HENLON & FARNISH - [2019] FamCA 859

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HENLON & FARNISH

[2019] FamCA 859

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – all parenting orders relating to the fifteen year old child discharged

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT:

Mr Henlon

RESPONDENT:

Ms Farnish

FILE NUMBER:

BRC

3105

2009

DATE DELIVERED:

24 October 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

Baumann J

HEARING DATE:

24 October 2019

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Munro Legal Pty Ltd

THE RESPONDENT:

No appearance

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr R Slade Jones

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms L Wiid
Lyrene Wiid Lawyer & Migration Agent

Orders

That all previous Orders with respect to the child, X born … 2004 (“the child”) be discharged.
That the Independent Children’s Lawyer be discharged.
That all outstanding Applications and Responses be dismissed.
That neither parent, although able to file an application for further parenting orders in respect of the child, shall be entitled to proceed with an application without leave of a Registrar or Judge of the Family Court of Australia or the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.
That any parent seeking to proceed with an application in accordance with Order 4 hereof must provide in support of the application:
(a) copy of the Reasons for Judgment delivered 24 October 2019; and
(b) a copy of the family report of Ms D dated 20 February 2019.

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

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

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 r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 3105 of 2009

Mr Henlon

Applicant

And

Ms Farnish

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Settled from the oral reasons delivered)

Introduction

The Applicant father, Mr Henlon, and the Respondent mother, Ms Farnish, who are aged now 62 years and 52 years respectively, commenced a relationship in 1999 but separated, it would seem, by 2008. They were blessed with three children, Ms C, who is now 19, B, who is 17, and the child the subject of these proceedings, X born in 2004.
As the matters have transpired today, the reasons which I provide for the orders I propose to make are brief. That they can be brief, although still sufficient to indicate that the Court has exercised, as it must, its own discretion as to whether to make the orders sought by the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) that they are found to be in the best interests of the child, is shaped by at least the following events as described.
This current application filed by the father in October 2017 was after earlier final orders made by Hogan J on 24 September 2015 broke down in some way. The orders of Hogan J provided for the child, X, to live with the father and to have sole parental responsibility and with the mother to have supervised time.
The application made by the father in October 2017, which, in one iteration or another, is the application still before the Court now, resulted in orders for X to return to the father by way of Recovery Order, and those orders were made after the Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women (“the Department”) had doubt where some allegations made by the child of misconduct by the father (which he has always denied). This conduct and/or abuse of the child by an older sibling Ms C (which are also denied) were also investigated by Police on 13 October 2017 through a section 93A interview.
The issues became so chronic that, notwithstanding the Orders of Judge Purdon-Sully made 30 October 2017 that X return to the father, within a day or so, police were involved. The Department was further concerned with the state of the situation, and it seems by some order under the State Child Protection Legislation, X was taken into care. As the report of Ms D, the family report writer in this matter, reflects, the ongoing conflict between the mother and father involving the other children to some degree has been unremitting, toxic and extremely difficult for any child to cope with. It should be remembered that X was only four years old when her parents separated in 2008.
There had rightly been a reluctance of the Court to make final orders in this case, and the matter has been listed in the trial pool for some months before being allocated to me for a hearing via the callover I conducted in this Court in June this year. The father appeared before me at a Directions Hearing assisted by his solicitor, Ms Westall, who, it seems, has been his legal retainer for some years. When the matter was listed for trial on 11 July 2019 to commence today, the order, which speaks for itself, identified that the only issue that the Court was being asked to determine was whether an order for sole parental responsibility for major long-term decisions ought to be made and, if so, what conditions and in favour of which parent it ought be made.
At the time, I noted that the father was not seeking any prescribed order that X live with him. As a result, those directions were made after discussion, as I said, on 11 July and with the benefit of a family report prepared by Family Consultant and experienced Social Worker Ms D from interviews that took place on 6 February 2019. I say “interviews” because the mother and the child did not attend for those interviews. Ms D’s recommendations, it seems to me well-founded on a full reading of her report and in view of the history as she accurately set out, were simple and were at paragraphs 80 and 81 as follows:
“80: I respectfully recommend no further assessments of this matter, despite the mother and X’s non-attendance. Their position is well documented in various records before the Court, and this was factored into my assessment.
81: I recommend no orders are made in relation to X or Orders that provide for her to spend time with her parents as she wishes.”
It has to be acknowledged that such a recommendation from an experienced family report writer is unusual but is, as I say, well-founded when you look at the history of the matter. Speaking about history, annexed to these Reasons and marked Appendix One is the chronology carefully and, I think, accurately set out by the ICL in the case outline filed by the ICL on 16 October 2019. It frankly says it all.
The father, on 21 October 2019, filed a Notice of Discontinuance. It is to be recalled that in respect of this part of the litigation, he was the Applicant. His solicitor, Ms Westall, has, as a courtesy to the Court for which the Court is appreciative, appeared before me today. The father does not press for any orders.
The Respondent mother has failed to participate in this part of the proceedings. She failed to attend the family report interviews. She has failed to comply with the directions made to file material. The reasons why she takes that view, although easily inferred from the history, can be no better described than her email to the Court today sent at 11.53am, that is, seven minutes before it was anticipated this trial would commence. It has been marked Exhibit 1 but for the sake of the record, I record it as follows, being addressed to:
“Dear Justice Baumann, Sue Westall and Lyrene Wiid,
When a legal system is built on a lie and not truth it ceases to be valid. BRC3105/2009 is proof that your legal system of family law is no longer valid and is full of corruption.
Lyrene Wiid as the ICL has conspired with Sue Westall and the father’s legal team and other parties to pervert the course of truth and justice, resulting in unending disgusting human rights breaches and other abhorrant [sic] acts.
For ten years I and my children have been your “cash cow” placing massive amounts of money in each of your pockets while destroying my basic human rights as mother of these children and the rights of my children to enjoy a full relationship with their mother. You have lied continually in a court designed to speak truth in by doing so have shattered the entire legal system and rendered the entire system null and void.
You had no right and you have no right to perform the illegal acts you have carried out therefore I decline to participate in your farce that you call family court.
Ms Farnish
Justice will only be served by the truth
Live By Truth, Live For Truth.”
I do not propose to make any comment in respect of this statement delivered by the mother in this unusual way, other than to say that any criticism of the ICL, Ms Wiid, has no foundation, is scurrilous, in another form would no doubt be defamatory, but in all respects does not deserve any further attention or response. The mere fact that I say something at all is because it is not fair, in my view, that a practitioner who undertakes work as an ICL, which we know is at a reduced rate of pay and at times in very difficult conditions, should be the subject of such scandalous comments as the mother has set out.
It is also a further matter of concern that the mother has found it difficult to separate the role of a lawyer – in this case, Ms Westall acting on behalf of the father – from whatever actions that might have been taken by parents. Much of the concerns in the past history of this matter – in fact, all of them – can be directed to the parents in some way, not to a lawyer who is engaged and has a duty to represent a party and is an officer of the Court. Such criticisms are also without foundation, it seems to me.

Approach

I am being invited by the ICL today to make an order that:
a)discharges all previous orders in relation to the child X;
b)discharge the ICL; and
c)dismiss this application and any other outstanding applications.
This order being sought is consistent with the recommendation of Ms D. It is, nonetheless, a parenting order. The United Kingdom Children’s Act identifies the concept of the “no-order”, namely, that sometimes it is better to make no order than to make an order. Any parenting order must be made with the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. It is, in my view, in this child’s best interest that she no longer be the subject of any orders. I cannot, if I make such orders, guarantee this child that she will be relieved of the conflict from her parents. The fact that they are her parents is a matter of history that cannot change. It might be said at different stages the parents have found it difficult to manage any sort of co-parenting arrangement, and these reasons are not an appropriate vehicle, nor has the evidence that would be required to be tested to found such findings, been undertaken to seek to blame the parents or either of them for what has occurred. As I say, the history is simple and clear.
I believe it is in the best interests of X that there be no prescriptive orders. Having formed that view on the evidence, a matter that I raised of the Court’s own initiation with the ICL, ably, as usual, represented today by Mr Slade Jones of Counsel, and in the presence of Ms Westall who, as I say, has appeared before the Court today as a courtesy to the Court, whether it would be appropriate for the Court to make an order in the following terms:
“Neither parent, although able to file an application for further parenting orders in respect of X born in 2004 shall be entitled to proceed with an application without the leave of a Registrar or Judge of the Family Court of Australia or Federal Circuit Court of Australia, and that any parent seeking to proceed with an application must provide, in support of the application, a copy of these Reasons and a copy of the family report of Ms D dated 20 February 2019.”
The purpose of the order is to relieve a parent from “having to” respond to any new application by the other parent until the filter of a judicial officer of a Court has been exercised to permit it to proceed. I have no application before me to declare either parent as a vexatious litigant and make no such declaration. The fact that such an order might be in the child’s best interests arises from at least the fact that with the discharge of all current orders and dismissal of all previous applications, including the current applications, the parents share by presumption parental responsibility for a child who has still two and a-half years of infancy. It is hard to imagine that either parent would want to continue with litigation that commenced with an application filed not long after separation in 2008 initially. But in my view, even though the parents have not formally been given an opportunity to be heard on this order, I am satisfied this is an order I should make in the best interests of the child.
I should mention that even though she was not obliged to do so, Ms Westall did, from the Bar Table, indicate to the Court that she had an opportunity when I stood down briefly to discuss the matter with her client and his instructions to her would be not to oppose such an order.
For the reasons which I now give and which I will publish for the sake of the record, I make the orders proposed by the ICL and the order that I, of my own initiation, proposed.

I certify that the preceding eighteen (18) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Baumann delivered on 24 October 2019.

Associate:

Date: 6 December 2019

APPENDIX ONE

DATE	EVENT
1957	Applicant Father born.
1966	Respondent Mother born.
1999	Parties commence cohabitation.
2000	Parties marry.
2000	Mother gives birth to Ms C.
2002	Mother gives birth to B.
2004	Subject Child, X born.
12.12.2008	Parties separate on a final basis.
2008	Father alleges the Mother took the children to New South Wales. Therefore the Father sought orders in Court and the Mother was ordered to return to Queensland, however she did not do so until a warrant was issued for her return with the children.
12.10.2009	An Order was made by Federal Magistrate Jarrett for the Mother to relocate from the City P area to the Town F area with the children and for the Father to spend time three days per week.
27.01.2010	An Order was made by Federal Magistrate Jarrett that until such time as the Mother resides in Town F, the children are to be returned to live with the Father by 1 February 2010 or a Recovery Order will be issued.
03.02.2010	An Order was made by Federal Magistrate Jarrett for a Recovery Order to be issued to find and recover the children and deliver the children to the Father.
15.02.2010	Family Report prepared by Mr G filed on behalf of the ICL.
March 2010	Mother moves back to Queensland.
02.03.2011	Psychiatric Assessment Report prepared by Dr H and filed on behalf of the ICL.
April 2010	Parties Divorce.
June 2011	Parties again attend upon Mr G, Psychologist.
April 2011	Parties entered into Interim Consent Orders for the children to live with the Father.
01.08.2011	Family Report prepared by Mr G, Psychologist filed on behalf of the ICL.
October 2013	Father alleges the Mother retained the two younger children so the Father then made an Application to the Court to have them recovered.
November 2013	Mother attends local Police Station with the children’s older half-brother, Mr Q advising that he was kicked by the Father some six years ago. Mr Q was interviewed by Police however based on previous reports by the Mother it appeared she was attempting to use the children to make complaints in order to further her proceedings.
04.12.2013	X attends upon Child & Youth Psychiatrist Dr E as she was exhibiting a reactive attachment disorder and features of post-traumatic stress disorder, however the underlying cause were yet to be determined.
11.12.2013	Order made for an s11F Report and for Department of Child Safety to provide information pursuant to s69ZW.
21.01.2014	Family Consultant Memorandum to Court prepared by Ms D.
11.02.2014	Matter was transferred to the Family Court of Australia.
03.06.2014	Affidavit of Dr J, Psychiatrist filed on behalf of the ICL.
Late 2014	Father alleges he filed a Contravention Application to get time restored.
30.10.2014	Order was made for a Recovery Order to lie upon the Court file in the event the Mother fails to make the children available to spend time with the Father.
24.04.2015	Affidavit of Dr K, Paediatrician filed on behalf of the ICL.
27.05.2015	Contravention Application filed by the Mother as she alleges the Father did not advise her of the child Ms C being taken to a Psychologist/Counsellor or that he sought non-emergent medical treatment without the Mother’s consent as per Order dated 11 February 2014. The Application was dismissed.
24.09.2015	Final Order made by Justice Hogan for the children to live with the Father and for the Father to have sole responsibility with supervised time spent with the Mother once per month and progressing up to unsupervised weekend and holiday time from April 2016.
24.09.2015	Department of Child Safety recorded a Suicide Risk Alert as X stated she wanted to kill herself.
13.10.2015	Department of Child Safety recorded a Child Concern Report in relation to the children making allegations of ongoing physical and verbal violence and threats by the Father.
20.10.2015	Notice of Appeal filed by the Mother.
19.02.2016	X was suspended for 2 days from R School for physical and verbal assault on another student.
21.03.2016	Letter from Munro Legal to the Mother advising that the Father had completed his intake interview. As the Mother had not completed her intake interview, the Father’s instructions were that unsupervised time with the children should not commence until the period of supervised time has been completed as ordered. The Mother allegedly did not respond.
March 2016	Mother alleges the Town S Contact Centre could arrange to spend time two hours once a month. Due to the cost to join and also the cost for each visit, the Mother allegedly could not afford the costs therefore the Contact Centre were allegedly contacting the Father to see if he was open to a better arrangement, however the Mother did not hear back from them.
18.04.2016	Father alleges the Mother’s Notice of Appeal was dismissed when the Mother failed to file the Appeal Books.
09.03.2017	Town F State School note that X was involved in a physical & verbal altercation with another student. The school allegedly telephoned the Ambulance as they were concerned for her wellbeing, she was transported to hospital.
22.05.2017	Department of Child Safety record a Child Concern Report in relation to the Father reportedly hitting, punching and calling X names. It is also reported that X has been expelled from school for assaulting another student.
31.08.2017	T School record that X had disclosed she had a significant physical fight with her sister Ms C. There was also some Assist Intervention around some thoughts of suicide. The School spoke to the Father with the outcome being that X will return home with some agreed arrangements in place between the Father and herself.
30.09.2017	Mother alleges she received a text message from X stating that her sister had been beating her. Mother alleges she then spoke to X on the phone who told her that she had tried to kill herself and had started self-mutilating and cutting.
04.10.2017	Father alleges X did not go to school as she was unwell however he received a phone call from the school advising she was absent. The Mother sent a text to Ms C advising that X was with her, the Father contacted the Police however he alleges he was told they were unable to help.
04.10.2017	Mother alleges she picked X up and took her to her residence. Mother allegedly called the police to explain the reasoning behind it and that X was safe. Police attend the Mother’s home and interview X who advised that the Father and Ms C have been physically and verbally abusing her and that she wanted to press charges. The Police also took photographs of the injury on X’s back that Ms C allegedly did to her by stabbing her with a comb, however the Police state that the injury is not consistent with an object being used to stab someone.. The Mother alleges the Police told her to put recording software on X’s telephone.
04.10.2017	Mother sends email to Munro Legal advising that X refuses to return to the Father. The Mother then requests that the Father accepts this and that life should just go on with minimal disruption to the children.
11.10.2017	Initiating Application filed by the Father seeking that a recover order be made for the Mother to return the child to the Father.
11.10.2017	Affidavit, Affidavit-Non filing of Family Dispute Resolution Certificate and Notice of Risk filed by the Father.
12.10.2017	Department of Child Safety record a Child Concern Report as it was reported that during 1 January 2017 and 3 October 2017, the Father and Ms C have been physically and verbally abusing X.
13.10.2017	Police conduct a 93A interview with X. During the interview X stated that she no longer wished to live with the Father, however she withdrew any complaints and did not wish to pursue assault charges again the Father and Ms C.
16.10.2017	Department of Child Safety have recorded a Child Concern Report as X has disclosed that she has been physically and verbally harmed by her Father and Ms C which resulted in X self-harming. It is alleged that X locked herself in the bathroom, the Father has helped break down the door and held X up against the wall whilst Ms C beat her and stabbed her in the back with a comb. X has returned to her Mother’s care.
27.10.2017	Affidavit filed by the Father.
30.10.2017	Response filed by the Mother seeking for X to live with her and for the Mother to have Sole Parental Responsibility and for the Father to be restrained from discussing Family Court matters or showing the children any documentation in relation to Court proceedings.
30.10.2017	Affidavit filed by Ms L on behalf of the Mother.
30.10.2017	Affidavit filed by the Mother.
30.10.2017	Order made by Judge Purdon-Sully for the Mother to place the child X into childcare at the Commonwealth Law Courts until the conclusion of the matter on 30 October 2017.
30.10.2017	Order made by Judge Purdon-Sully for X to be returned to the Father’s care and for the Father to seek an urgent appointment for the child to attend upon Mr M, Psychologist and to a Psychiatrist for the purpose of a mental health assessment.
30.10.2017	Father alleges he has undertaken the intake interview with Town S Contact Centre.
30.10.2017	Notice of Risk and Affidavit filed by the Mother.
31.10.2017	Police respond to a ‘000’call from X advising that her Father was “trying to get her”. Police attend who find X in a state of distress down the road from the house. X informed Police that she had been returned to the Father the previous night because of a Family Court Order. The Father advised the Police that he has custody of his children because the Mother is affected by drugs. Police telephone Queensland Ambulance after X had thought about suicide, Queensland Ambulance transport her to hospital for a mental health evaluation.
31.10.2017	Department of Child Safety record a suicide risk alert with concerns of X disclosing she was having suicidal thoughts.
01.11.2017	X is presented to Town F Hospital by Police with threats of suicide however was discharged to her Father due to not having any identified mental health issues. She was returned to hospital later in the day by Queensland Police and or Queensland Ambulance as she was threatening self-harm again. X was admitted as an in-patient and is refusing to return to her Father’s care.
03.11.2017	Department of Child Safety place X into care by agreement with the Father.
20.11.2017	Application in a Case filed by the Mother seeking for the Mother to have the sole care, residency and responsibility of the child X.
20.11.2017	Affidavit filed by the Mother.
23.11.2017	Department of Child Safety record a Child Concern Report with concerns that the Mother is coaching X into making allegations of physical harm by the Father and Ms C.
24.11.2017	Submissions filed on behalf of the Applicant Father seeking for a recovery order be made in relation to X being returned to his care and for the Mother to be restrained from again removing or causing the removal of the child from the care of the Father.
24.11.2017	Order made by Judge Purdon-Sully for the matter to be transferred to the Family Court of Australia.
04.12.2017	Department of Child Safety recorded a child concern report as it was alleged that X had been physically and verbally harmed by the Father and Ms C and that the Mother had been observed to use inappropriate and derogative statements about the Father to X. The outcome of the Investigation and Assessment was recorded as ‘substantiated emotional harm and substantiated risk of physical and emotional harm for X’.
15.12.2017	Notice of Address for Service filed by the ICL.
19.12.2017	Affidavit filed by the Mother.
20.12.2017	Response to an Application in a Case filed by the Father seeking for the Application to be dismissed and for the Mother to have no contact with X.
20.12.2017	Affidavit filed by the Father.
21.12.2017	Affidavit filed by the Mother.
21.12.2017	Order made by Registrar Coutts requesting the intervention of the Department of Child Safety, Youth & Women.
09.01.2018	Father attends upon Town F Police Station as requested to give a statement in regards to the physical altercation between X and Ms C, in particular to the incident with the comb.
15.01.2018	Notice of Address for Service filed by the Mother.
17.01.2018	Notice of Address for Service filed by the Mother.
13.02.2018	Police attend to a location where there was a verbal and physical altercation between X and another foster child living at the same address. No injuries or medical treatment sought.
20.02.2018	Police were called and attended upon T School to assist with the child X as she was refusing to leave, swearing and becoming aggressive and yelling ‘she may as well kill myself’ several times.
28.02.2018	Parties and siblings attend upon Mr N, Psychologist for a Psychological Report to be prepared at the request of the Department of Child Safety.
16.03.2018	Affidavit of Ms O filed on behalf of the ICL.
20.03.2018	Notice of Address for Service filed by the Mother.
20.03.2018	Order made by Senior Registrar Spink for the parties to attend as directed by the Department of Child Safety, a conference to discuss the living arrangements for the child X.
13.04.2018	Order made by Senior Registrar Spink for the Directions Hearing listed 24 May 2018 to be vacated and matter adjourned to 6 December 2018.
16.05.2018	Father alleges the Department of Child Safety obtained an Interim Order placing X in the interim custody of the Department. She then continued to live in a series of foster homes and a residential centre in the Town F area whilst the court proceedings continued. Mother alleges that she gave the Department names of family and friends as an alternative to X living in foster homes, however the Father allegedly refused every one of them.
09.08 2018	Father alleges X removed herself from the residential care she was living in and went to her older half sister’s house where the Mother then collected her and she was again living with the Mother.
21.11.2018	Father alleges the Department of Child Safety were unable to work with the Mother or X, therefore they formally withdrew an Application for a Child Protection Order in the Town F Court.
06.12.2018	Order made by Senior Registrar Spink for a Family report to be prepared.
Late 2018	Father alleges the Mother advised the Court that she was enrolling X into U School, however the Father contacted the school and was allegedly told that she was not enrolled.
04.02.2019	Father enrols X into V School. Father enrols her as he has Sole Parental Responsibility.
06.02.2019	Parties attended upon Ms D, Family Consultant for family report interviews, however the Mother and X did not attend. Ms D was unable to contact the Mother.
20.02.2019	Order made in Chambers for the release of the Report prepared by Ms D.
27.02.2019	V School were unable to contact the Mother via her mobile number. They called her home number and spoke to an unknown male, they left a message as to when X will be starting school at V School.
15.03.2019	V School attempt to call the Mother as X has only attended one class to date.
26.03.2019	V School contact the Mother to discuss X’s low attendance at school. Mother advised that the child was terrified of attending due to her fear of the Father taking her to return to his care. Mother also advised that the Father was trying to put the Mother in jail for 2 years and for X to attend Military camp. The Mother also stated that a case has been started with the ombudsman for crime and corruption for how her children have been treated by the Government.
28.03.2019	Order made by Registrar Coutts for the Interim Application filed by the Mother to be listed on 16 May 2019 and for the matter to be listed on a date to be fixed before the trial judge for judicial management of the trial and the allocation of trial dates. For the Father to file and serve any application for expedition of the final hearing by 18 April 2019.
29.03.2019	V School telephone the Father advising that they are starting the prosecution process in relation to poor attendance.
01.04.2019	V School receive a text message advising that X will be attending Distance Education. The School advised that as X is a compulsory school age a leavers form needs to be completed before they can exit her from V School, however the Mother failed to attend the appointment.
29.04.2019	V School telephone the Mother’s home where an unknown male answers the phone. He advises the School that the Mother is in City P and X is with him but unavailable to talk.
30.04.2019	V School telephone the Father and advise that X has not been attending school.
15.05.2019	Affidavit filed by the Father.
16.05.2019	Order made by Registrar Spink with filing directions for the parties and for the ICL to have leave to make an oral application for expedition.
04.06.2019	Affidavit filed by the Father.
10.06.2019	Initiating Application filed by the Father seeking for the collection of child support payable by the Father for X be stayed pending the determination of the Applicant’s appeal and that the Registrar immediately cease collecting child support from the Applicant’s salary.
10.06.2019	Affidavit and Financial Statement filed by the Father.
18.06.2019	Order made by Judge Jarrett for the Application filed by the Father on 10 June 2019 is dismissed.
26.06.2019	Affidavit and Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk of Family Violence filed by the Mother.
11.07.2019	Order made by Justice Baumann for final hearing dates and filing directions for all parties.