive team is plainly evident, and the Court would be most surprised if it were a contentious fact.

7. The adversity that this family has experienced is perhaps not adequately recognised in Dr A’s Report. That, ultimately, does not change her conclusions.

8. At paragraphs 88 to 91 inclusive, Dr A makes an evaluation based on the Ackerman-Schoendorf Custody Evaluation Scales. This information will be reproduced in full because it seems to have influenced Dr A’s concerns about the risk to the children from both parents.

   Ackerman-Schoendorf Custody Evaluation Scales (ASPECT 1992, 1994)

   [88] ASPECT is a tool to aid clinical decision-making about parental fitness to exercise parental responsibility and provide a child’s principal residence. It incorporates standardised scales, questionnaires and clinician observations in order to quantify parental characteristics related to effective custodial parenting. In this case the short form was used since the longer form incorporates results from tests (WAIS, Rorschach, MMPI-2) which were not administered. Across three subscales the ASPECT rates child-parent relationships, parenting practices, and the overall psychological well-being of each parent (including ability to provide a suitable home environment and appropriate social support networks), the weighted average scores of which yield a Parental Custody Index or PCI. The PCI was constructed to assess the general appropriateness of the parent’s presentation, emotional and cognitive capacity to provide effective parenting and a suitable home/social environment. A statistically significant difference between PCI scores identifies the parent with the higher score as the more effective parent. When both parents are rated highly effective ASPECT will not assist with decision-making. In this case neither parent is rated effective, but the mother’s score is lower due to substantiated physical child abuse and associated court proceedings.

   Actuarial risk assessment for child abuse and neglect

   [89] Both parents were actuarially-rated for child maltreatment recidivism risk. Research indicates that actuarially-calculated ratings of recidivism risk for a variety of anti-social behaviour (spousal abuse, child abuse, sexual offences, violent offending) are much more accurate predictors of re-offending that unaided clinical judgement. The South Australian Department of Family and Community Services developed a risk assessment scale in 1995 which was re-validated in 1998 on 674 families confirmed for abuse who were followed up for 12 months (cf. Johnson, Wagner & Wiebush, 2000). (NB. FACS has developed a modified version of this instrument but as there is no validation data available I prefer to use the older instrument).

SA Risk Assessment Scale (1997 version)	Percentage of standardization sample in that range subsequently confirmed for any type  of maltreatment
LOW RISK (scores -2 to2)	3.4%
MEDIUM RISK (scores 3-7)	18.2%
HIGH RISK (scores 8-10)	27.7%
VERY HIGH RISK (scores > 11)	43%

[90] Based on case history relating to prior parenting deficits for each parent, as well as concerns which emerged at interview, I rated the father on Neglect/Emotional Abuse scale. I rated the mother on the Physical Abuse Scale (since that is the documented basis for prior notifications/ investigations/ police charges for assaulting [V]) The actuarially-calculated risk of neglect for the father is high. The actuarially calculated risk of physical abuse for the mother is high.  The SA instrument includes four discretionary policy overrides, which immediately elevate a parent’s risk to very high. One of these overrides includes assault causing actual bodily harm which requires medical treatment. If applied regarding [V]’s assault in 2013 that places Ms Halloran in the very high-risk group.

[91] The baseline population risk of child maltreatment is not precisely known but is often assumed to be about 5%. As shown above, 27.7% of children restored to parents in the high-risk group were later confirmed for maltreatment in the SA study. Normally protective parents would not entrust their children to a school or child care centre which boasted that only 30-40% of their staff were likely to be dangerous to children. In fact, most parents would probably decline to entrust their children to a service boasting that less than 20% of their staff were likely to harm children whereas at least 80% were safe, competent caregivers.  However, many caseworkers and judicial officers in the Children’s Court apparently find these to be tolerable risks for other people’s children, as maltreated children are often restored to parents actuarially-assessed as medium risks, whereas risk levels of high - very high risk are more likely to be deemed intolerable

1. Dr A’s statement of opinion commences at paragraph 92. She deals with the child [V] at paragraphs 92 to 93 as follows:

   [92] Child welfare is the determining issue. All five children have been traumatised by their prior exposure to family violence, abuse and neglect. By all accounts [V] is the most severely affected by cumulative childhood adversity.  That she is disengaging at school and at home is an unfavourable comment on the parenting capacity of her father. Mr Halloran failed to prevent the child maltreatment which has been substantiated for Ms Halloran. He is not authoritative and cannot parent strategically. It is likely that if [V] returns home the chaotic, conflictual, upsetting family atmosphere which prevailed when Ms Halloran and Mr Halloran lived together will be replicated, with [V] playing Ms Halloran’s part. Repeated incidents of the type described at interview – with police and ambulance call-outs – are to be expected. This will be deleterious for [W], [X], [Y] and [Z].

   [93] Residence with Ms Halloran is an unsuitable alternative for [V]. [V] needs a settled home base from which she can attend school. Family Law Orders made about [V]’s residence will probably be unenforceable. She will do as she pleases and Mr Halloran will be ineffectual to stop her. If she cannot settle back at home, and continues to cause conflict disruptive to the younger children, one option might be accommodation arranged via Southern Youth and Family Services (i.e. a Youth Refuge). FaCS would be the referral pathway for accessing such a service.

1. In relation to the younger four children, Dr A expresses the opinion that living with their mother is not a viable alternative. She was of the view that the Mother was at high risk of child abuse recidivism. At paragraphs 95 and 96, Dr A deals specifically with [W]:

   [95] [W]’s situation is of urgent concern. She is very vulnerable: non-ambulant, non-verbal and completely physically dependent on others for her survival. At present her physical care needs are not being well met: she does not have the specially adapted wheelchair she requires. This must be very uncomfortable for her and will certainly be unhelpful for her health. It is unclear whether Mr Halloran has been negligent about obtaining a new wheelchair, as the mother alleges.  Although clinical impressions and case history suggest that he is marginally neglectful due to his personal characteristics, my preliminary enquiries reveal that it is very difficult to navigate the bureaucratic maze around the NDIS – which in any case is rolling out quite slowly and inefficiently.

   [96] [W] urgently needs effective advocacy, which she would be more likely to obtain in a special needs foster placement than in the care of her father. It must be remembered that Mr Halloran is not a man in robust mental and physical health himself, whereas the effective, diligent care of a disabled child calls for eternal vigilance, abundant energy and great parental empathy- preferably by a united parenting team with no other children to care for. It is appalling that [W] has been left so long in her current predicament. If Mr Halloran does not take effective action to get onto the right referral pathway immediately, the Court should ask FaCS to remove [W] for serious medical neglect.

2. Paragraph 98 is important in the present context. Dr A believes that the Father’s concerns that the children are unsettled by contact visits are plausible. Her views seem to be that if the stress of these visits outweighs the benefits, then frequent contact would be contraindicated. At the time of the Report interviews, [V], [X] and [W] were no longer spending time with their mother. Dr A was dubious whether the Father would even support this, let alone that the children would actually go.

3. At paragraph 99, Dr A was of the view that supervision by family members was unsuitable. Paragraph 99 states:

   Visits supervised by family members are unsuitable: the maternal grandmother has no established relationship with the children and is unacceptable to the father, the paternal grandfather is physically unable to match the mobility demands of active children and is unacceptable to the mother.  These limitations imply either supervised visits or short unsupervised daytime visits if contact with Ms Halloran is ordered. Mr Halloran objects to the cost of supervised visits. There is merit to Ms H’s suggestion that 1:1 contact would be less stressful and more enjoyable. For example, on alternative Saturdays the grandfather could deliver [Z] (or [Y]) to the mother at a nominated venue (beach, park, cinema, bowling alley) and collect the child 4 hours later at the same place. Or perhaps Ms Halloran might collect one of the children after school for a 3-hour midweek visit then return the child to the grandfather’s home address. Handovers between the parents cannot be recommended.

4. In the final three paragraphs of her Report, paragraphs 100 to 102, Dr A explores scenarios involving departmental intervention:

   [100] If this matter had been litigated in the Children’s Court, and assessed by an Authorised Clinician of the Children’s Court Clinic it is by no means certain that the father would have been deemed a competent caregiver for a disabled child, but I feel confident that restoration to the mother would not have been recommended. The most likely contact Orders would have been supervised visits with the mother.  This case is better treated as a child protection matter than a parental dispute.

   [101] If the Court asks FaCS to intervene the best that could be expected is that a Youth Refuge placement might be found for [V] and a special needs placement might be found for [W].  Such an arrangement for [W] may represent no more than a hastening of the inevitable. Succession planning is necessary for severely disabled individuals cared for by parents who are in ill-health and/or aging. If [W] were over 18 a Guardian could be appointed for that purpose. Apart from medical neglect, a good reason to consider OOHC for [W] is that her intense needs reduce the parental time and attention available for the normal, younger siblings.

   [102] It is most unlikely that FaCS would place [X], [Y] and [Z] in OOHC. The Department has been aware of the plight of these children for years and has not removed any of them even though provision of counselling, psychoeducation and a modicum of respite care to this dysfunctional family was unequal to the case.  Although it seems unlikely, it is not impossible that with only three able-bodied children to manage Mr Halloran could implement professional advice about strategic parenting. It seems that [X] and [Y] spend such significant time with their grandparents that for all practical purposes they are already in a (respite) kinship placement. 

5. As the Hearing of this matter had to be abandoned, and the matter proceeded by way of a further Interim Hearing, Dr A’s evidence was, of course, untested. In order to assist the Court, however, for the Interim Hearing, the Independent Children’s Lawyer requested Dr A to provide a short update, which she did by way of an email dated Thursday 16 August. This email is reproduced in full below. It is important to recognise that the documents which were missing at the time of the allocated Hearing had been found and, indeed, provided to Dr A before she provided this updating email.

6. The email is reproduced in full below:

   Dear Ms Collis,

   I am sorry that I am unavailable to give telephone testimony next Wednesday 23/8/18. Having seen the updated subpoena material you sent and having spoken with you and your counsel Mr Grew today about concerns arising from ROH reports from various sources, my concluded opinion is strengthened that all 5 children are at risk of neglect and emotional abuse under current arrangements – the elder two being at the most serious risk. Intervening events strength my view that any contact visits supervised by the paternal kin will produce more harm than benefit to the young children by exposing them to conflict. To clarify, my concluded opinions are:

   Ÿ Neither parent can meet the developmental needs of these 5 siblings as a group

   Ÿ Counselling and psychoeducation have not and will not enable either parent to manage this parenting challenge

   Ÿ Poor developmental outcomes for [V] and [W] indicate that keeping the 5 siblings together confers no benefit

   ŸFACS should be asked to take [V] and [W] into OOHC (as per report, strengthened by subpoena material)

   Ÿ [X], [Y] and [Z] will suffer at least marginal neglect in Mr Halloran’s care, but with the assistance of the paternal grandparents he may be able to meet minimum community standards in FACS refuses to intervene on their behalf

   Ÿ Ms Halloran is a very suboptimal parent. No child should be placed with her

   Ÿ If the court orders contact between the 2 younger children and their mother on an interim basis, this should be agency-supervised in secure premises which preclude the possibility for paternal and maternal kin to see each other

   Ÿ There is no realistic prospect that the mother’s time with the children could ever progress from agency-supervised contact as the risk of conflict at supervised visits or handovers remains unacceptably high

   Ÿ No arrangements can be envisaged which would ever guarantee any sibling calm, enjoyable time with their mother

   Ÿ The risks of harm due to children’s exposure to conflict are greater than the risks of suspending contact.

   Kind regards,

   Dr A

7. If Dr A’s opinion could be described as a prognosis for this family, that prognosis is poor. It is clear that Dr A’s view was that the Department of Family and Community Services should intervene in these proceedings. Indeed, the overwhelming needs of this family would warrant such intervention, and the Court will, as one of its orders, make a further request under s.91B of the Act and authorise the Independent Children’s Lawyer to provide a copy of these Reasons for Judgment to the Department at the time the notice is provided to them.

8. The present focus, of course, is what should happen in the period between now and the date of the Final Hearing. The Mother’s proposal is, in effect, to expand the existing spends time with arrangement. That is clearly contraindicated by Dr A’s Report. The Father and Independent Children’s Lawyer’s proposal is that time between the children and their mother should cease. On the perhaps most optimistic reading of Dr A’s evidence, the most that she would support is supervised time at a supervised contact centre. That is, however, an optimistic reading of her Reports. Dr A clearly has concerns about both parents, but the concerns seem greater in the case of the Mother.

9. Counsel for the Mother quite properly submitted that the weight to be given to Dr A’s Report must be reduced by the fact that her evidence has not been tested. The Court acknowledges this. However, consistent with clear authority, the Court, likewise, cannot simply ignore the independent, expert opinion of Dr A, especially when her opinion seems based on material plainly before the Court and consistent with the same.

What are the risks to the children of continued time with their mother?

1. At the outset, a number of matters must be recognised. Any order the Court makes will be of limited duration and pending an imminent Final Hearing. The answer to the question is, in any event, not determined by reference to historical events going back more than the dates of the existing Interim Orders. The focus must be on what are the asserted risks to the children of continuing an arrangement that has existed now for some time. This interim application should not be treated as, in effect, a trial run or dress rehearsal for a Final Hearing. The fact is that in this unfortunate case, these children have been exposed to all sorts of risks from both of their parents at different times in their lives. The focus must be on those risks that warrant changing an existing arrangement.

2. It is useful to focus on events in 2018. A consistent concern expressed by the Father is that the Mother interrogates the children about what is happening in his home. He is so concerned about the disruptive impact of their time with their Mother that he has, unilaterally, ceased their time. His affidavit expresses concern about the Mother violating boundaries, not just inappropriate discussions with the children, but, for example, inviting herself into his home, thus, at least according to the Father, exposing the children to even more stress. Moreover, he contends that the Mother has not actually coped with her time with the children, returning them earlier on some occasions because they were misbehaving.

3. One of the most serious concerns expressed by the Father is the Mother’s reporting to the Department of Family and Community Services and New South Wales Police of risk of harm in the Father’s care. In this regard, there is some corroborating evidence in the documents produced by New South Wales Police. The COPS entries of 8 April 2018 and 29 March 2018 certainly portray the Mother in a less than flattering light in terms of her willingness to involve the Police for what even they considered to be litigation-related purposes. There is similar material in the documents produced by the Department, though the identity of the reporter is less clear. The documents certainly give support to the Father’s concerns of the Mother unnecessarily reporting him to authorities. He submits that this is with a view to undermining the children’s relationship with him. The Mother’s motives cannot be determined in the present context. She may have genuine concerns about the welfare of the children in the Father’s care. It is not as if there is no evidence on which such concern could be based, e.g. some of the children are struggling to get to school regularly. What the Police and Departmental records demonstrate, however, is that they do not intervene because they do not share the Mother’s concerns, whatever her motives. Moreover, the Court is prepared to infer that the Mother’s actions would, at the very least, make the Father’s already onerous task of parenting these children more difficult. If the children are present, for example, when Police attend, it simply exposes them even more to the parental conflict.

4. Nonetheless, there is objective evidence suggesting that the children enjoy spending time with their mother. For example, in the documents produced on subpoena by the children’s Psychologist, Ms H, both [Z] and [Y] are recorded as enjoying their time with the Mother. That is not the case with [V], and even the Mother’s evidence about the unfortunate events that took place at (location omitted) on 17 June 2018 presents a very sad picture of [V]’s relationship with her mother and maternal grandmother.

5. The complexity of this case must not be underestimated. Documents produced by the Department, for example, suggest that the home that the Father and children occupy is not just disorganised, but unclean and possibly even a health risk. If this Report is a reliable one (and that, of course, is the issue) there are risk issues in the Father’s household as well.

6. In the Father’s most recent Affidavit, filed 20 August 2018, he describes the impact on the children of the recent cessation of the Mother’s time with them. He says the children have not been asking after her. He refers to the children appearing to be more settled, meaning their behaviour has improved. He says there has been less fighting, and they have been more obedient. He concedes, quite appropriately, that there continue to be behavioural problems with [Z] and [X]. Even [X] appears to have settled down somewhat, attending TAFE 3 days per week.

Orders in the best interests of the children, pending Final Hearing

1. The complexity of this case and the enormous challenges confronting this family have been noted several times in these Reasons. It was most regrettable that the Final Hearing had to be vacated, as it was. This family needs stability, and the children need certainty as to their arrangements with either or both parents in their lives. This is a matter where the vulnerability of the children and their parents is almost overwhelming.

2. Nonetheless, there is enough evidence before the Court to lead it to conclude that some of the Mother’s actions in 2018, in reporting both to the Police and the Department of Family and Community Services, and which have not resulted in intervention by either of those institutions, has made the Father’s already difficult job of parenting these children even more difficult. The Father gives evidence, which is hard to controvert in the circumstances, about how the children seem to be more settled even though they are not spending regular time with their mother. The expert evidence, untested as it is, presents a disconcerting picture about both parents, but particularly the Mother. The totality of the material before the Court leads it to conclude that there is, on balance, less risk to these children in not having any time with their mother than there would be if they were spending time with her. For the relatively short period between now and the date of the Final Hearing, the Mother’s application for the children to spend time with her should be dismissed and there be no further orders for her to spend time or communicate with the children.

3. The last order the court will make will be one transferring this matter to the Family Court of Australia for inclusion in the docket of Justice McClelland.

I certify that the preceding seventy-five (75) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Altobelli

Date:     5 October 2018

Schedule One

Joint Chronology prepared by the Independent Children’s Lawyer

Date	Event	Evidence
1983	Mother born (currently 35 years of age)
1976	Father born (currently 43 years of age)
2001	Mother and Father commence relationship; Mother is 17 years of age and Father is 24 years of age
2002	Mother and Father married
2002	[V] is born, currently 15 years of age
2003	Father commences (occupation omitted) and is rarely home to help the Mother with the children or during the pregnancies. The Father was controlling of the Mother, and would often ring her several times a day, questioning where she was (M’s Apr 2016 Aff par 38) Father abuses Mother for wanting a relationship with the Maternal family, Father starts to isolate Mother from Maternal Family (M’s Apr 2016 Aff par10)
2003	[W] is born, currently 14 years of age
2004	[W] is sent to Children’s Hospital due to a heart murmur, Mother accompanies child and Father continues working
2004	[W] commences having fits – [W] is later diagnosed with cerebral palsy, delayed development, slight asthma, a slight heart murmur and autism spectrum disorder.
2007	[X] is born, currently 11 years of age
2008	[X] is diagnosed with cerebral palsy
December 2008	[V] is referred to counselling with Dr K, sought by the Mother, after [V] tied a skipping rope around her neck which resulted in the Father angrily, repeatedly smacking [V] (M’s Aff Apr 2016, Par 27, 28) [V] has been diagnosed with depression and schizophrenia – daughter hears voices, female wants to kill mum, male says don’t – wanted to commit suicide at the age of 6 Daughter has presented to Hospital for sedation (subpoena notes)
2010	The Father’s behaviour continues to worsen towards the Mother and the children, the Father begins drinking heavily and wasting money on non-essential items. Matrimonial home is sold due to parties being unable to make repayments (M’s Aff Apr 2016, par 30)
30 February 2010	Mr D (psychologist) reports the mother has returned for consultations involving “complex family relationships” and pending birth of new baby and the need to leave the family home due to debt.	Mr D material, subpoenaed.
1 April 2010	Mother reports to Mr D suffering depression.	Mr D material, subpoenaed.
8 April 2010	Mother reports to Mr D of feeling tearful, depressed, overwhelmed at caring for the children and their behaviours, arrears in mortgage, house up for sale.	Mr D material, subpoenaed.
20 May 2010	Mr D reports that mother has seen him for 4 sessions and feels “overwhelmed and taken for granted”.	Mr D material, subpoenaed.
2010	[Y] is born, currently 7 years of age
September 2010	[V]’s behaviour towards the Mother dramatically deteriorated. [V] starts to yell abuse towards the Mother, and act violently towards the Mother (M’s Apr Aff, par 33) When [V] was reprimanded for her behaviour and sent to her room, she would upend her bed, throw things and punch holes in the walls. When the Mother would ask the Father for help in reprimanding [V]’s behaviour the Father refused (M’s Apr 2016 Aff par 35-36)
2011	Parties purchase family business from paternal grandparents, Father spend all earnings on truck and car parts (M’s Apr 2016 Aff, par 30-31) Father is referred to a psychiatrist, Dr R after attending upon the Mental Health Nurse at Town B Medical Centre (M’s Apr 2016 Aff, par 32) [V]’s behaviour worsens still. [V] is referred to psychiatrist Dr P and is prescribed several medications in relation to her diagnosis of Depression and Anxiety. (M’s Apr 2016 Aff par 39) Incident between [V] and Mother whilst Mother is pregnant with [Z]. [V] is sent to her room for not eating her dinner, Mother went to reprimand [V] for throwing items around, [V] attacks Mother, Mother hits her head and regains consciousness after 30 secs, [V] kicks Mother in the stomach. Police attend home. Father does not help Mother or reprimand [V]. (M’s Apr 2016, par 42) Mother attends hospital the next day due to stomach cramps and is given injections to postpone labour (M’s Apr 2016 Aff par 44)
2011	[Z] is born, currently 6 years of age
2012	[X] starts to display bad behaviour; screaming, throwing things and wiping faeces over walls. [X] is referred to psychiatrist Dr P. [X] later discloses that she was sexually assaulted at her primary school at School 4 Primary School. Parents lodge complaint with, School, Police and DoCS as it was then known. [Y] was referred to counselling with Ms H and Ms E. All of the children are removed from School 4 Primary School and enrolled in School 2 Public School. [X] is diagnosed with ADHD and prescribed melatonin to help her sleep. (M’s Apr 2016 Aff, par 46-51) Father is diagnosed as having Bipolar Disorder by Dr R and is prescribed medication. Father only takes medication sporadically. (M’s Apr aff, par 54)
May 2012	Incident between Mother and [V]. [V] swore at and slapped the Mother in the face. The Mother slapped [V] in the face. A physical altercation ensues. [V] is taken to hospital due to bruising on her head. DoCs become involved with the family.  (M’s Apr 2016 aff, par 55-59) Mother is charged with assault. Mother attends up GP, Dr H and is prescribed medication for depression (M’s Apr 2016 par 61) Parents have support from DoCS, Barnados and Mission Australia for a period of two (2) years. Mother attends many programs and information sessions on topics such as Depression and Anxiety, Adolescents, Mother’s Group and ADHD. Family was also involved with the Aunts and Uncles program through Care South for [V] and [X]. (M’s Apr 2016 Aff par 61) Mother convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, domestic stalk intimidate and given a three (3) year good behaviour bond; which she completes without further issue.
2013	Father spends some time at Region 3 Mental Health Facility for thoughts of self harm (Region 3 Mental Health Facility subpoena material)
6 February 2013	Mother admits to Mr D to anger outbursts and emotional instability.	Mr D material, subpoenaed.
6 May 2013	[V] reports being kicked at school and that her attacker has threatened to rape her sister. [V]’s story is refuted by witnesses, no action taken.	Subpoenaed material, School 2
12 May 2013	(Mother’s Day) Mother assaults [V], police report [V] has bruising to face consistent with punching injury. Police also notice extensive bruising on [V]’s legs. The other children report to police of being assaulted regularly by mother. Mother later goes to voluntary police interview, recorded, and admits to smacking the children “weekly” usually on the rear, and that she says such punishment is not excessive and she will continue to administer such discipline, and that it is “okay” if the children bruise. Father and other children say she assaults the children daily and that it usually starts “around lunch time”. Mother is adamant she will continue to administer such discipline, and justifies her actions by saying “all I wanted was to sleep in on mother’s day”. Mother is later charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, sentenced to a 3 year bond, section 9, (March 2014) and sentenced to live apart from the children for 4 months. She lives at her in-laws home for the time, not her own parents.	NSW Police subpoenaed material
13 May 2013	To Dr D, denies assaulting [V], says she “never will” says [V] assaulted her.	Dr D material, subpoenaed.
21 June 2013	Mother sees Ms T, psychologist, admits to “losing it”, and assaulting [V] on mother’s day past, by pulling her hair and dragging her, says she has 3 children with difficulties, says she thinks that father has MS.	Report to Ms T, Subpoenaed
16 July 2013	Admits assaulting [V] (to Mr D)	Mr D material, subpoenaed.
26 October 2013	Mother admitted to hospital due to neck pain from being hit in the head by 11 yr old daughter ([V]) – given IV morphine, husband called ambulance, hard collar (Hospital subpoena)
12 November 2013	Admits to being “snappy and stressed” can’t sleep, children keep her up, this is upon her return to the family home after being with the in-laws.	Mr D material, subpoenaed.
17 February 2014	Mother attends Mission Australia Depression and Anxiety group ongoing for 7 weeks – Ms T Psychologist (hospital subpoena material)
18 December 2014	To Mr D, “stressed due to the children, especially [X], been snappy, shouting at kids, arguing with Mr Halloran, short tempered”.	Mr D material, subpoenaed.
July 2015	[V] grabs Mother around the throat, attempts to choke her and says “I’m going to kill you”, [Y] runs to get Father, who calls the Mother a liar that the incident occurred. (M’s Apr 2016 Aff par 68)
August 2015	Mother leaves children at home with Father whilst she took [Y] and [V] to the GP. Mother returns in the afternoon and finds that [W]’s nappy has not been changed and is soaked through to her clothes. The Mother asks the Father for help and gets no response. The Mother also attempts to get dinner ready and place [W] at the table whilst all the children are mucking up, when [W] flings herself forward and hits her head before the Mother can stop her. The Mother soothes [W] and everything seems okay. (M’s Apr 2016 Aff par 69-71)
August 2015	Father says mother gets so angry she throws [W] into her chair so hard that her head snaps forward and she hits her head on the table, distraught. Father sits with her on the ground to console her.	Respo aff 18/5/2016,
13 August 2015	Day of incident in car, mother can’t tolerate behaviour of children in car, tries to alight from moving car, is persuaded to stay in, and is dropped at train station, spends the night with a friend.	FaCS material, subpoenaed.
13 August 2015	The Mother, Father and children all head up to Town C to the Region 1 Medical Centre. Father tells GP that Mother is “not herself”. On the way up and home all children, particularly [V] are misbehaving. [V] hits the Mother’s seat continually in the back. Mother asks [V] to stop and [V] denies doing anything. Mother asks Father to pull over as [V] is refusing to stop kicking the Mother’s seat. The Father pulls over at Town D train station and tells the Mother to get out of the car. Father refuses to drive home until she gets out. Father leaves the Mother on the side of the road. The children were all very distressed at leaving the Mother behind.
15 August 2015	Mother comes home and is told by the Father that if she does not “get help” the relationship is over. The Mother agrees for the sake of the relationship. The Mother is voluntarily admitted to Region 3 Psychiatric Unit. The Mother, when assessed by the mental health assessor, is told that she does not have a mental health issue but should have a break for a few days. (M’s Apr 2016 Aff par 82-83) Mother presented to the facility with “emotional dysregulation secondary to family conflict.” Admitted to Region 3 Psychiatric Unit until 20 August 2015 for a period of observation. No signs of major illness and she was not found to have a predominant affective disorder. Ms Halloran appeared to have emotional dysregulation and poor impulse control, which is triggered by her family environment. Goal is for intensive psychological intervention to allow Mother to become a more functional and less emotionally reactive mother, and optimise her care for the family. (p. 1 Region 3 Hospital subpoena material)
17 August 2015	Mother is told to leave Region 3 Hospital after been voluntarily admitted for two (2) days. Mother was assessed by a Doctor, Nurse and Psychiatrist who all determine that the Mother is stressed and needed further support at home. They suggested some time out for the Mother, and to attend the Sub-Acute Unit at Region 2 Hospital if she did not have a friend’s house to stay at. The Father refuses to allow the Mother to come home. (M’s Apr 2016 Aff par 84-85)
20 August 2015	Mother commences Sub-Acute program at Region 2 Hospital. While attending the 28 day program Mother has participated in psycho educational groups, including managing anxiety and depression, emotion regulation, mindfulness and relaxation, healthy relationships, healthy eating and lifestyle, recovery and wellbeing, building resilience, self esteem, making sense of medication (Hospital subpoena notes)
20 August 2015	After being admitted to sub-acute section of Region 2 District Hospital, the assessing medical officer states the mother does not appear to have any mental diagnosis, but seems to have reacted to stressful stimuli. She is also later assessed as not being accepting of her role in the long term assault of her children, but is more concerned with the predicament she finds herself in.	SHDH subpoenaed material
21 August 2015	Mother and Father spend weekend together, with no children in Town E. Father agrees to support the Mother in relation to the children.
DoCS attend on the Mother in Sub-Acute and advise that they are applying for ADVO against the Mother for the children’s protection. Father tells Mother “I thought I would let you have a surprise”  (M’s Apr 2016 aff par 90-91)
Mother is discharged from Region 2 Hospital but is unable to return home. Mother is referred to Partners in Recovery and Supported Accommodation & Homelessness Services Region 2 (SAHSSI).
Mother attends upon Psychiatrist Dr R, who determines that the Mother does not have a mental illness.
23 August 2015	Mother has day leave from sub-acute to spend time with family
9 September 2015	Psychologist and author have concerns in terms of the safety of the 5 children living alone with their father and the lack of involvement shown by FACS to support Ms Halloran as their Mother to have a healthier relationship and linked to support services. (Hospital sub-acute subpoena notes)
24 September 2015	Father contacts police saying that he needs an ADVO against the Mother or the children will be removed by FACS (Police subpoena)
2016	Special School starts to document significant bruising on [W] [W] shows inappropriate ways of her frustration, displays impatience and frustration Severely disabled intellectual and physical, mobility, language [W] must be hoisted at all times and strapped across the middle demonstrated inappropriate and unsafe behaviour – 10/3/2011 3 person hoisting process Mixed GMFCS Level 4 Unable to participate in intelligence test due to severe disability. No language observed Counselling records – At 4 years of age [W] displayed the developmental age of 0-7 mths  consistent with severe developmental delay (Special School Subpoena)
19 February 2016	Final ADVO issued for the protection of the children against the Mother
13 April 2016	Mother files Application with Federal Circuit Court at Wollongong (WFCC)
23 May 2016	Parties attend WFCC. All parties negotiate an Interim Agreement pending an Interim Hearing, for the Mother to have supervised time with the children supervised by Catholic Care but there is a significant waitlist. The Father does not contact Catholic Care as required under the Orders and has an Intake delayed until September 2016. The Mother is allowed telephone contact with the children under the ADVO, however, the Father does not facilitate telephone time. (M’s Aff August 2016 par 11-14)
June 2016	Mother sends children a letter. Father contacts police and has Mother charged with breaching ADVO. Children have several absences listed on their school reports of at least 20 days each. [V] in particular had 61 days absent. (M’s Aug 2016 Aff Annexure “C”)
26 August 2016	Mother pleads guilty to breaching the ADVO, but due to the breach being of a technical nature, the Magistrate deals with the matter by way of a section 10 good behaviour bond for 6 months.
August 2016	Father offers the Mother to have the children for a few hours each weekend if she stops court proceedings(M’s Aug 2016 Aff par 22)
31 August 2016	Parties reach an agreement that the children’s time with the Mother is supervised by the Paternal Grandfather due to the extensive waitlist at Catholic Care.
October 2016	[Y] is suspended from school for 3 days
29 November 2016	Mother raises issue in Court that the Paternal Grandfather refuses to meet to supervise the Mother’s time at any place other than McDonalds, even though the Orders provide for the Mother’s time to take place at the park if sunny. It was reinforced by the Court that the children’s time with the Mother should be taking place at the park or other suitable venues, if agreed between the parties. The Father and the Paternal Grandfather are non-negotiable for any place excepting McDonalds.
23 February 2017	The Mother files an Application in a Case due to the Father not abiding by the Court Orders. The Paternal Grandfather and the Father being non-negotiable in where the time is to take place and the Father refusing the Mother time with the children on Christmas Day in accordance with the Orders, and also refusing to allow makeup time to take place at a restaurant. Together with the telephone time being problematic, with the Father continuing to impede the children’s telephone time with the Mother. Father either interjects on conversations, hangs up the phone, or tells the children ‘next one!’. Father calls the Mother ‘Ms Halloran’ to the children. [V] continues to be abusive towards the Mother, in the presence of the Father and the other children. The Mother seeks that her time is supervised by the Maternal Grandmother. Father is disclosing information about the proceedings and the Mother’s court documents to the children.
30 March 2017	[X] is taken to behavioural paediatrician Mr G, diagnosed as ODD ADHD and PTSD	Father’s aff dd 12/04/17
April 2017	Children continue to miss out on copious amounts of school time – [V] 19 absences [Y] and [Z] 11 absences [W] – 80 absences
1 May 2017	Father only provides two youngest children for time with the Mother, despite current Court Orders
June 2017	Special School notes that bruising on [W] body is increasing. [W] does not have a wheelchair as it is ‘stolen’. [W] is in a stroller. Father has not filed paperwork with NDIS for [W]’s support. (M’sSept 2017 Aff par 49-50)
11 June 2017	Father does not bring children for their time with the Mother. The Mother waits for them at (location). The Mother’s solicitor requests make-up time with no response. (M’s Sept Aff par 36-37)
19 June 2017	Father has a matter listed before Town A Local Court for dishonesty offences he is charged with. The matter is adjourned. (M’s Sept 2017 Aff par 42)
20 August 2017	Mother is unable to spend time with the children on her weekend and requests, weeks in advance, through her solicitor and through text messages to the Father asking that the Father change the weekend. The Father refuses. )M’s sept aff par 46)
24 August 2017	Mother attends book week at the school and is abused by the Paternal Grandfather in front of other parents and children, for being present. The children were happy to see their Mother (M’s Sept 2017 aff par )
Sept 2017	[V] visits uncle’s home for holidays, refuses to return, uncle does not believe she needs depression medication and does not supply it, causing behavioural problems. [V] returns a few weeks later.	Father aff 16/2/18
3 & 4 October 2017	Expert Report with Dr A (previously postponed twice)
October 2017	Father finally notified that Catholic care has an opening for supervision of the children, mother refuses, wants supervision on her terms only, place given to next family.	Father aff 16/2/18
December 2017	Mother organises for children to have photos with Santa in Town F. Father is unable to bring them but both parents organise to meet at Town A Shopping Centre and for them all to have their photo taken. Later, both the Father and Mother, paternal grandfather and all the children go to McDonalds for lunch.
31 January 2018	Mother attends [Z]’s first day of school  with Father (M’s feb 2018 aff par 22) Mother and Father later go to (Café) in Town A for coffee. Father agrees that Mother can pick the three youngest children up from school. Mother picks [V] up from school as agreed by the Father and takes her to buy hair care products and dye to fix her hair. [V] and Mother also have something to eat at McDonalds and have a chat about personal hygiene, and her concerns with [V]’s school attendance, as discussed with the Father. [V] responds positively. (M’s feb 2018 aff par (23-24, 25) Father later texts Mother and asks her to come inside when she drops [V] off. Mother starts to see children more often, picking them up from school, taking [V] to school
January 2018	FACS visits the father’s home in response to invitation to join the case. They express desire that [V] should continue to live at home, to assist in caring for the children. They indicate they will assist in transport for the children’s out of school activities and assist in supervised visits. (Neither of these materialised)	Father aff 16/2/18
4 February 2018	Mother spends time with the children at their home with the Father. Mother cuts the children’s hair and toe nails, and attempts to bring [V]’s hair colour back to blonde after [V] had dyed it brown. (M’s feb 2018 aff par 24)
14 March 2018	Mother takes 3 youngest children to park from school as per arrangement, physically disciplines them and has to bring them home for poor behaviour.	Resp aff 2/5/ 17
19 February 2018	Father and Mother attend upon Special School to talk to the Principal regarding [W]. Appt organised by Mother (M’s Feb 2018 Aff par 20)
Mother enrols in Anglicare 6 week program ‘Tuning into kids’
28 March 2018	FaCS questions father about assaulting the children, father denies it, but learns that the reports came from the mother.	Resp aff 2/5/ 17
28 February 2018	Consent Orders – Mother starts to spend time with the children each weekend, 10 am to 2pm on a rotating basis, and the three youngest children each Wednesday from after school for a period of two hours. Father is to provide evidence to the ICL that he has completed the Keeping Kids in Mind course as per Court Order made May 2017.
29 March 2018	Father contacted by Town A Police, saying mother had made a complaint against him, re threatening gestures. Father denies it, but calls Town G police station and learns that the mother has made numerous such reports, none of them acted upon.	Resp aff 2/5/ 17
4 June 2018	Parties attend a directions Hearing at WFCC. Further Consent Orders that the Mother spend time with all of the children every second fortnight from 10 am to 4pm.

Schedule Two

Chronology prepared by Counsel for the Mother

1956	The maternal grandmother is born. Currently Aged 62 Years	Aff. Ms S, affirmed 28/06/2018, para 1.
1976	The Father is born. Currently Aged 41 Years.	Aff. Mr Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, prologue.
1983	The Mother is born. Currently Aged 34.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 1.
2001	The couple commence relationship. Four months later the couple move in together.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 3. Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 3.
24 Dec 2001	The Father rings the maternal family home and is “very abusive”, threatening to smash their front door if they contacted the mother again. The police were contacted.	Aff. Ms S, affirmed 28/06/2018, para 7.
17 Mar 2002	The Father calls the maternal family and abuses the maternal grandmother, she then hangs up immediately. The father and mother attend the maternal grandparent’s residence and the father is being abusive. The maternal grandparents call the police as a result.	Aff. Ms S, affirmed 28/06/2018, para 9.
19 May 2002	The maternal grandmother calls the paternal grandmother expressing her disappointment that she was not invited to the wedding. She explains that she will not be contributing to the wedding fees. The father calls the maternal grandparents stating “How dare you call my mother! Lucky my father isn’t home as I would get him to drive a truck through your front door. Mr J you should watch your back when in town.” This incident is reported to the police.	Aff. Ms S, affirmed 28/06/2018, para 10.
2002	The couple marries.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 3.
2002	The maternal grandparents inform the mother of the maternal great-grandfather’s death. The father becomes aggressive to the maternal grandfather.	Aff. Ms S, affirmed 28/06/2018, para 13.
2002	The child [V] is born.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 5.
31 Dec 2002	The Father threatens the maternal grandfather saying “Keep going, and I’m going to run Mr J over while I’m in the truck”. This incident was reported to the police.	Aff. Ms S, affirmed 28/06/2018, para 14.
2002	The child [W] is born. She suffers from cerebral palsy. Post birth the doctors find a heart murmur in the child. The child is taken to Children’s Hospital by the Mother as the Father could not get time off from work (he worked as a (occupation omitted) in his parent’s business).	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 5. Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 14.
Approx. Apr 2004	The father begins to get angrier with the children. At one particular occasion yelling at the child [V] “You fucking little idiot, fuck off!” after she put one of his tools in grease. On this occasion he smacked the child until her bottom was red. The father denies this allegation and asserts that the mother would scream and abuse the children, not the father.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 26. Aff. Mr Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 18.
Apr 2007	The child [W] has a major seizure where she is taken by ambulance immediately to hospital. Paediatrician Dr D diagnoses the child with epilepsy. The Father (who was working in ((location)) rang the Hospital and abused the staff. The child is later diagnosed with cerebral palsy delayed development, slight asthma, a slight heart murmur and Autism Spectrum Disorder. She is wheelchair bound and non-verbal, requiring constant physiotherapy and occupational therapy. The child has severe constipation and occasionally requires bowel stimulation via either an enema or digit.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 16. Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 17. Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 18.
2007	The child [X] is born.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 5.
Approx. 2008	The child [V] (aged approx. 6 years old) walks into the lounge room where the mother and father are sitting with a skipping rope tied around her neck. She says to the effect of “Mummy, Mummy! Look at me!’ The father is enraged and begins smacking the child on her bottom. The mother steps in and cuddles the child asking why she did that, but the child could not give an answer. The child [V] states in 2013 that she has previously tried to choke herself with a skipping rope. The father reported to the school counsellor self-harm behaviour from the child [V] such as previously choking herself with a skipping rope and hitting her head “There has been threats of self harm for at least the last couple of years… three years ago when [V] was playing with another girl of the same age and came out of her room with a skipping rope around her neck.” .	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 24. Subpoenaed Department of Education documents, student counselling file, dated 27/05/2013. Subpoenaed Department of Education documents, student counselling file, dated 16/10/2012. Subpoenaed Dr P, psychiatrist documents, letter dated 10/08/2012.
2010	The mother and father are unable to make mortgage repayments and have to sell the family house. The paternal grandparents go bankrupt and the Father purchases the business from them. “Ms Halloran and her partner are struggling with their own business – which has been effected by the recent financial downturn…” The father ceases to work due to an injury sustained in 2004 as he injuries his back after falling off a semi-trailer.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 27. Psychologist Mr D, subpoenaed counselling notes, not dated. Aff. Mr Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 40.
30 Feb 2010	Mr D reports the mother had returned for further consultations due to “complex family relationships” and pending the birth of the baby as well as the need to leave the family home due to “necessity”. Yet she “demonstrates remarkable resilience [and] is a warm loving mother who is committed to her family”	Psychologist Mr D, subpoenaed counselling notes, 30 July 2010.
01 Apr 2010	The mother reports to Mr D as she’s suffering from depression.	Psychologist Mr D, subpoenaed counselling notes, 1 April 2010.
08 Apr 2010	The mother reports to Mr D of feeling tearful, depressed and overwhelmed at caring for the children and their behaviours. As well as arrears in mortgage and the house being up for sale.	Psychologist Mr D, subpoenaed counselling notes, 20th May 2010.
20 May 2010	Mr D reports that the mother has seen him for 4 sessions and confesses to being “overwhelmed and taken for granted”.	Subpoenaed Mr D Psychologist documents, letter to Dr B dated 20/05/2010.
2010	The child [Y] is born.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 5.
Post 21 July 2010	The child [V] becomes violent with the mother and yells abuse. The father when asked to help retorts “Don’t pick on [V] you are always asking her to do things” On a particular occasion, the mother asks the child [V] for assistance. The child refuses and is consequently sent to her room. The child replies “I am not going to my fucking room” and begins punching the mother repeatedly. The child is later prescribed medication for depression and anxiety. The Father asserts that the mother “became even lazier if that was possible”, and constantly ‘orders’ the child [V] and the father around while she sits down watching tv.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 30. Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 31. Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 36. Aff. Mr Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 18.
Approx. June 2011	The mother is 20 weeks pregnant with the child [Z]. At dinner, the child [V] refuses to eat her dinner. Saying words to the effect of “I’m not eating my dinner you can fuck off”. The mother persists in telling her she needs to eat her dinner. The father then says words to the effect of “It’s okay darling you don’t need to eat your dinner”. This continued for about 30 minutes. The mother then says “Fine, you don’t have to eat your dinner, you can go to bed”. The father retorts with “Don’t talk to your daughter like that”. The child [V] gets up and begins throwing things as she walks to her bedroom. The parents follow her into her bedroom where the child picks the mother up and throws her onto the child’s bed. As the mother hits the bed she hits her head on the wall and is knocked out for approximately 30 seconds. Upon regaining consciousness, she is kicked in the stomach by the child as she states “I fucking hate you, you’re not my mum”. The father witnessed the child assault the mother and did not intervene or ask if the mother was okay. The mother later speaks to the child’s counsellor. The Father asserts that this did not happen, rather the mother sat next to the child until 1:30am trying to get her to eat. The father himself cannot pick the mother up. Her visit to the hospital was for another matter. The mother, the following day is giving an injection to stop the induced labour caused by the assault. She stays in hospital overnight as a result.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 37. Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 38-40. Aff. Mr Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 22. Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 41.
2011	The child [Z] is born.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 5.
Late 2011 Cont…	The child [X] begins acting out. She would yell and scream if she didn’t get her own way in for example watching television. The child would wipe her faeces on the walls of the house when she was angry or didn’t get her own way. As such she was taken to a psychiatrist, who sees the child monthly. Not long after this behaviour begins, the paternal grandparents take a picture that the child had drawn to the family home. The drawing was of a “vagina and a penis and stick people drawn in a circle around the penis and vagina with their hands reaching out on the vagina”. The father is angered and begins smacking the child. As the child runs to her bedroom she discloses to the mother that some of the boys at her school had been touching her vagina and made her touch their penises. The child is later diagnosed with ADHD by Dr P and is prescribed Ritalin to help her behaviour.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 42. Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 43-46. Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 50.
Approx. 2012	The mother asserts that the father is diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder and prescribed medication by psychiatrist Dr R. The father would often not take the medication at all.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 51.
10 Feb 2012	Psychologist Mr D states the mother’s “life is very complex and she has several credible reasons to be stressed…[yet she] is a loving family member and I wish her well in her future.”	Psychologist Mr D, subpoenaed counselling notes, 10 Feb 2012.
04 Apr 2012	GP Mental Health Assessment & Care Plan by Dr H states the mother is low risk of violence.	GP Mental Health Assessment & Care Plan, Dr H, 04/04/2012, page 2.
13 May 2012	The father asks the child [V] to help him make lunch for the mother for mother’s day. She replies “No”. when the mother attempts to get up to make lunch the father yells “Fuck off and sit down”. The child [V] begins saying “You stupid fucking bitch”. The child then walked over and hit the mother in the face. The mother yells for her to go into her room. The child then hits the mother again. The mother retaliates by slapping the child in the face, stating “Never hit me again”. The Father did nothing to intervene during this altercation. The child grabbed and pulled the mother by the hair. The mother began screaming “Let go of me now! Go to your room now!”. The child pulls the mother down on top of herself and begins strangling her. The mother attempts to push her away and screams “Please stop [V], please!”. Eventually the child stop strangling the mother who walks around the block to vent. Upon return, the mother is met by Police officers who charge her with assault. The father’s version of the events are as follows – the mother asks the child [V] to do something, and she refuses. In retaliation the mother grabs the child by the hair and falls on top of her, choking her, screaming that she wants to kill the child [V]. The neighbours call the Police. The father kicks the mother out of the house. The child is taken to the hospital where scans show bruising on the child’s head. The mother believes this to be from the child repeatedly hitting her head against the wall a week prior. This is allegedly witnessed by Mr P. The child [V] mentions she has previously gone through hitting her head against the wall to the school counsellor. The paternal grandparents are on holiday when they hear of the assault on the child [V]. The father had to stay home and look after the children as the child [V] went in the hospital. The paternal grandfather called a friend who lived close to the family to babysit the children so the father can attend the hospital. The mother is found guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, common assault, domestic stalk and intimidate. She is given a good behaviour bond for three years, finishes on the 11 October 2016. The mother reports to having a breakdown 2 years ago where she hurts her daughter on Mother’s Day.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 52-55. Aff. Mr Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 23. Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 56. Subpoenaed Department of Education documents, student counselling file, dated 27/05/2013. Aff. Mr G, 29/06/2018, para 9. Aff. Mr G, 29/06/2018, para 10. Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 59. Subpoenaed Region 2 Hospital documents, titled ‘Mental Health’, dated 17 Aug 2015 by Ms M.
12 May 2013	The Ambulance description states “nil visible haemotomas, pearl, pt with reddened ears, red marks under her eyes. Pt states scalp tender after hair was pulled… pt sitting comfortably, doesn’t appear in severe pain…pt nil marks around neck.”	Subpoenaed NSW Ambulance documents, dated 12/5/2013.
17 July 2013	The mother states to Mr D in relation to the assault of [V] “I admit I did the wrong thing Mr Halloran didn’t act so I had to.” GP Mental Health Assessment & Care Plan states that the mother is of low risk of violent outbursts.	Psychologist Mr D, subpoenaed counselling notes, dated 17/05/2013. GP Mental Health Assessment & Care Plan, Dr H, 16/07/2013, page 3.
17 Sept 2013	The child [V] attends school counselling where she states that “her mum tried to kill her on Mother’s day”.	Subpoenaed Department of Education documents, student counselling file, dated 17/09/2013.
26 Oct 2013	The mother is admitted to emergency after being hit on the back of the head by the child [V] with a schoolbag containing shoes. There is a slight injury.	Subpoenaed NSW Ambulance documents, Electronic Medical Record Case 50204.
30 Oct 2013	The child [V] attends school counselling where she states she’s worried about returning to the family home after staying with the paternal grandparents for the past month. Stating that her and her mum had a physical fight and she’s afraid her mother will lose her temper with her.	Subpoenaed Department of Education documents, student counselling file, dated 30/10/2013.
18 July 2014	A letter sent by Dr L, the Father’s psychologist, states he suffers from bipolar spectrum disorder. His depressive periods are generally “precipitated by stress involving trying to manage his children and family pressures.	Aff. Ms Halloran, 29/06/2017, annexure P.
30/07/2014	A letter sent by Dr J, states that the Father has worsening cervical myelopathy. He complains of worsening choking feeling when eating and a numbness in his feet. “More recently he has had several instability episodes where he has fallen to the ground.”	Aff. Ms Halloran, 29/06/2017, annexure Q.
02 Mar 2015	The child [V] experiences a distressing situation at school and calls the mother for advice.	Subpoenaed School 1 High School Documents, letter written by Ms Halloran, dated 2/3/15.
Late May 2015	The mother attempts to admit the child [V] into the Region 2 Mental institution, first referring her to the local hospital to be assessed.	Aff. Mr G, 29/06/2018, para 15.
Approx. 30 June 2015	The mother is in the loungeroom on the lounge with the children [Y] and [Z] on her lap. The child [V] comes up behind the mother and begins strangling her saying “I am going to kill you now, you motherfucker”. The mother tells the children [Y] and [Z] to go and get the father. When he comes in and says “What the fuck is going on”, the child [V] leaves the mother and runs into the kitchen. The mother tells the father what happened and the child [V] replies “No I didn’t you fucking liar”. The two children say that she did. The father says “You need to stop now Ms Halloran or you can leave and not come back’. The father asserts that he was in fact in the garage when this happened. Upon arriving at the loungeroom, the child [X] says that [V] had not touched her. The father did say if she didn’t stop he would kick her out.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 64-65. Aff. Mr Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 27.
July 2015	The child [V] tells the paternal grandparents “that she was slightly late on her monthlies”. The mother allegedly tells the child she was pregnant. The mother and child enter into an argument whereby the mother hit the child across the breast. The paternal grandmother takes a picture of the bruise but the child [V] deletes it.	Aff. Mr G, 29/06/2018, para 16.
11 Aug 2015	The mother leaves the children with the father for the day. Upon return she finds the child [W] dripping wet. When the mother changes her nappy she realises the she is full of urine and it was leaking through her pants. The father had not changed her nappy. The child [W] was getting upset because she wasn’t sitting at the table and everyone else was. The child [V] says to the mother “You need to stop you fucking bitch”. As the mother is stopping the children from fighting the child [W] falls forward and smacks her head on the table before the mother can stop her. The father asserts that mother returned home with the father on the phone, and threw the child into the chair with such force after changing her that the child split her lip and hit her head on the table.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 66-69. Aff. Mr Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 28.
13 Aug 2015	The family are together as they go to the doctors (Dr H at Region 1 Medical Centre) straight from school. Upon returning to the vehicle, they got fuel and went to Hungry Jacks for dinner. Whilst driving home the child [V] begins hitting the mother on the shoulder when she wouldn’t stop, the mother asked the father to step in and the child denies any involvement, despite the child [X] saying she did. The child [V] begins saying “I don’t care you fucking bitch”. The father states that he will not do anything. The Father asserts that It was in fact [W] tapping the mother on the shoulder and was doing it to get the mother to stop yelling. The mother tells the father to pull over. As she tells the child [V] to sit in the front while the mother will sit in the back, the father turns to her and says “Get out of the car. You are not fucking welcome”. The mother responds “What?!” the father says “You fucking heard me, get out and do not come home you are not fucking welcome”. The mother gets out of the car and kisses the children goodbye, the four younger children are crying saying “Mummy, Mummy!”. The father does not return to pick the mother up and she resorts to calling a friend. She spends the night with the friend. The father asserts that the mother attempts to jump out of the car, or at least threatening to do so. Upon arriving at Town D station the mother got out of the car, and said she wanted the money in the account, the TV, her clothes and the furniture. The father then drove off, with the kids upset in the car. The Mother reports opening the door of the car while moving to make husband realise that she “can no longer handle it”.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 70-75. Aff. Mr Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 30. Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 76-78. Aff. Mr Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 31-32. Subpoenaed Region 2 Hospital documents, titled ‘Mental Health’, dated 17 Aug 2015 by Ms M.
14 Aug 2015	The mother returns to the family home, where the father is there but the children are not. The father begins saying she needs to get her things and “fuck off”. The mother asks what he would like her to do and he retorts with “you need to go to the doctor and get help”. Whilst at the doctors the father speaks over the mother stating that she was hurting the child [V] and attempted to jump out of the vehicle. The couple arrive at Region 3 Hospital Psychiatric Unit, where the mother voluntarily admits herself under the father’s wishes who states “She needs to be admitted because I am not taking her home with me”.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 79. Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 80.
15 Aug 2015	The couple separates.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 3.
2015	The father and children visit the mother who is under the assumption she’d be going home with them. This is the mother’s birthday. The father states “No you’re not coming home”. The child [V] then states “I don’t want her to come home”. She then walks off and after 30 minutes visiting the mother, the father decides to leave as the child [V] had not returned. The mother then enrols herself in a program at Region 2 hospital. The father asserts that on her birthday the mother lunges at the child [V], who runs off to safety. She was allegedly unappreciative of the birthday cake and presents the family brought to her, throwing some of the presents on the floor. The mother was visited by her family “the visit went well, but kids and patient got upset when it was time to leave.”	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 82-83. Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 81. Aff. Mr Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 34. Subpoenaed Region 2 Hospital documents, titled ‘Mental Health’, dated 17 Aug 2015 by Ms K.
21 Aug 2015	The mother leaves the sub-acute unit with the father to go to Town E, Victoria. They discuss how to improve their relationship and the father promises to support the mother. The mother is then returned to the sub-acute unit the following Sunday.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 85. Aff. Mr Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 35.
24 Aug 2015	The mother is allowed to visit the children. The child [V] was well behaved whilst the mother was home.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 86.
27 Aug 2015	DOCS attend the mother’s sub-acute unit explaining that they are applying for an ADVO against her after speaking with the father and child [V]. DOCS advised the father to apply for an ADVO against the mother and he does.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 87. Aff. Mr Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 36.
Early 2016	The teachers at Special School have been recording bruises and other injuries on [W]’s body since the beginning of 2016 (while she has been in the father’s care).	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 181.
04 Jan 2016	GP Mental Health Assessment & Care Plan, considers the mother to be at a low risk of violence outbursts.	GP Mental Health Assessment & Care Plan, Dr S, 04/01/2016, page 2.
17 Feb 2016	The mother is made aware via her solicitor that the paternal grandfather has had a “mild heart attack whilst at home preparing the children for school, apparently bought on by septic arthritis of a knee”.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 171.
19 Feb 2016	An ADVO is imposed on the mother. All of the children are protected persons for a period of 12 months.
13 Apr 2016	Court Order made in Wollongong provide for an ICL appointment and that the matter be returned to court as soon as possible.
23 May 2016	Interim Orders made by the Wollongong FCC by consent providing for children to live with the Father and for the four youngest children to spend supervised time with the Mother.
31 Aug 2016	Further Interim Orders made for the children to live with the Father, made by consent. These orders allow the Mother to spend supervised (by the paternal grandfather) time for two hours every third Sunday commencing 11 September 2016. This time is to occur in the park near Town A Shops, unless otherwise agreed. That the Mother have telephone/skype conversations with the children each Monday and Thursday commencing on the 1 September 2016, between 4:00 and 5:00pm. The Father is to facilitate and ensure privacy during these calls.
29 Nov 2016	Orders made by Wollongong FCC, adjourning the matter to 8 February, 2017.
8 Feb 2017	Orders made by the Wollongong FCC by consent for Dr A to be appointed as Expert Report Writer. The matter is to be adjourned to 1 May 2017, with a three day Final Hearing commencing on 25 July 2018.
19 Feb 2017	The mother’s ADVO expires.
24 Feb 2017	The mother makes an Application in a Case as the Father is not abiding by Interim Orders and is not facilitating a meaningful relationship between the child and mother.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 6.
20 Mar 2017	The child [X] discloses to psychologist Ms H that she is having nightmares of her mother. These nightmares detail her mother killing everyone in her family, coming to get the child and stabbing her in the heart with a butcher’s knife.	Subpoenaed Ms H clinical psychiatrist documents, dated 20/3/2017.
23 Mar 2017	Police attend the father’s residence on an anonymous report of a stolen vehicle in his backyard. The car is on a trailer in the backyard with windows smashed, and the engine number matched the reported vehicle number. Police allege that the Father had knowledge of the vehicle being stolen due to knowing the owner. The father is cautioned and legal action will be taken after speaking with the owner. About 9 am on Thursday 23 March… Police attend the Father’s residence after receiving an anonymous tip regarding a stolen vehicle in the backyard of the father. Police inspected the vehicle which was missing registration plates, and had engine identifying plates removed. The accused stated he had purchased the vehicle from an unknown male 3 weeks earlier. Despite having “intimate knowledge of the stolen vehicle” the father states that he has never seen it. The paternal father entered the backyard and upon disclosing the identity of the original owner, the Father states “shut the fuck up dad”. The accused was issues a Future Court Attendance Notice.	Family and Community Services, Alternate Assessment (SARA Exception), prepared by Colleen Johns 24/01/2018, para 28. Subpoenaed NSW Police Documents, COPS Entries E 63907162
1 May 2017	The Wollongong FCC makes orders for the Children to live with the Father and spend supervised time with the Mother for 3 hours each alternate Sunday, commencing 30 April 2017, and other times agreed to by the parents. The Mother’s time is to be supervised by the paternal grandfather and if he is unwilling or unable, the time will be supervised by the maternal grandmother. The Mother is to decide as to where this will occur given that she notifies the Father within 48 hours. The child [V] will spend time with the Mother when she wishes. The Mother is to have regular skype/telephone conversations with the children on Tuesday and Thursday between 4:00-5:00pm. The Father is to ensure that the children are available during this time and give them privacy during the call. Both parents are restrained by injunction from using any physical discipline on the children as well as; abusing, belittling, insulting, rebuking or criticising the other parent, their partner or members of the other parent’s family in the presence of the children.
14 May 2017	On Mother’s day the mother spends time with two of the children despite Court Orders providing for all the children.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 178.
23 June 2017	The child [Z] is assessed as potentially having “separation anxiety”.	Subpoenaed Ms H clinical psychiatrist documents, referral letter dated 23rd June by Dr H.
Sept 2017	The child [V] refuses to return to the father after staying the paternal uncle. She also refuses to take her Sertraline medication for her depression.	Aff. Mr Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 81.
22 Sept 2017	The child [X] discloses that the father doesn’t play with them often as he is usually working on his car.	Subpoenaed Ms H clinical psychiatrist documents, dated 22/9/17.
23 Oct 2017	The Wollongong FCC makes orders which releases the Expert Report by Dr A to the parties and their legal representatives, and the ICL.
15 Nov 2017	The Wollongong FCC makes orders adjourning the matter to 26 Feb 2018 for Interim Hearing.
22 Jan 2018	Parties attend a mediation conference where it is agreed that the mother can spend more time with the children as suggested in the family report. She would pick the children after school and bring them home.	Aff. Mr Halloran, affirmed 16/2/2018, para 10.
28 Jan 2018	The Court makes orders by consent that the Mother spend 4 hours each Sunday with the children, between 10am and 2pm. These orders also include collecting the 3 younger children from school every Wednesday and spending 2 hours with them before returning them home.	Aff. Mr Halloran, affirmed 2/5/2018, para 2.
31 Jan 2018	It is arranged that the mother will take the child [Z] to his first day of school.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 122.
2 Feb 2018	The father asserts that Mother has brought the children home from school every day since the 31 Jan. Instead of the usual 5 minute drive home, the drive was taking 45 minutes and the mother was “taking them to McDonalds every day and interrogating them regarding what happens at home. The children informed me of this”	Aff. Mr Halloran, affirmed 16/2/2018, para 11.
4 Feb 2018	The father asserts that the mother stays at the father’s house for 4.5 hours. He tells her that she is abusing ‘his concession towards her’ and that if she continues they would revert to the court orders.	Aff. Mr Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 86.
11 Feb 2018	The father asserts that the mother cuts the child [V]’s hair. The Mother makes “a mess of [V]’s hair”. The Children (with the exception of [Y]) didn’t enjoy her company on this Sunday. The father stops the mother’s visits as it began to be ‘too disruptive to their home life’.	Aff. Mr Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 88.
14 Feb 2018	The father asserts that the mother brings the children home from school, where upon arrival, she invites herself into the family home. The children began to act out post this visit with the child [Z] wetting himself in the cupboard.	Aff. Mr Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 92.
14 Mar 2018	The father asserts that mother spends time with the children yet returns them earlier than decided, complaining they were misbehaving and that she physically punished them. The Mother also brought the maternal grandparents.	Aff. Mr Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 101.
28 Mar 2018	FaCS arrive at the Father’s home, investigating the Father punching the child [X] and leaving the children [Y] and [W] at home alone on one occasion. The Father claims these reports to be untrue/greatly exaggerated and propagated by the Mother after “interrogating the children”.	Aff. Mr Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 102.
29 Mar 2018	The Father is contacted by Town A Police after the Mother reported him for making a throat slitting gesture to her. The Mother applied for an AVO which was declined by the Police. Police “are not satisfied that the incident occurred as described by the victim”.	Aff. Mr Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 104. Subpoenaed NSW Police Documents, COPS entries, (no. omitted).
4 April 2018	The Father does not attend Court for a criminal charge. The father was convicted and a warrant was issued for his arrest. The father is consequently arrested and granted bail. The mother did not encourage the warrant.	Aff. Mr Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 112. Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 174.
8 Apr 2018	The father asserted that the child [Z] tells the him that the mother ‘disowned’ [V].	Aff. Mr Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 114.
May 2018	The mother picks up the children from school and takes them to the library. She notices the child [X] has bruises on her legs, the child gives the explanation “[V] did this to me. She has been hurting me”.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 14/08/2018, para 17.
6 May 2018	The Father is told by the children that they wish to live with the Mother.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 106.
18 May 2018	The child [Z] is assessed as liking having time with his mum by psychiatrist Ms H. The child [Y] is assessed as liking what she gets to do with her mother. Smiling when she explored this with psychiatrist Ms H.	Subpoenaed Ms H clinical psychiatrist documents, dated 18/5/2018. Subpoenaed Ms H clinical psychiatrist documents, dated 18/5/2018.
28-29 May 2018	The following description of the children’s current situation: “Reporter is mainly concerned about neglect for all the children [page 2]… sighted minimal food… where there is 1 slice of bread for each child and 1 can of canned food is shared between two children… Mr Halloran will buy KFC for himself and feed the children nothing or Mr Halloran will get take away food for [V] but not for the other children… there is a puppy in the house that urinates and leaves faeces all over the house… the children sometimes clean the dog faeces with a towel leaving no towel in the house for them…the house does not get cleaned and the floors are dirty… lounges are stained (with food, [Z]’s urine…)… [W] cannot walk and crawls around the house with dirty floors that have dog faeces on them…[V] has also been reported to “play mum”…the children were supposed to go to the zoo with Mr Halloran… but Mr Halloran did not take the children to the zoo and instead spent $2000 on car parts. [Z] almost daily smears faeces on the wall…[Z] has smeared faeces on the bedroom wall…and it cannot be wiped off and the children are sleeping in there… two weeks ago, [Z] threw his faeces on the roof of the bathroom and it is still there. [page 3]… Reporter said that there is violence between the children…Mr Halloran was around and did not do anything… [W] always has lice in her hair... it appears to be a persistent issue and spreads to the other children as well… Reported said that Ms Halloran does not want anything to do with [V] or [W]. It has been reported that things have gotten really bad for the children ever since Ms Halloran has come back into the children’s lives as she picks and chooses between the children. [page 4]… Mr Halloran used physical discipline by repeatedly punching [X] to the back twice [page 5].	Department of Child and Family Services, subpoenaed document Engagement (no. omitted).
4 June 2018	The Wollongong FCC makes further interim orders by consent to discharge the previous orders relating to the Mother spending time with the children made on 28 Feb 2018. These are to be replaced with the Mother spending time with the children for 6 hours each Sunday, between 10am and 4pm, commencing 17 June 2018, and occurring on Sunday 17 June, 24 June, 8 July and 15 July 2018 with the child [V] spending time with the Mother according to her wishes.
17 June 2018	The maternal family and mother take the children to the (location omitted). The child [V] approaches the mother and states ‘you’re not my mother’. The child then walks off. On return the grabs the children and begins to walk off, the mother attempts to stop her but is pushed and punched in the face twice. The maternal grandmother is then elbowed in the throat, pushed and punched through her glasses. The Father comes onto the scene as the child [V] calls him saying the family is hurting her. As the mother reaches to grab the child [W] out of the road, the father grabs her hand and pushes her while yelling at the kids saying they’re leaving. The father took the kids and drove off at a speed that was not safe, despite the mother stating it was her time with the children. The ambulance and police attend the scene after being called and statements are made to the police. The child [V] “started abusing Ms Halloran and becoming more violent…punching, pushing, yelling, screaming and swearing at everybody. Not only did [V] assault Ms Halloran but also assaulted me, ripping my glasses off my face…thrust[ing] her right elbow into my throat. [V] ‘KING HIT’ my husband, Mr J. The father is called, and the child [V] asks to be picked up. Upon arrival the father asserts that he sees the Mother and the maternal family assaulting the child. The father shouts, inciting the child [V] to assault the maternal family and grabs the children and leaves.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 140-150. Aff. Ms S, affirmed 28/06/2018, para 39-46. Ms S, subpoenaed document to Ms P Aff. Mr Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 122-123.
Approx. 24 June 2018	The mother has the children [Y] and [Z] in her care. They watch Incredibles 2, washed the car together and went to a friends house for a birthday party. The children stated “we are sad that you don’t pick us up from school anymore mummy, we miss having fun with you”.	Aff. Ms Halloran, affirmed 29/06/2018, para 151.
6 July 2018	The Wollongong FCC makes orders dismissing the Application in a Case filed on 1 June 2018 by the maternal aunt, seeking to be joined to the proceedings. The matter is to be stood over to the three day Final Hearing commencing 25 July 2018.
25 July 2018	Final Hearing unable to commence. The Matter is adjourned for Interim Hearing.
Aug 2018	The paternal grandfather is going scheduled for a hip replacement surgery.	Aff. Mr Halloran, 29/06/2018, para 4.
22 Aug 2018	Interim Hearing

Schedule Three

Mother’s Minute of Order Sought

1. That the children, [W], [X], [Y] and [Z] spend time with the Mother:-

1.1.During the school term:

1.1.1.With [X], [Y] and [Z], each Tuesday, from the conclusion of school, for a period of two (2) hours;

1.1.2.With [W], each Thursday, from the conclusion of school for a period of two (2) hours.

1.1.3.Each Sunday, from 11:00am to 4:00pm, with one child on a rotating basis commencing with [Z], then [Y], then [X] and then [W];

1.2.During the school holiday period:

1.2.1.With [X], [Y] and [Z], each Tuesday, from 11:00am to 3:00pm;

1.2.2.With [W], each Thursday, from 11:00am to 3:00pm

1.2.3.Each Sunday, from 11:00am to 4:00pm, with one child on a rotating basis, commencing with [Z], then [Y], then [X] and then [W].

1.3.With all of the children, from 11:00am to 4:00pm on Christmas Day;

1.4.For a period of not less than 2 hours on each of the children’s birthdays, and with that individual child, as agreed or failing agreement from the conclusion of school or 3:30pm.

1. That the child [V] spend time with the Mother in accordance with her wishes, however, such time must not take place whilst the other children are spending time with the Mother;

1. For the purposes of changeover:

3.1.The Mother is to collect the child or children from school at the commencement of their time with the Mother and deliver the child or children to Father at the conclusion of their time with the Mother, at the driveway of the Father’s residence.

3.2.When time does not commence from the conclusion of school, the child or children are to be collected at the commencement of their time with the Mother and returned at the conclusion of their time with the Mother, at the driveway of the Father’s residence.

1. The Mother will communicate with the children, each Friday evening, between 6:00pm and 7:00pm. The Mother is to facilitate such communication by calling the house phone, or via the children’s social media accounts, and the Father will facilitate the call by encouraging the children to speak to their Mother and to afford the child and the Mother privacy.

2. That the children are at liberty to contact the Mother.

3. That both parents be permitted to liaise directly with the children’s medical practitioners, school and sporting bodies to receive school notices, information, newsletters, school reports, school photographs and any other necessary information about the children’s progress.

4. That each party is at liberty to attend at the said children’s school for the purposes of any function or activity normally attended by parents.

5. That the parties establish and use a communication book and record, for the information of the other, issues that are limited to the children’s care and that the communication book accompanies the children between the parent’s homes. That the parties establish and use a communication book and record, for the information of the other, issues that are limited to the children’s care and that the communication journal accompany the children between the parent’s homes.

6. That the Father provide to the Mother, during the children’s time with the Mother, the children’s medication in a Webster pack.

10. That in the event of childhood illness or emergency the parent with whom the child or children are with, contact the other parent forthwith to inform them.