Heaton and Heaton

[2016] FCCA 1740

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HEATON & HEATON [2016] FCCA 1740

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Interim decision – whether Father should spend unsupervised time with children.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.60CC, 61DA, 62G(2), 65DAA, 69Z

Cases cited:

Eaby & Speelman [2015] FamCAFC 104

Godfrey & Sanders [2007] FamCA 102

Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346

Mazorski & Albright [2007] FamCA 520

McCall &Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92

Tait & Densmore [2007] FamCA 1383

Applicant: MR HEATON

Respondent: MS HEATON

File Number: MLC 8984 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Jones

Hearing date: 5 May 2016

Date of Last Submission: 5 May 2016

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 5 May 2016

REPRESENTATION

Solicitor Advocate for the Applicant: Mr De Alwis

Solicitors for the Applicant: Aitken Partners

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Brookes

Solicitors for the Respondent: Moores

Solicitor Advocate for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Casey

Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Victoria Legal Aid

ORDERS

UNTIL FURTHER ORDER:

1. Interim property Orders are made in terms of minutes dated 5 May 2016, marked “Exhibit A” and placed on the Court file.

2. The solicitors for the Applicant send a clean, certified copy of these Orders within 7 days by email in word format to following email address: (omitted).

3. The transcript of the Applicant’s viva voce evidence given in Court on 4 May 2016 be released to the parties.

4. Paragraph 18 of the Orders made on 22 May 2015 be discharged.

5. Commencing 14 May 2016, the children X born (omitted) 2002, Y born (omitted) 2003, Z born (omitted) 2004 and W born (omitted) 2006 (“the children”) spend time with the Father as follows:

   (a)each Saturday from 9:45am until 1:45pm, subject to the following:

   (i)the paternal Grandfather and the paternal Grandmother shall supervise all such time spent for the first four (4) Saturdays and shall thereafter be in substantial attendance; and

   (ii)the paternal Grandparents each give a written and signed undertaking to the Court, a copy of which is to be provided to the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) and the Mother’s solicitors that:

   1.   they will supervise and be in substantial attendance in accordance with Order 5(a)(i);

   2.   they have read these Orders and the Orders made on 22 May 2015 and understand the obligations therein;

   3.   in the event that any one of the children appears distressed or the Father engages in physical discipline of any one of the children, they will immediately inform the Mother and deliver the children to (omitted) for collection by the Mother; and

   4.   in the event they hear or are made aware by any one of the children that the Father is discussing these proceedings or making denigrating comments about the Mother, they shall cease the time spend, immediately inform the Mother and deliver the children to (omitted) for collection by the Mother; and

   (b)if the Father decides to utilise the services of a professional supervisor, he may spend additional time of one day each week with the children at a time convenient to the professional supervisor and after school during the school term or during the day during school holidays for a period not exceeding four (4) hours during school term or six (6) hours during school holidays, provided only:

   (i)the Father informs the ICL of the name and contact details of the proposed supervisor and the ICL approves of the proposed professional supervisor undertaking the supervision;

   (ii)the Father informs the Mother no less than 72 hours before the proposed time spend of the date and time by text message;

   (iii)the proposed spend time does not interfere with an extra-curricular activity, a school camp or a journey during the holidays the Mother has already arranged with the children;

   (iv)changeover for this time spend only occur at a McDonald’s nearest to (omitted) in the State of Victoria, with the professional supervisor to supervise the changeover; and

   (v)the Father provides the proposed supervisor with a copy of these Orders; and

   (c)the ICL is authorised to communicate with the approved professional supervisor.

6. Changeovers for the purpose of Order 5(a) shall occur at (omitted).

7. The Father attend upon a clinical Psychologist as nominated by the ICL for the purposes of addressing issues raised in the Psychological Report of the Father prepared by Dr K on 27 July 2015, and for the purpose of assessment and preparation of a report.

8. The ICL provide the said Psychologist referred to in Order 7 herein with copies of Dr K of both the Mother and the Father dated 27 July 2015 and a copy of the Family Report dated 8 May 2015.

9. Each party be restrained by injunction from posting on social media or other electronic means any information, photographs or any details relating to the children, the other party and these proceedings, or allowing any third person to do so.

10. The Father be restrained by injunction from contacting the children or any of them by any means whatsoever, including via the internet, electronic means, the telephone directly or by telephone through the school or allowing any third person to do so.

11. The Father and/or his agents be restrained from making any contact or engaging in any communication with the Mother’s workplace for the purpose of discussing these proceedings.

12. The Father be restrained by injunction from attending the children’s school.

13. The Mother shall provide a copy of these Orders to the children’s school.

14. Pursuant to section 62G(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 the parties and the children of the relationship attend upon a family consultant nominated by the Dispute Resolution Coordinator of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on a date and at time/s to be advised for the purpose of the preparation of an updated family report, such report to be released by 29 August 2016.

15. The family report should address the following matters:

    (a)any views expressed by the children and any factors (such as the children’s maturity or level of understanding) that would affect the weight that the Court should place on those wishes;

    (b)the matters set out in ss.60CC, 61DA and 65DAA of the Family Law Act 1975; and

    (c)any other matters that the Family Consultant considers important to the welfare or best interests of the children.

16. Leave is granted to the Family Report Writer to inspect subpoenaed documents in this matter.

17. The Independent Children’s Lawyer be authorised to provide the Family Consultant with all relevant reports.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLC 8984 of 2014

MR HEATON

Applicant

And

MS HEATON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript)

Introduction

1. This is a decision regarding interim parenting arrangements for four children, X born (omitted) 2002 (“X”), Y born (omitted) 2003 (“Y”), Z born (omitted) 2004 (“Z”) and W born (omitted) 2006 (“W”), (collectively, “the children”).

2. The Mother is Ms Heaton and the Father is Mr Heaton. The Father is the Applicant in these proceedings.

3. As this is an interim hearing, the Court is to be guided by the principles established by the Full Court of the Family Court in Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346 (“Goode & Goode”), and I refer to those principles briefly.

4. In making interim decisions, a Court will often be faced with conflicting facts, little helpful evidence and disputes between the parents as to what constitutes the best interests of the children. However, there is a legislative pathway established by the Full Court of the Family Court, which must be followed. In an interim case, this involves identifying the competing proposals of the parties, identifying the issues in dispute in the interim hearing, identifying any agreed or uncontested relevant facts, considering the matters in s.60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”) that are relevant and, if possible, making findings about them, noting, however, that in interim proceedings there may be little uncontested evidence to enable more than a limited consideration of these matters to take place, then deciding whether the presumption in s.61DA of the Act, 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.

5. In this interim proceeding, I have decided that I shall not make such an Order. Nevertheless, in the absence of Orders, equal shared parenting responsibility applies. 

6. In this case there are many disputed facts and allegations, however, there is, before the Court, documentary material which I will refer to, together with expert reports. 

7. In Goode & Goode at [68], the Full Court of the Family Court said that the circumscribed nature of interim hearings means that the Court should not be drawn into issues of fact or matters relating to the merits of the substantive case, where the findings are not possible. In a decision of the Full Court of the Family Court in Eaby & Speelman [2015] FamCAFC 104, the Full Court said that:

   18.    ...that does not mean that merely because the facts are in dispute the evidence on the topic must be disregarded, and the case determined solely by reference to the agreed facts. Rather, the proper approach to contentious matters of fact in the determination of interim hearings is as explained in Marvel v Marvel, at [122] and [123], as follows:

   [122] In SS v AH [2010] FamCAFC 13 the majority ... discussed at [88] of their reasons the care necessary to be exercised in making findings in interim parenting proceedings. Their Honours said:

   [88]  In our view, findings made at an interim hearing should be couched with great circumspection, no matter how firmly a judge’s intuition may suggest that the finding will be borne out after a full testing of the evidence.

   [123] Later, at [100] their Honours amplified their comments and said:

   [100]    The intuition involved in decision-making concerning children is arguably of even greater importance when a judge is obliged to make interim decisions following a hearing at which time constraints prevent the evidence being tested.  Apart from relying upon the uncontroversial or agreed facts, a judge will sometimes have little alternative than to weigh the probabilities of competing claims and the likely impact on children in the event that a controversial assertion is acted upon or rejected.  It is not always feasible when dealing with the immediate welfare of children simply to ignore an assertion because its accuracy has been put in issue.

   19.    As would be immediately apparent, this approach enables the court to appropriately and carefully deal with contentious issues relevant to the welfare of the child, and for those issues to not be ignored.

8. In this decision, I have adopted that approach.

9. Firstly, turning to the material considered, there are a large number of affidavits and documents filed, but the ones I have had particular regard to are:

   a)for the Applicant (the Father):

   i)his affidavit filed on 26 November 2015 and the viva voce evidence that he gave on 4 May 2016, to enable him to respond to the Mother’s affidavit, which was filed on 4 May 2016;

   ii)two exhibits tendered by the Father:

   (1)Exhibit F1 was an email exchange between Ms S from (omitted) College and the Father, commencing on 14 April 2016; and

   (2)Exhibit F2 is a certificate of completion of a parenting course by the Father, dated 16 June 2015; and

   b)for the Mother, (the Respondent):

   i)her affidavit filed on 4 May 2016; and

   ii)Exhibit M1, which is an extract from documents produced on subpoena by (omitted) College, and in particular a document that is headed ‘Incident #5270’ and is written or recorded by Ms S. 

10. There are also a Family Report and other expert reports.  Firstly, there are the two reports by Dr K, who is a clinical and forensic Psychologist, in relation to the Mother and the Father following Orders of this Court.  Dr K’s report, following an assessment of the Mother, is dated 28 July 2015 and his report, following an assessment of the Father, is dated 27 July 2015.  There is also a Family Report prepared by, then, Family Consultant Mr S, dated 8 May 2015.  I say “then”, because Mr S has since retired.

11. There is also, in the Court file, a Department of Human Services (“the Department”) report prepared pursuant to s.69Z of the Act, a response to a notice of risk, which is undated, but to the best of my ability, having examined the Order that released that report and the time period it was talking about, it was likely prepared around May 2015.

12. There is another report prepared by the Berry Street Children’s Contact Service regarding supervised visits between the children and the Father, over the period 20 December 2015 to 10 April 2016.  The report was filed on 28 April 2016 by affidavit of Ms M, an employee of that organisation.

Parties’ Proposed Orders

1. The Father proposes Orders for equal shared parental responsibility, that the children live with the Mother and that the children spend time with him commencing this Monday, 9 May 2016, each Tuesday from the conclusion of school until 7.30pm, each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school on Friday to the commencement of school on Monday and any other time as agreed between the parties.  There is an alternative proposal, which is that the children spend time with the Father, commencing 9 May 2016, each Tuesday from the conclusion of school to 7.30pm, each Friday from the conclusion of school until 10pm, each Sunday from 10am until 7pm and other times as agreed in writing.  He seeks an Order that, if the Mother is unavailable to care for the children due to work or other commitments, that he have first right of refusal to care for the children.  The next Order is that the Father’s time with the children occur at the Father’s parents’ residence.  This flows from the fact that that is where he lives presently and has done so since separation.  Then there are Orders that relate to the signing of authorities to enable both parties to authorise the school to provide various documents; liberty for the Father to attend the children’s school for parent/teacher interviews, concerts, special events to which parents are normally invited; there are Orders about keeping each other informed in case of illness and following the recommendations of the medical practitioners, providing authorisations for health practitioners treating the children to communicate with the parents, liberty for the Father to attend all appointments and that a Family Consultant Report be prepared other than by Mr S.

2. The Mother’s proposed minutes are that the Father’s time with the children be supervised by a professional supervisor, and I assume, although it is not specified, for a similar time to that which occurred at the Berry Street Children’s Contact Service in (omitted).  She also seeks permission that the parties be permitted to provide copies of documents from these proceedings to any Court in relation to an Intervention Order matter between the parties;  that the Father attend on a further psychological assessment and report by Dr K; that there be a further updated Family Report; and that there be some amendments to the Orders made on 22 May 2015, so that Order 14, which authorises the Father to obtain documents and so forth from the school, be discharged and replaced with an Order that he be permitted to obtain from the school a copy of any reports of the children and/or any school newsletters.  I interpolate here, as I understand it, this arises out of the Father’s attempts during April 2016 to enter into the children’s school’s portal.  There is also a proposal that Order 11 of the Orders made on 22 May 2015 be amended to oblige the Mother to notify the Father about any serious illnesses or injuries only.  She seeks an Order restraining the Father from attending at or within 200 metres of her residence and/or workplace; restraining the Father from approaching or remaining within five metres of the Mother or the children, except as provided for in Orders; and the Father be restrained from attending at the school, except as provided for in family law Orders; and the Father also be restrained from accessing the children’s school’s portal. There are also restraints proposed in relation to the Father posting on social media or any other electronic means, photographs or videos of the children or the Mother and/or any information relating to the children and the Mother.  There is also a proposal restraining the Father from contacting the children by telephone, email or social media, through the school or any other means, other than as provided for in the Court’s Orders; and that the Father be restrained from contacting the Mother, except through her solicitors, unless otherwise provided in the Orders. 

3. The Independent Children’s Lawyer’s (“ICL”) proposals are as follows: 

   a)that the children spend time with the Father each Saturday from 9.45am to 1.45pm;

   b)that the paternal Grandfather and paternal Grandmother be in substantial attendance during all such time spent;

   c)that there be undertakings given by the paternal Grandparents to be in substantial attendance;

   d)that changeover occur at the Berry Street Children’s Contact Service , (omitted); and

   e)the Father attend upon a clinical psychologist as nominated by the ICL for the purpose of addressing issues raised in the report of Dr K and for assessment and report, and that the ICL be permitted to provide said psychologist with various reports, including copies of Dr K’s report and the Family Report of Mr S.

4. The ICL then proposes restraints in the same way that is proposed by the Mother, in terms of postings on social media and restraints on the Father from contacting the children or any of them directly by phone or by phone through the school.  There is an Order that the Mother provide the school with a copy of these Orders, there is a proposal that the Father be restrained by injunction from attending the children’s school and a proposed Order that the ICL provide the family consultant, for the purpose of an updated Family Report, all relevant reports.

Issues in Dispute

1. Essentially, there are two main issues in dispute:

   a)what time the Father should spend with the children until my decision, which follows from the final hearing listed for 26 to 28 September 2016; and

   b)whether or not the time should be supervised.

Agreed Facts and Background

1. The Mother is 37 years old.  She was born on (omitted) 1978 and works full time, as a (omitted) at the (omitted).  The Father is 40 years of age.  He was born on (omitted) 1976 and works full time as a (omitted).  The parties married and commenced cohabitation on (omitted) 1998. They were separated on 10 January 2014 and were divorced, which divorce was made effective on 1 November 2015.  The parties lived together for around 16 years.  After separation, the Mother remained in the former matrimonial home and, as I have indicated, the Father moved into the paternal Grandparents’ home. 

2. X, Y and Z are diagnosed as having high-functioning Autistic Spectrum Disorder.  There is some question mark regarding W.  I will not deal with that now.  Until the making of an Interim Intervention Order, which I will shortly come to, the Father spent time after separation with the children during the day around three times a week. 

3. The Father was, in 2014, charged by police with nine counts of reckless conduct endangering life or serious injury with respect to the children, and one count of threat to kill in relation to the Mother.  The incidents, the subject of these charges, occurred over Christmas 2013 to January 2014 and in relation to the Mother in June 2014.  In June 2014, the Mother applied for and was granted an Interim Intervention Order with the Mother and the children as affected family members.  There was, on 8 December 2014, by consent, an Order requiring the parties to apply for time to be spent by the Father with the children at the Berry Street Children’s Contact Service since 22 May 2015 the Father has been permitted by Court Orders to communicate and spend time with the children, supervised at a professional children’s contact centre.

Expert and Other Reports

1. The Department of Health and Human Services stated in its report (p.1):

   On the 25/07/2014, a report was received by the Department raising concerns regarding the children being exposed to and the victim of ongoing violence perpetrated by Mr Heaton.  It was reported that on three separate occasions Mr Heaton had assaulted the children by choking them until they were crying and bright red, cutting heads of birds in front of the children and attending Ms Heaton’s workplace and making threats.

   On the 15/08/14 interviews of all children were carried out by (omitted) Sexual Offences Child Abuse Investigation Team (SOCIT).  Throughout the interviews, all four children disclosed that they had either been a victim of, or a witness to family violence perpetrated by Mr Heaton towards Z, Y and W.  Whilst talking about these incidents, the children presented as extremely upset, this was displayed through crying and on occasions requesting that the interviews were terminated.

   On the 28/08/2014 a formal interview of Mr Heaton was conducted at the (omitted) DHHS Office, whereby Mr Heaton denied all allegations made against him.

   In light of all the information retrieved throughout the Investigation, the Children’s cases were substantiated under Section 162 of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 due to concerns pertaining to the children being the victim of physical and emotional harm.

   It was then noted that the children’s file was closed but it had been:

   ...assessed that the children had suffered from significant physical, psychological and emotional harm. 

   Reference was made to the Interim Intervention Order obtained by Ms Heaton, preventing Mr Heaton from having contact with the children, and therefore, Ms Heaton being assessed as acting protectively, and also that Ms Heaton later arranged for the children to be engaged in counselling. 

2. Then there was a note of a further report received by the Department on 8 December 2014.  In relation to that report, via a Form 4 Notice of Child Abuse and Family Violence, the Department said, in respect of its interviews with the children:

   In the interviews carried out with the children, discussions around the (sic) Mr Heaton took place.  It is noted that W stated that he would be happy to see his father and that the reason why contact with him had ceased was due to Mr Heaton being ‘mean’!  X stated he was unsure about how he would feel if he were to have contact with Mr Heaton.  When attempts were made to talk with Y and Z, they both appeared to become withdrawn and upset.  Z stated that he did not wish to talk about Mr Heaton, whilst Y also refused, however he also at one point stated that he wanted to cry.

3. It was noted that the Department invited Mr Heaton to engage in an interview, which he refused, on the basis that he “felt that he had been wrongly treated in the previous Investigation” and “that he would rather speak with Independent Children’s Lawyer rather than the Department”.  The Department then noted that there had been received two L17 Family Violence reports about Mr Heaton driving past the family home, in breach of the Intervention Order.  The Department commented, and I quote:

   This indicates that Mr Heaton continues to lack insight into his behaviour.

4. The Department recommended Mr Heaton attend a men’s behavioural change program, which he has done, and that for W to attend sessions with their Psychologist, for Mr Heaton to adhere to the current Intervention Order, to attend a parenting program and that any future contact by Mr Heaton with the children be supervised.

5. The next report in this process was a Family Report prepared by Mr S, dated 8 May 2015. I note that this report was prepared in the context of the criminal charges and the pending trial, and the existence of an Interim Intervention Order.  These facts have subsequently changed.  In summary, Mr S reported all children, except X, missing their Father and wanting to see him, but all described severe disciplinary action meted out to the children by the Father when they were interviewed.  Mr S noted the father acknowledged he engaged in inappropriate disciplinary practices but did not see this as abuse. Mr S opined that, in a context where the Father has attended a men’s behavioural change program, his failure to accept misconduct towards the children as abuse and its impact on the children showed, in his view, a lack of insight by the Father.

6. The next part of the background is that, on 22 May 2015, consent Orders were made that the Father spend supervised time with the children at the Berry Street Children’s Contact Service upon that Centre receiving the Family Consultant’s report and Dr K’s report. The Orders required both parties to attend Dr K for psychiatric assessment and the Father to continue counselling with Mr L, a men’s and family relationship counsellor. There were also three other Orders that are relevant to these proceedings, in the sense that the Mother seeks to amend them, and they are paragraph 11, which says:

   The mother keep the father informed of any illness or injury occurring to the children which requires medical attention, such notice to be provided as soon as practicable and not more than 24 hours following the children’s attendance upon a medical practitioner.

   Paragraph 12 emerged in the course of the submissions made by the Applicant’s Counsel, which was a criticism of the Mother’s reaction at the contact centre to the Father providing the children with their presents, which were apparently electronic scooters.  The relevance of this is that this Order says:

   The father is permitted to deliver to the children by post or courier Christmas cards, birthday cards, letters and presents through the office of the independent children’s lawyer.

   The ICL was then authorised to inspect those to ensure that the content was appropriate.  The last one is Order 14 of those Orders, which states that:

   The mother authorise the schools attended by the children to provide the father with notices, newsletters, reports, photographs and other information normally provided to parents in relation to the children and authorise such body to communicate with the father about their progress.

   The issue that has arisen is what does “other information normally provided to parents” mean? This has arisen, because of the Father’s attempting to access the school’s portal in April 2016.

7. Turning now to Dr K’s report of the Mother and the Father, which were filed by the ICL on 12 October 2015.  I turn first to the report of the Mother, and there is little to say about that, save that the conclusion was, at [32] and [33] as follows:  

   [32]  Ms Heaton presents as a person without any formal disorder.  She presents as highly tolerant with a tendency towards being unassertive and self deprecatory.  She functions in the average range of intellectual abilities.  Personality evaluation revealed a well functioning person whose account can be taken at face value and who has sound emotional controls, who appears to have been affected within relationships and her functioning probably reflects recent difficulties in relationships.

   [33]  Clinical evaluation revealed a stable individual whose accounts can be taken at face value and who has the children’s interests at heart.  Assuming positive developments with the father, it is likely that she would support the relationship between the father and the children.  She is clearly able to care for the children independently from the father and would be cooperative in Family Court proceedings and orders.  She would benefit from ongoing counselling/support, and may be assisted by Court orders preventing violence to her or the children.

8. I turn now to the report of the Father, and the first part I intend to refer to is at [23] on page 13 of 39:

   With respect to his behaviour, Mr Heaton appears to have some limited insight into his behaviour, reporting that his shouting for example was not helpful but appears to have less empathy for the children even when confronted about the impact of shouting at the children.  Nevertheless, he accepts the children had a negative experience of shouting, however there was consistent minimisation referring to shouting as “raised voices” and then going on to say “I can’t say that they were scared”.

9. At page 17 of 39, having undergone a particular testing for a profile, Dr K said at [30]:

   In summary,  this is a profile of an individual who is likely suppressing his responding by a combination of conscious and less conscious defensiveness.  Nevertheless, there is a picture of an individual with high levels of interpersonal sensitivity and suspiciousness who may find it difficult in interpersonal relationships due to this trait.

10. It is important to note that Dr K referred to the collateral information that he had, and this is at [32]. He had read the statements by the children to Mr S and their comments about the behaviour of their Father towards them. At [33], Dr K says:

    ...was a person who in particular in the area of parenting, had difficulties dealing with the behaviour of the children.  The children had developmental issues and it is probable that this factor contributed to his difficulty with dealing with the children.

11. At [34] to [39], Dr K observes:

    [34]  More broadly however, there have been problems associated with Mr Heaton’s emotional and behavioural rigidity and a tendency towards a need for control in the relationship with the mother and this has also been reflected in his behaviour with the children.

    [35]  This evaluation revealed no formal personality disorder but rather personality characteristics that pre-dispose Mr Heaton to the above behaviour.  He is a person who has some difficulty at times seeing the impact of his behaviour on others, although has developed some insight into his behaviours within a relationship and has also undertaken some appropriate intervention to date, to address those issues.

    [36]  Nevertheless, the evaluation, in particular the personality evaluation by the MMPI-2, continued to show him as a person who is defensive, with a tendency to minimise his own behaviour, and as such his account in itself cannot be taken at face value.  He is a man who functions in the High Average range of intellectual abilities and this represents a strength for him.  He has some insight into his problems and an overall desire to improve his behaviour, and has sought out some treatment, but his actions and subsequent minimisation/justification suggests parental risks, and ongoing unresolved issues regarding his ex-partner.

    [37]  Parental risk assessment found him currently to be functioning in the Moderate risk domain with the likelihood of further parental and psychological intervention assisting in the risks identified, particularly related to the parenting issues.

    [38]  While considering the issues with the children, I would suggest there needs to be a graduated process up to the point of unsupervised time over the next 12 months, with initial contact with another adult in supervision and then in substantial attendance and then moving over to unsupervised time, assuming positive development of time between the children and the father, and his treatment. 

    [39]  Additionally, the father requires the following:

    a)ongoing psychological assistance with experienced clinical psychologists over the next 2 years to address the above issues, in particular parental issues and the dealings with his ex-partner.  It is likely that 2 separate clinicians be involved or 2 services, with him dealing with the parenting skills/approach separately from personal and impulse/anger control issues.  A group anger management approach is also appropriate.  Positive development should be linked to time with the children.

12. Since these reports, the following has occurred:

    a)On 10 November 2015, all criminal charges were struck-out/withdrawn by the (omitted) Magistrates’ Court, and the certified extracts in relation to this are contained in Annexure H1 to the Father’s affidavit filed on 26 November 2015;

    b)The Father commenced supervised visits at the Berry Street Children’s Contact Service with the children pursuant to Court Orders;

    c)On 13 April 2016, the Final Intervention Order application, which was now being made by the police on behalf of the Mother, was dismissed by the Magistrates’ Court.  The Father’s viva voce evidence was that there was a finding that there was family violence towards the children, but the Magistrate was not satisfied there were ongoing risks, given the courses the Father had undertaken; and

    d)The Father also gave viva voce evidence that he has attended on his counsellor, Mr L, on a weekly basis.  He said there were two reports, but, as I understand them, they are not of recent origin.  It is apparent that he has not seen the two clinicians that were recommended by Dr K.

13. I should note, to complete the picture, it appears that the Father has been charged with breaching the Interim Intervention Order and a mention has been listed for today. 

Best Interests of the Children: s.60CC of the Act

1. I will consider those matters specified under s.60CC of the Act, which are relevant to these interim proceedings. The primary considerations are set out in s.60CC(2) of the Act. Section 60CC(2)(a) of the Act concerns the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents. I am satisfied, to the extent that I can be, that the children would benefit from having a meaningful relationship with both parents. The report from the Berry Street Children’s Contact Service is, in my view, a positive report about the interactions between the Father and the children. There is a sense of warmth, love and comfortableness between the Father and the children. There was one incident of inappropriate behaviour, which seems to have affected X, who is the oldest child, somewhat, about the Father saying out of the hearing of the person supervising, a reference to the fact he did not punch someone. I do not know what that means. But other than that I have to say that it was a positive report.

2. It is important to remember, because it is something that parents do not understand, that the notion of a meaningful relationship is not a quantitative concept.  It is a qualitative concept, and this is established in Mazorski & Albright [2007] FamCA 520 at [26]. In Godfrey & Sanders [2007] FamCA 102 at [36], Kay J, who was dealing with a “relocation case”, said:

   Even if the move results in a diminution of quality of the relationship, what the legislation aspires to promote is a meaningful relationship, not an optimal relationship.

   This was endorsed by the Full Court in McCall &Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92. The concept of “meaningful” was described by Cronin J in Tait & Densmore [2007] FamCA 1383, in a way that is helpful for parents to bear in mind:

   [170]    … To be a meaningful relationship, it must be healthy, worthwhile and advantageous to the child.  Those adjectives mean that children need their parents to lead by example about self-discipline.  Children need to learn to develop the ability to relate with others.  They need to learn about the privileges and responsibility which will devolve upon them as parents.  Those are fundamental parts of the meaningful relationship.  The responsibilities of parents are to give the children a chance to be part of a family albeit in two households where they can have a feeling of being wanted and appreciated.

3. Of course, s.60CC(2)(a) of the Act is subject to s.60CC(2)(b) of the Act, which is about the need to protect the children from physical and psychological harm, from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence. The Father’s viva voce evidence was that he believes there should be no concern for the safety of the children in his unsupervised care. As I have noted, Dr K opined there was a moderate risk without intensive counselling. The focus has, in the reports, been on what was alleged to have been physical harm to the children, but, in fact, the risk of harm that, in my view, is the relevant risk in this case, is more likely to be psychological harm. I will return to this later when I deal with quite recent developments, post 13 April 2016.

4. The next consideration are the views expressed by the children, and the Father relies on the part of the report from the Berry Street Children’s Contact Service at page 21 of 25, which I will now quote:

   Mr Heaton said, “As it’s coming up to Easter do you guys pray together or have you stopped doing that?”

   I should note here that the parents are devout Christians. The report goes on, stating:

   Y said, “I might pray tonight, let’s do it tonight.”  Mr Heaton said, “Is there anything you want to pray for?”  Y said, “To be able to see you again but not here dad.  I can pray for that.”  Mr Heaton said, “We can pray right now informally, together.  Do you want to start or me?”  Y said, “You start dad.”  Mr Heaton said, “Ok I will start.  Thank you that I get to see my sons and that they are healthy and fit and gorgeous.  They bring so much joy to my life.  Thanks for keeping me and them safe.  I ask your peace to rest on them all.  Does anyone have anything else they want to pray for?”  Y said, “I hope to see dad again at my home on my birthday and I hope to become a smart boy.  Please help me with this because I feel dumb.”  Mr Heaton said, “Y he knows you are a good kid and he sees you like how I see you,  anyone else”  Y said, “I am the only one who said something.”  X said he needed to go to the toilet and left the room. The others played with the Transformers.

5. Now, I accept that at least Y said, on behalf of the children, that they want to see their dad again.  Of course they do.  And I can accept that the children would prefer to see their dad outside of the contact centre.  That is a natural progression, especially when things have gone well.  So I accept that the children want to see their Father again, but not in the Berry Street Children’s Contact Service setting.  I am satisfied that, although the Mother has deposed to anxieties and difficulties that the children have been going through since the contact with the Father through the Berry Street Children’s Contact Service that Y expressed a view which was recorded independently, that he wants to see his Father again and not in the Berry Street Children’s Contact Service setting.  I am satisfied that this likely reflects the views of the other children and it was a view that was expressed by the children to Mr S - that they miss their dad and they do want to see him.  Although, I should say that I think X is probably the one who is more cautious about this.

6. As to the obligations to maintain their child, the Father pays child support, which is assessed by the Child Support Agency.  I am aware that there is a dispute about the Father providing money to assist in orthodontic treatment.  Other than the Child Support Assessment, I am not aware that the Father assists in maintaining the children.  That burden falls upon the Mother.

7. Section 60CC(3)(d) of the Act, which deals with the likely effect of any change in the children’s circumstances, is relevant to the proposals. The Father’s preferred proposal would involve significant change in living arrangements, in circumstances where the children are yet to have spent any overnight time with him since separation. I must say when I looked at the Father’s preferred proposal, it looked rather more like a Final Order proposal and wondered why the Father felt that it was an interim proposal he should put at all. It is an enormous jump, especially for children with special needs, and I can say that such changes would impact on them quite significantly. The alternative proposal is an agreement which existed for six months after separation. Thus, there has been a time where the children have spent daytime with their Father unsupervised.

8. The Mother’s proposal is for no change, to maintain the time the Father presently spends with the children, except supervised by a professional supervisor, not the Berry Street Children’s Contact Service The ICL proposes a small progress in time, but nevertheless a progress in time, and away from the Berry Street Children’s Contact Service.

1. I should note that, of course, the Father and the ICL’s proposals enable the children to spend time with their paternal Grandparents, which would be something that would be of benefit to the children.  As far as I can see, it is not disputed that the children have had a good relationship with the Grandparents.  I am fully aware that the Mother deposes that the Grandparents failed to protect the children when family violence occurred. Nevertheless, this is relevant in relation to the effect of changes on the children, that they would have the opportunity to spend regular time with the Father and their paternal Grandparents.

2. Section 60CC(3)(e) of the Act concerns the practical difficulty and expense. Obviously supervision by a professional, in the face of the Father’s amended Financial Statement filed on 26 November 2015, would place a strain on the Father, as I am aware that professional supervision is expensive for a lot of parents. The issue, of course, is the children’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis. The Father’s submission, by his Counsel, is that the Father wants to return things to normal, as if there is a notion of “normalness” under the Act. There is no “normalness” under the Act. The Act talks about the children’s best interests and what the Court does is to craft Orders that reflect the children’s best interests, having regard to the evidence before it. What is normal in one case – what living arrangement may be appropriate in one case, may not be in another. He is, I accept, very aggrieved by his inability to spend substantial time with the children. His proposal and the ICL’s proposal would enable this regular time to occur.

3. The next subsection is s.60CC(3)(f) of the Act, which concerns the capacity of each of the parents. I am not making any particular findings, but I have to say that, having read the material, I wondered, or at least I should note that there is in the Court’s mind something that must be dealt with at final hearing in relation to the capacity of the Father to accept how his children with special needs experienced his yelling and physical discipline. They must have experienced that as frightening and serious and not something that is to be described as “being scared” or otherwise minimised. There is no doubt that that is abuse in terms of the definition of family violence under the Act and the Father’s insight into that is somewhat, thus far, lacking. I will also deal with this issue about their emotional needs in due course.

4. As to the children themselves (s.60CC(3)(g) of the Act), three of the children have special needs, although they are high functioning. The Mother claims, as I have indicated, that they are suffering anxiety and behavioural issues at home and at school, their performance being affected. The Father, in his viva voce evidence, denies that the children display any distress with him and I have to say that the report from the Berry Street Children’s Contact Service supported the view that, with him, they displayed no distress.

5. I have already dealt with the issues of family violence and family violence Orders and do not need to traverse that here. The only other factor which is relevant, is the factor which is a sort of catch-all, s.60CC(3)(m) of the Act - any other fact or circumstance that the Court thinks is relevant. What I do think is relevant, in this case, is the recent developments which have caused concern to the Court for the following reasons: Firstly, the Father’s failure to understand his obligations under the Court’s Orders; and secondly, an impulsivity and a failure to understand the consequences of his actions to both the Mother and, if seen by the children, the children themselves.

6. In order to do this, I need to go to various attachments to the Mother’s affidavit filed on 4 May 2016. The first incident occurred in November 2015 after the criminal charges were struck out/withdrawn.  The incidents are attached at Annexure H42 to the Mother’s affidavit filed on 4 May 2016 and the extracts are of posts made by the Father on his Facebook page:

   ALL CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST ME HAVE BEEN DROPPED!!!!!!!  Thank you to everyone that prayed for justice in this.  This has been the worst experience of my life and it is wonderful that that is over.  Please be careful in your comments.

   In itself, it is an appropriate communication, although, as I have indicated during Court proceedings, I find Facebook to be mostly an inappropriate way of communicating about matters such as those that affect proceedings before this Court, and litigants would be wise to refrain from doing that. As I have indicated, that in itself does not concern the Court.  However, then, for a reason best known to the Father himself, he goes on, and I am unable to refer to pages or even dates, because the extracts do not have numbers on them, as  they are not photocopied. They begin a page after a photograph of a child, and the extract says this:

   Some of you may be thinking “Mr Heaton probably got off the charges because of a technicality or cunning defense” etc…. but I was assured by my barrister that given the nature/circumstances of my case and ..... political/media pressure, prosecutors are far more likely to let a case like mine go to trial knowing a magistrate will throw it out just so they aren’t responsible for the decision.  So to have 10 charges withdrawn more than speaks for itself. 

   This, in my opinion, was an unnecessary comment, except to indicate something about the nature of the evidence before the Court, which Mr Heaton then made quite explicit.  He responds to someone commenting and says, on the next page:

   … I do,  I am even more than happy to show anyone all the evidence that was used as a basis for the charges.

   Now, that is an extraordinary statement to make.  It borders on gloating and if were in relation to proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975, would contravene the Act. There then follows a post by a person called Mr W, who says:

   … I wish you all the best but you r (sic) just putting petrol on the fire by putting this all over social media.

   I thought that was insightful, but Mr Heaton then responds:

   You may be right but the other side is that all it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing… .

   Again, the question arises who is “evil”?  Is “evil” the Mother for complaining to the police, leading to the charges?  Is “evil” the system?  What is “evil”?  It behoves any parent not to use such words in relation to another parent, especially where the parent is a devout Christian.  It might easily have referred to the Mother.  I do not know, but in any event it was an entirely inappropriate comment.   

7. I now move forward to the events on 13 April 2016, which is the day when the application for an Intervention Order was dismissed.  The Mother refers to that at [31] of her affidavit filed on 4 May 2016 – to a text message from the Father to the maternal Grandmother. The text message is set out in Annexure H45 to the Mother’s affidavit filed on 4 May 2016, as follows:

   There is no intervention order.  Please request Ms Heaton to resume my contact on Wednesday Friday and Sunday

   Please also advise X to unblock me on Facebook and friend both me and Mr H.  Please also advise the children's sporting activities so I can come along and watch 

8. There is a "please".  There is a request, but it is pretty insistent, that message.  Pretty insistent, and what it says is, basically, "The Intervention Orders have been dropped, and I have a right to see the children and communicate with them as I please”.  There is absolutely not one iota of understanding in this message that there were Court Orders in place, which did not provide for this. 

9. Annexure H49 to the Mother’s affidavit filed on 4 May 2016 contains a copy of a Facebook post by the Father on 14 April 2016.  Again, I am unable to provide a page number. It begins:

   Just to let you all know that after over 22 months waiting for my interim IVO to be heard, yesterday the IVO application was dismissed.  During this time I did not see my children or have any contact for 18 months. 

10. That actually is not truthful, because he did.  It continues, stating: 

    The police charged me and then dropped all charges.  NEVER admit to anything you didn’t do, child protection tried to get me to admit so they could ‘assist in rebuilding the relationship’ but I was never going to let my name be dishonoured.  You must fight the lies and you must forgive those that lie about you or you will not survive this.  I felt the presence of Jesus the whole way through this and I read the Bible most days to see what the patriachs (sic) and even Jesus went through to give me courage to keep going.  Turn off the news, all you will hear about is white ribbon propaganda and it will destroy you.  Focus on living your life and fighting when required.  

11. I have already indicated to the Father during these proceedings that the reference to White Ribbon being propaganda is of concern to the Court.  White Ribbon is an organisation that was established by men, the advocates are men, and they are there to engage in prevention and educational activities.  It is not an organisation that is run by women about domestic violence; it is an organisation run by men to protect women in their homes and to refer to it as propaganda displays, for someone who Dr K says has high intellectual abilities, a lack of insight about the issues of domestic violence. 

12. The next thing that happened in the short time frame was the Father, on 14 April 2016, contacted the children's school at (omitted) College.  There are two exhibits that are relevant here.  One is the Mother's Exhibit 1 (Exhibit M1) and the other is the Father's Exhibit 1 (Exhibit F1). 

13. I will read first from the Incident #5270 - Record of Contact: Parent Concerns (Exhibit M1). The author is Ms S, who is a teacher, although I am not sure of which of the children. It indicates a communication between Ms S and the Father in relation to the Father's desire to access the parent portal. The record says in part:  

    Mr Heaton then contacted the College office 3 times asking to speak to me and to not have emails sent to him.  He also stated that he would be coming to the College.  I called Mr Heaton to explain the College's position with regard to the Family Law Court Orders.  Mr Heaton did not agree with me, he also stated that he felt that he was entitled to come to the College to see the boys.  Mr Heaton spoke about Men's rights and White Ribbon events recently in the news.  I referred to the boys having only supervised access with him and that I did not feel that school was an appropriate place for him to be having access with the boys.  Mr Heaton explained that Ms Heaton had prevented him from seeing the boys for 18 months and that he was not going to allow this to happen again.  I explained that it was not the College's role to judge or take either parent's side but that we would follow court orders when they are presented to us.  Mr Heaton then asked to speak to X, I informed him that this was not possible, he asked why, I told him that he was not at school.  He then sounded quite angry and stated that we would probably never see them again and that Ms Heaton would probably take the children interstate.  He then ended the conversation by saying that he was going to call child protection.

14. Ms S then notes that she called Constable W from (omitted) Police Station, and informed the Mother, who came to collect the children. 

15. The Father's viva voce evidence was that he only spoke once to Ms S, which is correct.  He did not say he was coming to the school;  there is a dispute there.  He asked to speak to X;  there is agreement on that.  He said he was firm, not angry;  there is a dispute about that, and that he did not say he would call Child Protection, or that the Mother had abducted the children to go interstate, and says that what he did do was call for a welfare check, because he did not know where the children were. 

16. Now, these are matters in dispute, but what it discloses here, again, is the fact that the Father is attempting to communicate with a child and assert his will over the Court Orders.  In other words, he has a view that once the Intervention Order application was dismissed, he was entitled to communicate with and see the children, as he saw fit. 

17. Returning to the Facebook postings, there is then postings in Annexure H50 to the Mother’s affidavit filed on 4 May 2016, where the Father says on the fourth page:    

    X, Y, Z, W …… so great to be able to say anything I like about my wonderful sons without being threatened.  Just the other week Z said ‘I don’t want to leave dad’ and when we prayed, Y prayed ‘I want you to make it so we don’t have to come here to see dad, and I want him to be able to see me on my birthday’. That’s right, I now get to see my sons anytime, even birthdays, Christmas will feel like Christmas!!!

18. That is a complete misrepresentation of his entitlements under the Court Orders.  He was not entitled to see the children any time, and it, again, displays someone who believes he has an entitlement.  I should note here that there is no agreement that the paternal Grandfather pressed the “Like” icon for that message.  However, I have to say it has not really been a dispute that I have taken into account in my considerations. 

19. I note that on 21 April 2016, the Father is still ventilating on Facebook about the Intervention Order.  There is a long extract in Annexure H53 to the Mother’s affidavit filed on 4 May 2016, where he talks about what an interim Intervention Order is, and he says:

    That means an applicant can lie and fabricate stories and evidence and until the matter is contested (22 months later in my case).  So if you know someone has an interim IVO against them, it doesn’t mean a thing, …  

20. So, rhetorically, I ask myself, what does the Father mean?  Does he mean that people are not required to comply with Interim Intervention Orders?  It would be of grave concern to the Court if that is what his view was. Of further concern is his act in conveying this view to people who are his Facebook friends, who clearly have no knowledge of anything in particular. 

21. On 19 April 2016, the Father emailed the Berry Street Children’s Contact Service. It is set out at paragraph 67 of the Mother's affidavit filed on 4 May 2016. This email was not copied to either the ICL or the Mother's solicitors. It says:

    The interim IVO was struck out and less than 24 hours later, Ms Heaton had applied for another one.  This was heard on Monday and dismissed, with the magistrate making several comments about the applicant (sic) conduct.

    However, Ms Heaton is refusing to give me access to the children even though there are no orders to prevent it.  This means I will still need your service this weekend.

    So the point of all this is that I request that I may take the children with me out of the facility this Sunday 24/4/16 at 11am and return them at 1pm (or 12.50pm) for Ms Heaton to collect them.

    If this is not possible, would I be able to bring my parents who have also been separated from the boys for over 18 months. 

22. That is a request for unsupervised time, and that is inconsistent with the Orders that I made.

23. The final reference to the Facebook material that is attached to the Mother's affidavit filed on 4 May 2016, occurs on 26 April 2016, and is in Annexure H53, which states as follows: 

    Hey boys, don’t know if you stalk my FB or not, but assuming you do on Ms N's account as I can see she follows me and she isn’t big on FB.  Anyway, I forgot to mention this on (omitted) this track 

24. Then he attaches a musical track, I assume.  Now, that is, again, something the Father, had he understood or was compliant with my Orders, would know he was not allowed to do.  It is an attempt to contact the children via Facebook media.

25. The point of traversing this material is that, in my view, I accept what the ICL said in submission, that this should raise serious concerns for the Court, and it did, for the following reasons. 

26. Firstly, it manifests a disregard for the Court's Orders.  The Applicant’s Counsel's submission seemed to be that as the Orders were silent, the Father can attempt to communicate with the children.  In my view, that is a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the Orders, and I have to confess, I was somewhat taken aback by such a submission.  The Orders clearly stipulated that the spend time and communication with the children would only occur supervised at the contact centre. 

27. The Court Orders were still in effect at the time that the application for the Final Intervention Order was dismissed.  The misapprehension or misunderstanding of the Father, or, perhaps, indeed the arrogance, was reflected in a correspondence by his solicitor, which is set out in Annexure H54 to the Mother’s affidavit filed on 4 May 2016.  The letter is extracted at paragraph 70 of the Mother's affidavit filed on 4 May 2016.  It says this: 

    You are aware that our client's IVO matters were dismissed by a Magistrate and all criminal charges against our client were withdrawn.

    As there are no specific Orders preventing contact with the children our client requests the following: 

    (1)  The children spend time with him on Wednesday, Friday and Sunday in accordance with the arrangement prior to the original Interim Intervention Order;

    (2)  Our client be provided with details of extracurricular activities the children participate in including times and venues;

    (3)  That your client do all acts and things necessary to facilitate the children unblocking our client from all social media accounts;

    (4)  That your client do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to authorise (omitted) College to communicate with and provide to our client all documents and information relevant to the children; and

    (5) That your client immediately provide the children with our client's phone number and email address and provide our client with any phone number or email address that he can use to contact the children.  

28. This letter was dated 19 April 2016.  To say that there were no specific Orders preventing contact with the children lacks any understanding of the Court's Orders that have been in effect for some time, and I say here, in front of the Applicant's solicitor, that I am very critical of that correspondence.  It reveals a contemptuous and manifest disregard of Court Orders. 

29. Secondly, flowing through this, a sense of entitlement by the Father that he can communicate and see the children as he wishes.  It is about his right to see them, not about the children's best interests.  There is a sense of impulsivity, a lack of boundaries that flows from this. There is no sense in the material, that what he might be doing or saying is inappropriate, and it reveals an attempt to take control. 

30. I say this, not as a matter of finding, but as factors that go to the question of risk.  It seems to me that from this material, the risk is that the Father has shown no insight how the children might react after such a long period of regular controlled contact, to seeing the Father in the way that he demands, and communicating with him without any boundaries around that. He does this with no attention, it seems, at all, to the special needs of the children and how such a sudden unilateral action might affect them. 

31. Consequently, when I consider appropriate Orders, the question of unacceptable risk is not, in my view, a physical one, which has been the focus of a lot of the material, but a psychological risk, because I am not satisfied that the Father is able to appropriately manage, or has a capacity to attend to the emotional needs of the children unsupervised. 

32. I am concerned that if unsupervised, he may resort to attempts to see and communicate with them outside of Court Orders, because he has shown a capacity to do that in the past, and that his impulsivity, his lack of boundaries, that is apparent from this material, may well affect the children during their time with him.  Consequently, I have reached the view that there is an unacceptable risk of psychological harm if the children spend time with the Father unsupervised. 

1. I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of the children to continue to regularly spend time with the Father.  The question is, how can that be done under supervision.  The Mother's proposal that there be a professional supervisor is, in my view, not appropriate, because the effect would be that if the Father is unable to afford a professional supervisor, he would simply not see the children.  That would not be in the best interests of the children.  They need their time with their Father to continue, and to increase, in a cautious way. 

2. The Father's Counsel indicated that the paternal Grandparents were prepared to supervise the children.  The Mother objects, because she says that they were complicit in covering up the Father's family violence.  However, I am satisfied that it would be of benefit to the children to engage with both the Father and the paternal Grandparents, provided there is an appropriate undertaking, in strict terms, given by the paternal Grandparents.  If there is, in my view, the risks the Mother is concerned about, can be adequately dealt with. 

3. I am also satisfied that given the serious allegations, and the long history of animosity between the parties - when I say long history, they have not been separated for that long, but it has pervaded the whole separation - the changeover should be effected under the framework of a professional supervisor.  The ICL informs the Court that she has contacted Berry Street Children’s Contact Service and they are available and willing to supervise changeovers, but that time would have to occur at 9.45am and then at 1pm on Saturdays. 

4. I am also satisfied that, if the Father can afford it, and subject to approval by the ICL regarding the professional supervisor and notification to the Mother, there should be opportunity for the Father to spend additional time with the children.  I will make an Order, in addition to the Saturday time, he would be permitted, if he could so afford it, and subject to the conditions, come to spend additional time each week with the children. 

5. I have decided that there should be various restraints in relation to communication through social media, the internet, electronic communication and telephone, and I have taken into account the Mother's allegations, which are denied by the Father, that at the Father’s instigation, the Father's relatives have attended her workplace, discussing these proceedings with her boss. 

6. I have formed a view that to reassure the Mother and minimise her anxiety, there should be a restraint on the Father and/or his agents attending the Mother's workplace to discuss these proceedings.

7. Because of the Father's actions in attempting to communicate with the children via Facebook and the internet, in disregard of the then Court Orders, I have included a restraint on this, and I have formed the view that this will deal with the Mother's concern regarding the Father attempting to access the children by the school portal. 

8. The Mother seeks to change the present Orders, so that she would be required to notify the Father as soon as practicable of any serious illness.  I am not going to change that Order.  If it requires medical attention, even if it is just a sore thumb, I cannot see that there could be too much burden on the Mother in notifying the Father.  I think the Father is entitled, given his limited time with the children, to be aware of those matters. 

9. I will not make the Orders that the Mother seeks about restraints upon attending at her residence or her workplace, although I have made a restraint about attending the workplace to discuss the proceedings.

Conclusion

1. Accordingly, I make the following Orders.

I certify that the preceding eighty-three (83) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Jones

Date: 11 July 2016