Hambleden & Wakeford

[2021] FamCA 297

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hambleden & Wakeford [2021] FamCA 297

File number(s):

AYC464 of 2017

Judgment of:

HARTNETT J

Date of judgment:

26 April 2021

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – final orders by consent – where all parties request limited reasons in respect of the single expert’s evidence going to possible changed circumstances in the future – where Applicant father seeks time with daughter – where child lives with maternal great-grandmother – where father has never met daughter – where father has a criminal background.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 62B, 65DA(2), 68B, 68C, 121, 121 (9)(g)

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 17.02, 17.02A(b)

Number of paragraphs:

23

Date of last submission/s:

26 April 2021

Date of hearing:

26 April 2021

Place:

Albury

Counsel and Solicitor for the Applicant :

Self-represented

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Ms Brenton

Solicitor for the First Respondent:

KPW Lawyers

Counsel and Solicitor for the Second Respondent:

In person

Counsel for the Intervener:

Ms Eldershaw

Solicitor for the Intervener:

Secretary Department of Communities and Justice

Counsel as the Independent Children’s Lawyer:

Ms Davis

Solicitor as the Independent Children’s Lawyer:

Wagga Family Lawyers

ORDERS

AYC 464 of 2017

BETWEEN:

MR HAMBLEDEN

Applicant

AND:

MS WAKEFORD
First Respondent

MS RAYHILL

Second Respondent

SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND JUSTICE

Intervener

INDEPENENT CHILDRENS LAWYER

Other

ORDER MADE BY:	HARTNETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	26 APRIL 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

(1)There be final parenting orders, by consent, in accordance with the engrossed Minute of Proposed Consent Orders sealed and attached hereto AND IT IS DIRECTED THAT the Minute of Proposed Consent Orders signed by the parties, dated 26 April 2021 and marked ‘Exhibit A’ remain upon the Court file.

AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:

(2)Pursuant to s. 62B and s. 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders are set out in the Annexure and these particulars are included in these Orders.

AND THE COURT ORDERS, BY CONSENT, THAT:

1.All previous orders in these proceedings be discharged.

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

2.The Second Respondent (“Ms Rayhill”) have sole parental responsibility for the making of all decisions about issues of a major long term nature for the child, X born … 2017.

3.Other than in the case of an emergency, Ms Rayhill shall in the exercise of her parental responsibility:

a.inform the mother of her proposal in writing including decisions about education, health and travel and give the mother adequate information about the reason for the decision;

b.give the mother seven (7) days to consider her proposal so that the mother has time to make her own enquiries;

c.give realistic and genuine consideration any views expressed by the mother in respect of any proposed decision, including any concerns raised by the mother; and

d.promptly notify the mother of the outcome of the decision.

LIVE WITH

4.X shall live with Ms Rayhill.

ORDERS ABOUT THE MOTHER’S TIME ETC WITH X

5.Ms Rayhill shall be at liberty to suspend time between the mother and X should Ms Rayhill hold the reasonable belief that X is at risk of harm should time occur.

6.X shall spend time with the mother as agreed between Ms Rayhill and the mother and failing agreement, such time shall occur as follows:

a.each Thursday from 4:00pm to 6:00pm with X to be returned bathed and fed;

b.every second Saturday from 9:00am to 3:00pm;

c.on Mother’s Day from 9:00am to 3:00pm;

d.on X’s birthday and the mother’s birthday from the conclusion of school/child care or 4:00pm until 6:00pm if either birthday falls on a weekday, or from 9:00am to 1:00pm if her birthday falls on a weekend day;

e.each Easter Sunday from 9:00am to 1:00pm;

f.each alternate Christmas Day commencing 2021 from 7:00am to 2:00pm; and

g.each alternate Boxing Day commencing 2022 from 9:00am to 3:00pm.

7.Except where changeover is occurring through school or daycare, changeover shall occur at Ms Rayhill’s home or such other location agreed between the mother and Ms Rayhill.

8.The mother’s time with X shall occur at places as agreed between the mother and Ms Rayhill but failing agreement, at Ms Rayhill’s home.

9.The mother shall communicate via telephone or video call with X each Tuesday and any Thursday that X does not spend time with the mother from 5:30pm to 6:00pm and at such other times as agreed between the mother and Ms Rayhill and for this purpose, the mother shall initiate the call to a telephone number nominated by Ms Rayhill and Ms Rayhill shall ensure that X is available.

10.Ms Rayhill shall facilitate X communicating with the mother by telephone or other electronic means as reasonably requested by X. 

11.The mother and Ms Rayhill shall inform the other of any serious accident, illness, or medical condition suffered by X as soon as reasonably practicable (by SMS text message) including information as:

a.to the nature of the illness or accident;

b.any treatment that X requires;

c.the name of the hospital or health centre to which X has been taken (if any); and

d.the name of the doctor who is treating X and the doctor’s contact details. 

12.Ms Rayhill shall provide the mother with reasonable notice (where possible, not less than three days’ notice) of any medical or allied health appointment for X including information as to the purpose of the appointment and the name of the doctor or allied health professional upon whom X will be attending. 

13.The mother and Ms Rayhill will advise the other within twenty-four (24) hours of any change to residential address, telephone number or email address.

14.The mother will advise Ms Rayhill within 24 hours of any significant change to her living arrangements including with whom she resides.

15.By this order, the mother is authorised and permitted to:

a.receive copies of X’s school reports, photograph order forms, notices, newsletters and other documents from X’s day care or school and for this purpose, the mother may provide to X’s school, preschool or daycare her email address and request access to any on-line information portal or App for the school, preschool or day care;

b.attend any school, preschool or daycare event to which parents of children who attend the school, preschool or daycare are ordinarily invited including parent-teacher interviews; 

c.speak with the Director or Principal of any school, preschool or day care attended by X to obtain information about X’s care, welfare and development;

d.speak with any specialist or general medical practitioner, psychologist, counsellor or allied health professional who treats X to obtain information about X’s care, welfare and development;

e.obtain copies of any assessments or reports prepared by any specialist or general medical practitioner, psychologist, counsellor or allied health professional who treats X;

f.attend any medical or allied health appointment for X provided that Ms Rayhill gives her consent to do so; and

g.attend any extracurricular activities and/or sporting events for X to which a parent would normally be invited.

16.Without admissions, that the mother be restrained by injunction from:

a.consuming, ingesting, using or otherwise being under the influence of any drug during or for twenty-four hours immediately prior to spending time with X or allowing X to come into contact with any other person who has done so, except for:

i.prescribed medication taken strictly in accordance with the medically prescribed instructions; or

ii.over-the-counter medication that is taken strictly in accordance with the directions for its use;

b.consuming any alcohol beyond the legal driving limit of 0.05% in the twenty-four (24) hours prior to and during any time spent with X and from bringing X into contact with any other person who has done so;

c.allowing X to be left in the unsupervised care of any third party other than with the written consent of Ms Rayhill; and

d.allowing X to come into contact with Mr L or causing or permitting any other person to bring X into contact with Mr L.

17.Without admissions, that the mother and Ms Rayhill be restrained from:

a.insulting, belittling, degrading, rebuking, abusing or otherwise denigrating the other parent or a member of their family in the presence or hearing of X or from permitting any other person to do so;

b.physically disciplining X or allowing any other person to do so;

c.discussing these proceedings or X’s living arrangements with X, in the presence of X, or allowing any other person to do so; and

d.allowing X to come into contact with the father or causing or permitting any other person to do so.

Additionally, without admitting the necessity for the making of these Orders that follow, the Applicant father consents to the making of the following Orders.

ORDERS ABOUT THE FATHER

18.X spend no time with the father.

19.X have no communication with the father.

20.Orders 21 and 22 below are orders made for the personal protection of:

a.X born … 2017;

b.Ms Rayhill born … 1957; and

c.Ms Wakeford born … 1996

(collectively, “the Protected Persons”).

21.Pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975, that Mr Hambleden born … 1973 be restrained by injunction from:

a.Approaching or contacting in person, or by any electronic means or any other means, any of the Protected Persons, and this includes asking any other person to approach of contact them on his behalf;

b.Coming within 500m of the home of any of the Protected Persons;

c.Coming within 500m of the workplace of Ms Rayhill or Ms Wakeford

d.Coming within 500m of any preschool, day care or school attended by X.

22.Pursuant to s 68C of the Family Law Act 1975, if a police officer believes on reasonable grounds that Mr Hambleden has breached the injunction stated at Order 20 of these Orders, by:

a.Causing, or threatening to cause bodily harm to any or all of the Protected Persons; or

b.Harassing, molesting or stalking any or all of the Protected Persons the police officer may arrest Mr Hambleden without warrant.

23.The Secretary shall, within 7 days of the making of these Orders, cause a copy of the Orders to be provided to NSW Police requesting that Orders 20 to 22 of these Orders be recorded in the database for the Father (NSW CNI:…), the Mother (NSW CNI: …), X born … 2017 and Ms Rayhill born … 1957.

AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:

A.Ms Rayhill is open to the mother spending additional time with X, including overnight time, provided that it is safe in all the circumstances for this to occur, including considerations of the mother’s mental health and living arrangements from time to time (including where the mother lives and with whom). 

B.Ms Rayhill may withhold her consent if she is reasonably of the view that it is not in X’s best interests for the mother to attend a particular appointment due to the mother’s mental health status or for any other reason).

C.Ms Rayhill has agreed to meet Mr D, the mother’s partner, in April 2022 provided that the mother remains in a relationship with him and there are no further incidents with him.

Note:   The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Hambleden & Wakeford has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HARTNETT J:
PRELIMINARY

1. In this matter and on the 26^th April 2021 the Court made final parenting orders by consent. Orders numbered 18 to 23 inclusive were made by consent of the parties but without the Applicant father admitting the necessity for the making of the orders.

2. The final parenting orders were in respect of the Applicant and the First Respondent’s child X who was born in 2017.

3. The parties to the litigation were the child’s father, mother, maternal great-grandmother, the Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice and the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

4. The parties jointly requested the Court deliver these reasons to contain only a brief summary of part of the evidence of Ms F as set out in her updated report, that evidence being unchallenged. Ms F, a registered psychologist, was the single expert in the proceeding. Her updated report was tendered in evidence. It is dated 25 April 2021. That report was of great assistance to the Court and to the parties, the parties having read such report prior to the making of the consent orders.

5. Orders numbered 18 to 23 inclusive of the final parenting orders pertain directly to the Applicant father’s application for time spent with his daughter, X, and for communication had with his daughter. The orders as proposed by the First Respondent mother; the Second Respondent  maternal great grandmother; the Independent Children’s Lawyer, and the Intervener, the Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice provided for no time spent between X and her father, and no communication had between X and her father.

6. The Applicant father accepted that he was not in a position for the next approximately year and a half to spend time with and/or communicate with his daughter, but wished to do so thereafter. He advised the Court that he is booked to have a surgery in October 2021, and that he will require a period of rehabilitation thereafter. He ultimately agreed to consent to the making of the final parenting orders as proposed by the remaining four parties on an ‘without admissions’ basis in respect of orders 18 to 23 inclusive. That approach was suggested by the Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice and agreed to by each of the parties. Additionally the Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice proposed that the Court provide a brief summary of the matters raised in Ms F updated report which went to the prospect of the Applicant father being able to spend time and/or communicate with his daughter in the future. That is, to not be precluded from the issuing of a further application. The Court acceded to that request.

7. X is now 4 years of age. Her mother, Ms Wakeford, was born in 1996 and is now aged 24 years. Ms Wakeford accepts that she is unable to care for her daughter. She supports her maternal great-grandmother being the person with whom X should reside and the person whom should have sole parental responsibility for X.

8. X’s father, Mr Hambleden was born in 1973 and is now aged 47 years. He has never seen his daughter, X, and his application was directed to spending time with and/or communicating with her.

9. The maternal great-grandmother of X, who is her current carer, is Ms Rayhill. Her date of birth is in 1957, and she is aged 63 years.

10. The Secretary of the Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) became an intervener in these proceedings on 18 June 2020.

11. Ms F’s appointment as the single expert witness was made by order of the Court on 19 February 2019. Ms F prepared an initial report which is not canvassed here. In her updated report of 25 April 2021, Ms F noted that, for the purposes of the updated report, she assessed only Mr Hambleden and Ms Rayhill. Circumstances had changed since the making of her previous report. Ms Wakeford no longer had the primary care of X, and nor did Ms Wakeford seek such care.  During the earlier assessment conducted by Ms F, neither Mr Hambleden nor Ms Rayhill were interviewed.  Ms F did not therefore observe the child X with either Mr Hambleden or Ms Rayhill. For the purposes of her report dated 25 April 2021, Ms F determined that it would be inappropriate for Mr Hambleden to be observed with X, given that the father and child had never met.  To that extent, it was Ms F’s view that “it would not add valuable information to the assessment”.

12. By the time of the updated report of 25 April 2021, X had been living with Ms Rayhill since July 2020, when by Court order, X commenced to reside with her maternal great-grandmother at the recommendation of the Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice.  Ms Rayhill had joined the proceeding as Second named Respondent to achieve that outcome.  Ms Rayhill had been asked to join the proceeding by the Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice in an effort to stop X from entering foster care.  Ms Rayhill is, as agreed by each of the parties to the proceeding, and in the expert opinion of Ms F, the person with whom X should live, and the person who should have sole parental responsibility for X.  Ms Rayhill has in the past, and will continue, pursuant to the orders made on 26 April 2021, to make necessary arrangements that promote the best interests of X for X to spend time with her mother in an informal arrangement managed by Ms Rayhill. Additionally there will be time spent in accordance with the orders made by consent on 26 April 2021.

    MS HAWKINS REPORT DATED 25 APRIL 2021

13. The Applicant father made himself available for the purposes of the preparation of the updated single expert report of Ms F. The Applicant father advised Ms F that he was “seeking to meet, then establish a pattern of spending regular time with X.” At paragraph 57 of her report, Ms F set out the criminal history of, and police involvement with, Mr Hambleden. At trial there continued to be an apprehended violence order (AVO) in place for Ms Wakeford protection against Mr Hambleden. Ms F set out the extensive criminal history of Mr Hambleden. In paragraphs 58 to 64 inclusive of her report she noted the following:

    “58 The original subpoena material provided by ACT police outlines that Mr Hambleden has an extensive criminal history.  A perusal of his criminal history provided in 1991 indicates several juvenile charges, including consuming alcohol in a licenced premises and using false identification, theft (by three), and road and traffic charges included;  driving an unregistered motor vehicle, riding in a motor vehicle without authority, no third party.  He was placed on a 12 month good behaviour bond in 1991 (17 years old). 

    59 As an adult, Mr Hambleden’ significant criminal history continued in the ACT.  Charges obtained between 1994 and 1999 included;  offensive behaviour in a public place, common assault, commitment warrants (by three, i.e. taken into protective custody), breach of peace, breach of community service order, breach of domestic violence order, contravene restraining order, destroy and trespass on property, theft (by two) and driving related offences;  driving with excess prescribed concentration of alcohol.  He was sentenced and incarcerated for 12 months in August 1998 for AVO breaches.  He was incarcerated for three months in 1999 and then placed on an 18-month good behaviour bond and six month supervision order. 

    60 The subpoena material provided by New South Wales police continues Mr Hambleden’ extensive criminal history and dates between 2012 and 2018.  Charges include stalking and intimidation (by two), entering a building with intent to commit an offence, contravening AVOs (by five), breach of bail (by five), common assault (by two), assault occasioning bodily harm.  AVOs were obtained within New South Wales against Mr Hambleden from multiple victims (including Ms Wakeford), and he was found to consistently breach the conditions, as well as making fabricated complaints to police in relation to the victims.  Mr Hambleden was also accused of sexually assaulting a woman diagnosed with an intellectual disability (although no formal charges appear to have been laid). 

    61 The subpoena material from Queensland police covers 2014.  The multiple occurrences with Mr Hambleden throughout include AVO applications (by 10), AVO contraventions (by eight), serious assault (by one), assault causing bodily harm (by one), offences against the person’s life (times one), drug possession (times one, cannabis), trespassing (by one), stealing (by one), burglary, with breaking (by one) resisting arrest (by three), public nuisance offences (by two). 

    62 The provided subpoena material from Vic police ranges between 2008 and 2017.  Occurrences involving Mr Hambleden include possession of amphetamine, drunk and disorderly in public place, AVO (by two, one of which was for Ms Wakeford’s protection). 

    63 Updated police subpoena material spans 2019 and 2020.  This indicates that since our last meeting, Mr Hambleden has been charged with breaching AVO conditions by two.  Two further AVOs have been obtained by various women for protection against Mr Hambleden.  In 2020 Mr Hambleden was charged with refusing to comply with police orders, resisting arrest and swearing at police whilst intoxicated.  Seven other police incidents (but no charges) were also listed in 2002.  Records were not provided for dates after September 2002.”

1. The list of breach of bail charges tendered in evidence in the proceeding from the New South Wales police force indicated that the Applicant father was arrested for breach of bail on eight occasions between April 2016 and July 2019.  As was said by Ms F in paragraph 64 of her report, relevantly, “the length and breadth of his criminal history suggests strong antisocial characteristics, including a proclivity to violence that has been longstanding.”

2. The Applicant father sustained a traumatic brain injury (TBI) after being hit by a bus in either in 2004 (as he indicated to Ms F) or at a date sometime thereafter. His criminal history, as can be seen above, commenced before the accident wherein he sustained his TBI. Whatever the cause, the evidence is such that the Applicant father has suffered from difficulties relating to his cognitive capacity, impulse control, decision-making, planning deficits, and mood regulation issues over a substantial period.

3. The Applicant father’s lengthy history of alcohol misuse and substance abuse was also canvassed by Ms F in her report commencing at paragraph 69. Mr Hambleden advised Ms F that, since February 2020, he has attended Alcoholics anonymous (AA) meetings. He has maintained his sobriety whilst also completing the MERIT program, and undertaken weekly drug and alcohol tests. Ms F noted documentation which indicated successful completion by Mr Hambleden of the MERIT program. She did not, however, have available to her the results of drug and alcohol testing to verify that outcome. Mr Hambleden acknowledged to her one lapse in his consumption of alcohol, wherein he drank alcohol in December 2020. He further acknowledged one lapse with cannabis use. He used cannabis in about July 2020. Ms F referred in her report to the discharge summary of 26 August 2020 provided by Ms G. The summary indicated that Mr Hambleden had remained abstinent from alcohol and methamphetamines for 10 of the 13 week treatment period during the course of 2020. Mr Hambleden advised Ms F that he was also currently attending Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meetings regularly. Mr Hambleden had experienced significant difficulties with the cessation of his methamphetamine use. He estimated that around August 2020, he was ingesting methamphetamine every other day, drinking alcohol daily, and smoking cannabis. He self-rated his methamphetamine use was causing him the greatest concern at the time, and that he had been using methamphetamines since around 25 years of age. Ms F concluded that Mr Hambleden, during the course of her interview with him, minimised the breadth and length of his substance-use issues during interview, by reference to the material provided and available to her, to assist her preparation of the report.

4. In paragraph 72 of her report, Ms F noted that historical information within the Queensland Department of Child Services material indicated that Mr Hambleden had a “drug problem, including smoking marijuana.”  As part of the casework plan for his eldest daughter, Ms H, now aged 13 years, Mr Hambleden was requested to undertake random drug and alcohol screens, however, no evidence was before Ms F of that occurring.  Material provided by various State and Territory police departments listed multiple occasions where Mr Hambleden was taken into protective custody; arrested for breach of the peace; and/or perpetrated assaults and breached AVO conditions all due to being intoxicated.

5. Ms F, in paragraph 73 of her report, acknowledged that Mr Hambleden’ recent abstinence from drugs and alcohol and the emerging insight he appeared to have gained whilst not using alcohol.  She noted, however, :-

   This is only a recent change.  He has also minimised his elicit substance abuse, which raises concern about his insight and the risk of relapse.  Given the length of his misuse of drugs and alcohol, and the associated antisocial behaviours that have accompanied his intoxication, I would be cautious in placing much weight on the changes and would still consider him a high-risk for relapse.  Mr Hambleden will need to demonstrate at least three years of sustained abstinence (reinforced with urinalysis testing and continued engagement in AA/NA groups) before his risk of relapse could be reduced to moderate.  Additionally, given his acknowledgement that, due to his TBI, the impact of alcohol is exacerbated, any testing should take this into account.  He would also benefit from additional drug and alcohol counselling.

6. Ms F had a brief interview with Ms C, family and relationship practitioner at K Services and case manager for Mr Hambleden.  Ms C advised Ms F that Mr Hambleden had been engaged with K Services since November 2020, and that he had completed, or is currently completing, parenting courses, including the “parents under pressure” program, which focuses on managing strong emotions, identifying parenting values and understanding the limitations of his own self-regulation.  Ms C had been providing Mr Hambleden with:  individual support to provide parenting support strategies to manage stress; Court support; and assistance in progressing his NDIS application.  Ms C advised that the service would remain engaged for as long as Mr Hambleden felt it was needed.  Ms C suggested that, in addition to the support Mr Hambleden was receiving through K Services and AA, he would also benefit from counselling related to his alcohol misuse.

7. Ms F did observe some positive aspects to Mr Hambleden’ presentation.  She said as to those matters, in paragraph 97 of her report, relevantly, the following:

   (97) He should be encouraged to continue his abstinence, medication compliance and improved relationship with Ms J [his adult daughter].  Despite these improvements, it must be acknowledged that there has not been enough time yet for any of these changes to be viewed as behavioural evidence of sustained change.  He appears to be on a more positive path, however, his extensive criminal history (including multiple physical and sexual assaults, AVOs obtained for others’ protection, and repeated breaches of these), history of poor engagement whith Child Protective Services, and poor engagement with treatment providers or services in the past, cannot be ignored.  In the previous assessment, I noted that even if any time arranged with X was to be supervised with strict undertakings, he has shown a history of non-compliance with AVO, parole or bail conditions, which suggested he could not be relied upon to adhere to any conditions laid out by the Court, or supervising agency.  

   (98) Further, he has a long, documented history of utilising aggression towards police and other authorities, which raises a risk issue for both X, but also any worker/agency that may be recruited to provide supervised time with X.  In addition, while positive changes in Mr Hambleden’ personal circumstances are noted, his parenting capacity remains a concern, in that he is unable to provide a sound understanding of his children’s needs, showed poor insight into their emotional functioning and the impact of his behaviour upon them, nor did he have a good understanding of child development and age-appropriate expectations of X.  It remains my view that at this current time, Mr Hambleden will need to demonstrate a more sustained pattern of positive change (ie, a minimum of three years abstinence and no new police incidences), before consideration should be given to allowing X to meet or spend any form of time with Mr Hambleden (even via phone).  This is based primarily on the risk which remains high, that Mr Hambleden may relapse or not sustain the positive progress long-term, and it is unfair to X to start any relationship with him, if he is unable to sustain it.  I do, however, think it will be appropriate for Mr Hambleden to be allowed to send letters to X (to be monitored by Ms Rayhill) to assist in any potential future relationship building opportunities and for identity purposes.

   (99) In interview, Mr Hambleden acknowledged a history of illicit substance abuse and longstanding issues with alcohol abuse, including multiple alcohol-related offences and reports to DCJ that his drug and alcohol use was deemed as a significant risk in relation to his parenting.  I recognise Mr Hambleden claims to have remained abstinent for the past five months, and this does appear to have improved his psychosocial circumstances, however, his risk of relapse remains very high.  His historical use provides an indication that he remains psychologically vulnerable, and his underdeveloped and/or maladaptive coping skills.   As such, Mr Hambleden will continue to benefit from the support he is accessing through AA and NA, in assisting him in understanding his triggers from substance use, relapse and lapse prevention plan, and building adaptive coping strategies that he can utilise, moving forward. 

8. Under the heading, The Parties’ Attitudes to the Responsibilities and Duties of Parenthood, Ms F said, relevantly:

   Mr Hambleden has not been afforded the opportunity to demonstrate his parenting ability for X to date, and I recognise that he has pursued the matter for four years, including seeking a paternity test.  This is to his credit.  Despite this, Mr Hambleden has not demonstrated sufficient or consistent parenting to any of his children, and should be required to demonstrate sustained personal change, prior to been given the opportunity to establish a relationship with X.

9. Under the heading, Recommendations, Ms F said at 4 and 5 therein:

   (4) Mr Hambleden should continue to engage with case management through K Services and should aim to demonstrate increased ability in the following ways, over the next two years:  (a) Mr Hambleden is to remain engaged with AA and NA support groups;  (b) Mr Hambleden to demonstrate sustained abstinence from alcohol and illicit substances;  (c) Mr Hambleden to demonstrate improved behaviour and emotional regulation through by not coming to police attention or obtaining any new charges;  (d) Mr Hambleden to meaningfully engage in any parenting program recommended by K Services and/or DCJ;  (e) Mr Hambleden should meaningfully engage with drug and alcohol counselling, to address his alcohol abuse, solidifying his relapse prevention strategies, and continue to improve his coping skills and anxiety management, without resorting to alcohol or illicit drug use.  Such treatment could be provided through B Services; (f) Mr Hambleden to meet with DCJ and follow any of their recommendations. 

   (5) If Mr Hambleden is able to demonstrate stability based on the above over the next two years, only then should any consideration be given to him, meeting or spending any time with X.

10. The Applicant father understood the recommendations of the single expert as set out above. His intent was to continue on the positive path recently adopted by him with a view to being in a position, in years hence, to have some form of contact and/or communication with X. He accepted that was not possible presently.

24          I certify that the preceding twenty-three (23) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Hartnett.

Associate:       

Dated:       20 May 2021