Houghton & Dunne - [2024] FedCFamC2F 259

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Houghton & Dunne [2024] FedCFamC2F 259

File number(s): BRC 15957 of 2020

Judgment of: JUDGE VASTA

Date of judgment: 29 February 2024

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – parenting – history of family violence – whether father poses an unacceptable risk – where report writers entered into finding of facts – no time order and injunctions made – where paternal grandmother seeks time – where court cannot trust paternal grandmother – where order for supervised time only made

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60CG, 61DA, 64B, 65D, 65DAB

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 394

Date of last submission/s: 22 February 2024

Date of hearing: 7, 8, 9 November 2023 and 21 and 22 February 2024

Place: Brisbane

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Chekirova

Solicitor for the Applicant: Cornerstone Law Offices

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr Taylor

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Derek Legal

Counsel for the Second Respondent: the Second Respondent appearing on her own behalf

Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr Jones

Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Bridges Family Law Specialists
ORDERS

BRC 15957 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS HOUGHTON

Applicant

AND:
MR DUNNE

First Respondent

MS PIERCE

Second Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE VASTA

DATE OF ORDER:

29 FEBRUARY 2024

BY WAY OF FINAL ORDER, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.All previous orders are discharged.
2.The mother is to have sole parental responsibility for the child X born in 2015 (“the Child”).
3.The Child live with the mother.
4.The Child spend no time and have no contact whatsoever with the father.
5.Pursuant to s.68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”), an injunction is issued restraining the father and the paternal grandmother from entering or remaining in any place of residence or education of the Child.
6.Pursuant to s.68B of the Act, an injunction is issued restraining the father and the paternal grandmother from coming within 1000 metres of any place of residence, temporary accommodation, or education facility of the Child.
7.Pursuant to s.68B of the Act, an injunction is issued restraining the father and the paternal grandmother from entering or remaining in any place of residence, employment or education of the mother.
8.Pursuant to s.68B of the Act, an injunction is issued restraining the father and the paternal grandmother from coming within 1000 metres of any place of residence, temporary accommodation, employment or education of the mother.
9.The Child spend time with the paternal grandmother on the last Saturday or Sunday (the actual day being at the sole discretion of the mother) of each calendar month (except if such weekend is the Easter weekend or includes Christmas Day) for a period of two hours.
10.The time set out in order 9 herein is to be facilitated at a contact centre of the mother’s choosing.
11.Such contact centre is to be provided with a copy of these Reasons. The contact centre is to closely monitor the conversations and activities between the paternal grandmother and the Child. If, according to the contact centre staff, there is any inappropriate conversation or activity between the paternal grandmother and the Child, then the visit is to end and all time between the paternal grandmother and the Child shall cease.
12.The paternal grandmother is to meet all costs associated with the contact centre.
13.Pursuant to s 121 of the Family Law Act 1975, the Independent Children’s Lawyer is to distribute a copy of these Reasons to the Department of Child Safety, the Queensland Police Service, the Australian Federal Police, the Department of Health, the Department of Education, the contact centre selected by the mother and any educational institution attended by the Child.
14.At the expiry of the appeal period, the Independent Children’s Lawyer is discharged.

NOTATION:
A.That pursuant to section 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act1975 the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in “Parenting orders – obligations, consequences and who can help” and these particulars are included in these orders.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE VASTA
INTRODUCTION

X was born in 2015. His parents are the Applicant mother, Ms Houghton (who was born in 1985) and the Respondent father, Mr Dunne (who was born in 1991). The paternal grandmother (PGM) is Ms Pierce. The mother, father and PGM are all seeking parenting orders in relation to X. Unfortunately, for X, it seems that he has been involved in some form of litigation for most of his life.
The mother and the father met in 2014 and began a de facto relationship some months afterwards. The mother fell pregnant in 2015 and X was born later that year. The parents stayed together until August 2016. The father issued proceedings in this Court, which were finalised on 18 February 2018.
The parties, by and large, complied with the orders and the mother and father did make attempts at reconciliation soon after the orders were made. Those attempts were not successful, and the mother began a new relationship around the end of 2018. The relationship between the parents was littered with episodes of family violence and this continued both after separation and after the final orders had been made.
There was a major incident that occurred in September 2020. From that time onwards, both the father and the PGM have spent limited time with X. The mother launched these proceedings in November 2020. There have been many delays along the way before the matter was able to be heard to determine final orders.
Family violence
As previously noted, there have been many instances of family violence that occurred during the relationship. The mother has detailed these instances, and she was not challenged on the veracity of what it was that she had said during her cross examination before me.
2015
On this date, the mother was pregnant with X. Contained at Annexure H-5 to the affidavit of the mother, is the DV affidavit given by the mother. The mother was not challenged on the veracity of this statement. The mother had said that, in late 2015, she was at home with her own mother and younger sister doing an exit clean as they were vacating the address. She said the father came home from work in her car. She had the father’s vehicle as she needed it to put grass clippings and the like in it.
The mother said that she asked the father about a household chore and the father became aggressive and was talking loudly. The maternal grandmother asked the father to keep his voice down which caused him to get even more angry. The father yelled at the maternal grandmother and told her not to tell him what to do. Some neighbours came outside to see what was going on.
The father went into his vehicle and told the mother that he was going to the dump. The mother told the father that the dump was closed and that he would have to go there in the morning. The father still had the keys to the mother’s vehicle and the mother asked him whether she could have her keys back.
The father threw the keys at the mother which hit her in the chest. She told the father that “it hurt”. The father yelled that he didn’t care and that the mother was “a fucking bitch”. As the mother had been at the passenger window of the vehicle and the father had been inside the vehicle when he threw the keys, the keys had bounced off the mother’s chest and had fallen into the rear area of the vehicle.
The mother reached into the vehicle to grab the keys with her arm. While she was doing this the father planted his foot on the accelerator with the mother’s arm still in the window. The mother’s arm was caught, and she had to start running with the car. She was screaming at the father to stop. She said that her feet went out from under her, and she thought she was going to go under the car.
The mother said that she was terrified because she could see a parked car was in her path and that she would hit the car unless the father stopped. She said that she collided with the parked car and the force from hitting the parked car caused her arm to come out of the window. She said that she immediately felt pain in her stomach, and she thought she was going into labour.
As she sat on the road at the rear of the parked car, she recalled the father turning the vehicle around and coming back towards her. The father yelled at her as he drove past that “it is your fault” and “I didn’t do it”. The mother tried to crawl but ended up being assisted by her family and neighbours. An ambulance was called, and the mother was taken to B Hospital. The mother said that she was in hospital for about six hours whilst the staff ensured that the baby was safe.
A temporary protection order was made by police. In late 2015, the father entered into a voluntary intervention order in which he agreed to participate in an approved intervention program run by C Centre. A domestic violence order was made for a period of four years which would expire in early 2019.
Police records show that in 2015 (four days before X was born), another incident occurred. Police noted that there had been increasing tension between the mother and the father since the DV order was made. The father had been blaming the mother for the application and getting angry at her for him having to go to the watch house and to Court. Members of the father’s family had been sending the mother threatening text messages and blaming her for the situation. In those text messages they referred to the mother as “a fake DV victim” and threatening to take her baby away from her once the baby was born.
The police noted that the father was to attend a course as part of the voluntary intervention order. He had not been attending and the mother was trying to explain to him the consequences that could flow from his non-attendance. The police noted that this enraged both the father and his brother (the paternal uncle). They both began yelling at the mother getting up close in her face. The father yelled in the mother’s face that it was her fault and that he didn’t care about her or the baby.
When she tried to leave, he told her that he knew where she would be (which was a reference to house of her father (the maternal grandfather) which was nearby). The father threatened to kill the mother’s pet dog. The father followed the mother outside. The mother grabbed her dog and tried to get away from the father. She ended up cowering in the gutter holding onto the dog. Neighbours from different houses in the area heard the disturbance and contacted the police.
The mother did not want the police to charge the father with breaching the DVO and no charges were laid.
Late 2016
On this day, the father woke up at about 3 PM with a sore tooth. He became angry and swore at the mother and kicked a hole in the laundry wall and back door. The father went to the hospital to have his tooth out. The PGM drove him home. When they arrived home the father yelled at the mother “where is my fucking Medicare card?” The mother could not find it and the father further yelled at her “she can’t fucking find it, the cunt”. The mother began to feel scared. The father refused to let the mother take X stating that “if I can’t have him then no one can have him”. The father told the mother that she was “a piece of shit” and an “airhead”. He made disparaging remarks about her parenting ability and told her that he cannot believe that he was with her and that they had a son together.
The father told her that she needed to pack and leave, and he told her that she was not taking X. He told her that this was all her fault. The mother tried to ignore him and put X to bed. She then went to sleep in her bed. The father slept on the lounge near the front door so that the mother felt that she could not leave the premises. In the early hours of the following morning, the mother woke up and inadvertently disturbed the father. The father started yelling at the mother. The father grabbed the mother’s phone as well as her tablet.
The father tried to damage or destroy the phone. The mother tried to grab the phone but was pulled down by the father. The father head-butted the mother in the face and then bit her on the arm. The mother was able to phone the maternal grandmother for help. The father packed some of his things and took X and drove away.
This, then, was the date of separation. The mother and father have not lived together as a family unit since that time.
Subsequent events
In mid-2016, the father was taken to the mental health unit by police. The father had an altercation with his father (the paternal grandfather) whilst they were at a work venue (the father often worked with him).
The hospital notes detail that the father became angry and assaulted the paternal grandfather with an object to his body with the father telling hospital staff that he hit the paternal grandfather quite hard. The father then decamped to another location. The father sent a message to his mother making vague self-harm statements. The father denied to hospital staff that these messages were threatening self-harm but did admit that he blacked out somewhere.
Emergency services were deployed to find the father due to the self-harm risk in the messages he had sent. The father denied self-harm thoughts but told hospital staff that he had ended a relationship two weeks ago with the mother. He said that he used illicit drugs heavily during the relationship. He said that he ceased using drugs two weeks ago. He said that he had also ceased his heavy illicit substances use three weeks ago. The hospital noted that they would provide support and follow-up.
The father refused to allow the mother to see the child, notwithstanding that the child was less than a year old and that the mother was obviously the primary carer. The police sought an amendment to the DVO which restrained the father from being within 100 metres of either the mother or X.
As a result of this variation, the mother went to see the PGM in August 2016 and asked for the child to be given back to her. The PGM refused to give back the child but, apparently, contacted the father who went to the mother’s home and retrieved more of his belongings as well as those of X.
The mother contacted police who went to the premises of the PGM. By that time, the mother had left. The PGM told police that the father had concerns over the mother’s current living situation and ability to provide the necessities of life. The PGM also expressed the same welfare concerns and told police that they believed that the mother would take the child to a place where intravenous and illicit drug use related activities were occurring. Given the child looked in good health and there were no family law court orders in place, the police felt that they could not take the child and give the child back to the mother.
The police advised the PGM to attend Court to attempt to vary the order or to start family law proceedings with respect to the custody of the child.
The first proceedings
The father filed proceedings in this Court on 18 August 2016. In his application he asked the Court to make orders giving him sole parental responsibility. He sought an order that the child live with him and that, after three months of negative drug tests by the mother, the mother spend time each alternative Sunday until Wednesday.
In his affidavit filed with the application, the father swore that the mother smoked illicit substances each day during the pregnancy. The father said that the mother lied to the doctors by saying that she was not using drugs. The father said that he would work during the evening in a factory and would come home afterwards to find that the mother would be at home smoking which necessitated him needing to care for the child.
In the affidavit, he said that the mother wanted the father to cease work, get Centrelink payments and stay home with her doing drugs. The father said that he “realised that I had more to live for and needed to keep my job, be a responsible parent and be drug-free”. He quoted the mother as saying that “I will not give up drugs for any cunt”.
The father said that the mother was having trouble staying awake and started taking illicit substances by smoking it. The father said that the mother would be violent after taking illicit substances. He said that the mother neglected the child because she was intoxicated from drugs.
The father said that he realised that he needed to pull his life together for the sake of his child and hoped that the mother would do so as well, but her drug abuse deteriorated and worsened. He said that every time he mentioned leaving and getting clean, the mother would threaten to self-harm herself and the child.
The father described the mother attacking him in the early hours of the morning in August 2016 and that the mother frightened him. He said that the mother left the house yelling “you win, you win, you can have him”. He said the mother drove off and left the child with him. He said that he had the care of the child ever since that day.
The matter came before Judge Baumann (as His Honour then was) on 10 October 2016 as a first court date. His Honour made intimations as to where the child should live. The parties then consented to orders which allowed the child to live with the mother and to spend from Friday night to Sunday night every second weekend as well as three blocks of three hours each fortnight with the father.
His Honour expressed concern that such orders were not in the best interests of X but, because both parties had agreed to this regime, the Court (with some reluctance) made those orders. The orders also stipulated that both parents had to complete a parenting course and that both had to refer themselves to D Centre. His Honour ordered that an Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) be appointed and adjourned the matter for further directions to January 2017.
On 18 January 2017, His Honour made further orders by consent which refined the time that the father was to spend with X. The orders noted that the father had not presented to D Centre whilst the mother had done so and that the father had not undertaken a parenting course whilst the mother had so. The matter was adjourned until July 2017.
Early 2017
In early 2017, the father presented at the mental health unit at the hospital. He reported a progressive decline in his mental state over the past two months which had worsened in the last few weeks. He said that he had heightened anxiety, ruminating thoughts, difficulty concentrating and a loss of appetite. He said, as such, he had been contemplating overdosing on prescription medication for two days prior to everything becoming too much for him the night before.

He told hospital staff that there was a Court case in the next week because he had breached the DVO (the incident in August 2016) and he is fearful that he would be imprisoned. He said that he had let his family down. He complained of dysfunction in his past relationship.
He said that he has an increasing debt due to gambling addiction. He said that he “spends up to $1200 each week on [gambling]”. He said that he knows that this is a problem for him, and he “is willing to address it”. He said that he owes his mother and stepfather $25,000 and his grandmother $3,500. He said he owes $4,000 to lawyers because of legal fees associated with his family and DV issues. He also said he has a SPER debt and that he often has to ask his mother for money.
The father told the health workers that he ceased his drug use 10 months ago, but they noted that the father “appears to have replaced this with increasing alcohol use drinking 6 to 12 beers or spirits daily”. He told the healthcare workers that he had been prescribed an antidepressant (a drug used to treat major depression and anxiety) but ceased using it two months ago as he was unsure if it was helping. The hospital noted that both the father and the PGM said that they noted a deterioration in the father since he stopped medication.
The father was admitted to hospital and was spoken to by Dr E the next morning. On this occasion he told the doctor that he would drink up to a full carton (24 beers) each night and if he went to the pub would have 20 to 30 schooners. He said that he gets the shakes if he is not drinking and that he sometimes sees shadows if he hasn’t been drinking.
During his inpatient stay, the father told MHU staff that he stopped his heavy drugs use because he did not want X to be exposed to a “junkie lifestyle”. The father said that he recognises that his alcohol and gambling addictions are barriers to improving his mental health and general well-being but he “cannot stop”. The father said that “they are the only things that make me feel good and provide an escape for me”.
The father said that he had “domestically abused my ex-girlfriend only once and this happened a long time ago and I was defending myself when we were both high off illicit substances”. The father said that the mother’s recent accusations were a complete lie and that he did not do it. (I do note that the father did not contest any of the mother’s accusations as to domestic violence in the past during this trial)
It would seem that the father was dealt with by Court for the breach of the DVO in early 2017. He may well have still been an inpatient at the MHU at that time. He was given a period of probation by the Court. The father was apparently discharged from the MHU a few days later.
His consultant psychiatrist wrote a letter, on 24 March 2017, stating that the father engaged well with the team and had been adhering to his management plan which included compliance with his medication and abstinence from drugs and alcohol.
Early 2017 incident
Late one evening in early 2017, the father turned up at the mother’s house. He was intoxicated and wouldn’t leave. This was an obvious breach of the DVO. The mother was able to record the conversation. The father ended up leaving about five minutes later.
In the very early hours, the mother received a text message from the father stating that he was down the road and that she had ignored his phone calls. At 3 AM, the father knocked at the door of the mother and was calling out whether she had jumper leads. The father was able to open the door and entered the house.
The mother, who had recently had surgery (as she has had a serious illness), was nervous because she did not want a physical altercation with the father. She told the father that he could not be at her house, and she told him to call roadside assist or his family members. The father instead told the mother that he was just going to sleep on the couch. She told him that she did not want him there, but he said, “I really appreciate it”, to which the mother replied, “you have not given me a choice”.
The mother went into X’s room, took him out of his cot and put him, and her dog, in her bedroom and pushed a load of packing boxes up against the door so that the father could not get in. However, she had left her phone charger outside and her phone was flat. She stayed in her bedroom until daylight.
She found the father was asleep on the couch but ignored him and went about her daily routine. She did tell the father, on a number of occasions after he woke, that he needed to leave and that he “couldn’t stay here”. The mother put her phone on the charger and sent messages to her sister and her solicitor.
The father phoned the PGM at about 10 AM but she would not come and get him. The mother heard the father talk to his other family members asking to be picked up. The mother recorded these conversations on her phone as well.
The sister of the mother, the maternal aunt, arrived at the house but did not go inside. The mother told the father that her sister was coming over. As soon as the father heard that, he grabbed whatever belongings he had and went out of the front door and ran off. The maternal aunt then came into the house. The mother then reported the incident to police.
In the recording that the mother made, the father can be heard saying that he knows that he should not be at the mother’s house. The father also admits to driving to the mother’s house drunk, that he slept in his car, the car has a flat battery, and that he went to the mother’s house at 3 AM to crash on the couch and that he needed a lift home.
Aftermath
The solicitor for the mother informed the ICL that the father had “overdosed” and had been admitted to the MHU. The ICL eventually subpoenaed records from the hospital. The ICL wrote to the father and the PGM. The ICL was of the view that the time that the father spent with X needed to now be supervised by the PGM.
Eventually, the PGM agreed to supervise, and the father signed an undertaking that he would only see X whilst supervised. All of this was undertaken without venturing back to the Court.
In the meantime, police began investigating the further breach of the DVO. The police interviewed the father in mid-2017. The father denied that he had been to the house of the mother. He said that he and his cousin had gone out that night. He said that he did drive in the vicinity of the mother’s address but ensured that he stayed outside of the 100 m radius of her house.
He said that his car did break down and he sent the mother a message that his car had broken down in her vicinity. He said that his cousin contacted the partner of the cousin who came to the location and picked them both up and that he spent the night at his cousin’s home. Police noted that the cousin was willing to provide a statement to that effect and the partner was also willing to do so.
The father told police that the mother had fabricated her complaint to get him into trouble regarding custody of X. I note that the father did not suggest anything of the sort to the mother on this point during her cross examination.
The police then spoke to the partner of the cousin at a later time. She told police that she had had no contact with the father for well over 12 months and that she has nothing to do with him and no longer communicates with him. She told police that she had no idea about any incident that happened in early 2017 and would not provide a statement supporting the father.
On 10 July 2017, the matter came back before Judge Baumann. His Honour amended the previous orders by specifying that any time that the father spent with X would be supervised by the PGM. His Honour also ordered that the father comply with the mental health care plan of the treating team and that he takes whatever medication is prescribed by his treating medical practitioners.
His Honour also ordered that the ICL circulate to all the parties a minute of interim or final orders that the ICL would recommend be made to the Court. His Honour adjourned the matter until November 2017 but noted that the father had yet to present himself to D Centre notwithstanding that such an order had been made in late 2016 (and was also part of the treatment plan spoken of by Dr E who had written that the father had, to the best of his knowledge, been complying with that plan.)
To assist the parties, the ICL commissioned a “report” from Dr F and sought an affidavit from the PGM to speak as to how the father had behaved during supervised time.
The Dr F report
In a report dated 1 February 2018, Dr F, a psychologist, reported that the father had attended seven sessions with him but had cancelled five sessions which had to be rescheduled. He said that the father told him that he had suffered long-term illicit drug dependence for 25 years. The father said that he had ceased using the drugs using a cold turkey method one year prior. (The father clarified this during his evidence; that he was 25 years old when he quit drugs in 2016, meaning that he was 10 years old when he began using illicit substances regularly and 15 years old when he began using illicit drugs).
According to Dr F, the father admitted that he was still having issues with drinking alcohol more than he would like and gambling more than he would like. The father said he was concerned about financial debts and his financial situation was causing him stress. He said the guilt he felt after gambling and losing money was causing him more stress.
Dr F was of the view that the father may be suffering from adult ADHD. He was also of the view that the father had a depressive disorder. Dr F said that he was using cognitive behavioural therapy to assist the father. Dr F noted that the father had been referred to a psychiatrist but, at that point, had not attended.
The father reported to Dr F that his addictive behaviours are back under control. The father said he had only gambled a small amount of money on one occasion in the preceding three weeks and had significantly reduced his alcohol intake. He said that his mood was more stable, and he was able to repay debts and he was not experiencing persistent guilt from gambling.
Dr F was of the view that the issues with alcohol and gambling were in the process of being addressed and had not been completely resolved. He said the ADHD symptoms were still present, and the father needed to continue treatment to compensate for those deficits. Dr F was of the view that the depressive symptoms had been successfully resolved but that the father was highly vulnerable to relapse.
Dr F said that the father needed to continue treatment until he ceases gambling and further reduces his alcohol intake. He noted that the treatment he had given had not involved anything to do with parenting capacity or improving the parenting skills of the father.
Affidavit of the PGM
The PGM swore an affidavit on 23 January 2018. The PGM said that she and the paternal grandfather ensured that one of them at least was present throughout the time that X spent with the father and for changeovers. She said that the father takes good care of X during those visits.
She said to the best of her knowledge, the father had not used illicit or illegal drugs at least since he had separated from the mother in August 2016. She said that she had not seen the father consume excessive alcohol at any time whilst the child was present. She said she would not tolerate the father drink driving.
She said that if she became concerned about the father’s drinking in the future, she would speak with him about that and she believed that the father would listen to her about that.
The PGM spoke of what she saw as the very good communication between the mother and the father.
Final orders - February 2018
On 16 February 2018, the parties asked His Honour Judge Egan to make final orders by consent. These orders gave both parents equal shared parental responsibility and that the child live with the mother. The orders specified that the mother had to abstain from excessive alcohol consumption and not use illegal or illicit substances.
The orders dictated that X would spend each Friday night with his father as well as alternative Saturday nights with his father.
Post final orders
As previously noted, the parents did communicate well soon after the orders were made. They were also attempting to reconcile. The mother conceded in cross-examination that she and the father resumed their sexual relationship for a short time during this period. The mother ended up agreeing to the father spending more time with X than the orders had prescribed.
By late 2018, the communication between the parties was getting worse. The parents argued over a proposed party that would be a combined birthday celebration for X. In late 2018, the mother wanted to go on a trip with her family. The father would not allow X to go on that trip. The mother ended up agreeing to the father living in her house for the time that she was away so that he could look after X without X being away from his familiar environment.
The father insisted on the mother giving him $500 because he said he would not be able to work if he was looking after X and that he needed the money. The mother made sure that her pantry and fridge were full. The mother left another $150 for the father to take X on outings. By the third day of the trip, the father had rung the mother on multiple occasions which she had missed.
When she eventually rang back, the father was angry. He told the mother that he had no “drugs” left and he was losing it. She discovered that the father had spent the money she had given him on alcohol and gambling. He told the mother that if she did not send him more money to get drugs, he will just go to work and leave X at home by himself. He called her a “dumb fucking cunt” and a “useless slut”. (I note that, again, none of this was challenged during the mother’s cross examination.)
This caused the mother to panic because she had no money left in her account having given the father a sizeable sum. The mother could not contact the PGM and was trying to contact other friends to see if they would help her by loaning her money and dropping it to the father. The friend whom she contacted was able to give money to the father.
When the mother returned, she discovered that the father did go to work and had dropped X off to the PGM. The father told the mother that he had illicit substances in her house while she was on the trip. He told her that he took photos of the drugs in her house so that he could use it later if she “pissed him off” when he would claim that it was her drugs and get her arrested and have X taken away from her.
Incidents in early 2019
The mother received text messages from the father telling her that he would self-harm. The mother was still in contact with the PGM. The PGM told the mother that the father was at a friend’s house and asked the mother to pick him up. She did this but then let him drive her car to the paternal grandfather’s house. The mother said the father drove angrily and recklessly. She said the father was angry because she would not let him live at her house.
The mother described the father speeding up in traffic towards a T intersection and slamming on the brakes on the middle of traffic. She told him to let her and X out of the car, but he kept driving towards the paternal grandfather’s house. Once he arrived at the paternal grandfather’s house, the father went inside. The mother drove away and ended up driving to the maternal grandfather’s house.
Whilst she was there at that house, the maternal grandfather’s stepson, Mr G, came inside to tell the mother that the father was outside the house screaming for her. The mother said that there was no reason for the father to be there. She went outside, and the father started yelling at her. The father was insinuating that the mother was at this house to have sexual relations with Mr G.
The father began to get violent by hitting the fence and putting his hands in the mother’s face. He told her to “give me my son” and that if she didn’t, she would “cop it”. Mr G came out and told the father to stop yelling and to stop being violent. The mother told the father that he had to leave. The father became even more aggressive and raised his fists at the mother telling her to “bring me my son, you fucking slut before I get really fucking angry and flog the fuck out of you”.
As the father raised his fist, Mr G pushed her out of the way and the father punched Mr G. Mr G and the father continued to fight. The mother said that she was shaking and was in tears and did not know what to do. The father eventually left, and the police arrived, as they had been called by concerned neighbours.
The mother declined to make a statement because she did not wish the situation to escalate. The police pointed out that the father had breached the order and were able to keep their report “on the system”, regardless.
Text messages
The mother has annexed several text messages that were sent by the father during this period. She has also annexed several text messages between herself and the PGM. The text messages sent by the father would seem to corroborate what the mother has said about the relationship between the two at this point. I will only mention a few of these text messages, but when they are read as a whole, they paint a disturbing picture.
In early 2019, the father sent a text message to the mother, in these terms:-
U know what when [X] say 2 U why did dad kill him self just say he a piece of shit O n wait a minute he a warm peace of shit,cunt, paranoid,skitafranuc, low life s scum bag. That what I am by
In early 2019, after the incident at the maternal grandfather’s house, the father texted the mother wanting to know if his sunglasses were there. He then wrote:-
So did U fuck him as well is that why U stayed there even after I made my self very fucking clear how I felt about U stay there whilst that cunt is there. that why U had me on speaker I tell uwhat I find out he has touch U all my son in any way n I mean any way he will be a dead man walking
The mother was in contact with the PGM to try and get the father to stop threatening the mother. The PGM was worried that the police would become involved. In early 2019, the father sent the following text to the mother:-
Fuck U U an your dad game Over this is hOw U wanna pLay cunt
I hope u drop ded
JUst letting You Know I have let child services kNow all about U your dad drug dealing so fuck U
I’m his farther so I will be having my son on the day the court order say if not U will be arrested so just try
Answer n the police want be Involved I mean iT I really don’t care if I and getting locked up like I said I will die b4 that happen so answer the fucking phone know or are you fat legs 2 busy being spread like a slut U r is that why U can’t answer U have your mouth hands full do U
I really hope die a slow painful death I really do
Hope your [illness] spread all through u. U deserve it
The mother obtained another domestic violence order after these incidents.
February 2020 incident
At changeover in February 2020, the mother met the father at a service station. As the child was transitioning to the mother, the father accused the mother of telling the child that the father was not his father anymore. The father said that the child had told the father that “you are my second dad now”.
The mother said that the father began abusing her and calling out to the child, “you hear that mate, your mum is a slut” and “she is a fucking cunt”. During this time the mother was taking the child out of the car seat in the father’s car and strapping him into the car seat in her car. Once this was done, she walked around her car to get into the driver’s seat, but the father pushed past her and blocked her from re-entering her vehicle.
The mother said that the father told her, “I will take you back to court, you will be breached, I am going to take your son”. He then said to her “you are a slut” and that she should “enjoy another year’s worth of court costs”. The mother walked away from the father and the father yelled at her that she was not allowed to have his son near her new “bloke”. He then accused the new partner of being a paedophile. The father then said, “tell me that you are fucking him, tell me he is fucking you hard”. The mother said that she just began to agree with everything that the father was saying including telling him what he had asked her to say.

The mother walked towards her car having had enough of the antics of the father. The mother said that the father then grabbed her keys out of the ignition of her car and demanded that she tell him the details of the new partner. She said that she took her phone and started recording.
The mother said that the father kept threatening her. He told her to ring the police and they will get hurt or to bring her new partner down to the service station and he would get hurt or that the mother and X would be hurt. The mother kept asking for her keys to be given back to her.
The mother said that the service station attendant and another person approached them asking if everything was okay and whether the police should be called. The mother said that she was trying to downplay the situation and told them she just wanted her keys back. She did ask these two people whether they could help her get her keys the other person has gone to the father and attempted to get keys back. The father was then thrown the keys and they landed near the drive-through section of the McDonald’s which was next to the service station. That other person retrieved the keys for the mother.
The father walked over and picked the child out of his car seat began holding him tight telling him “You don’t want to live with mummy, you want to live daddy”. The father then told the mother that X would be coming with him. The mother then said to the father “I can’t control what happens from here” and told him the police would be called if he didn’t give X back to the mother.
When the mother came to him and tried to take X, the father said “See [X], your mum is trying to take you from me”.
The mother was able to take the child and put him in her car and then she drove away.
The mother was soon driving on the highway. She then noticed that the father was in his car right behind her beeping his horn. The father has accelerated, drawing level with the mother’s car where he has abused the mother causing the child to become “hysterical”.
The father then accelerated away and went in a different direction. The mother drove to the maternal grandfather’s house. Soon afterwards, she began receiving voicemails and messages from the father about what just happened. The father was reiterating that they would be going back to court “over everything”.
About three hours later, the father began sending intimate photographs of the mother threatening to publish them on social media - a form of sextortion. The father continued to send threatening messages. Eventually, the mother went to the police station and made a complaint.
The following voicemail messages were sent by the father in February 2020.
5.54pm
You’re about to become famous [Ms Houghton], we both are. Hope ya fuckin’ happy ya slut
6.02pm
Answer the fucking phone. So much for answering it aye yeah. You’re all full of shit. The whole fucking lot of ya’s mate. Right. Answer your fucking phone like I said before something bad fucking happens and you do become fucking famous
6.07pm
Oh what? You’re too busy, you got your mouth full of fucking his cock do ya? Huh? yeah. Fuckin’ no, fuckin’ no wonder where you got your fuckin’ your fuckin’ sex diseases from you fuckin’ ya fuckin’ slut. Wasn’t definitely wasn’t fuckin’ me. I know that’s for fuckin’ sure. Fuckin’ I should go fuckin’ go and fuckin’ get myself fuckin’ checked.
In February 2020, the father sent text messages to the mother threatening to show to police, and to the Court, the naked photos and videos that the mother had sent him during the course of their relationship.
September 2020 conversations
As previously detailed, the mother had a domestic violence order where the father was not permitted to contact her unless it was in relation to matters to do with the coparenting of X.
In September 2020 at 4:48pm, the mother received a phone call from the father. The conversation had nothing to do with X. The father asked about the mother’s current relationship and asked whether her boyfriend was with her. The father asked to speak to the boyfriend. When the mother told the father that the boyfriend was not available, the father said, “you do know one day I am going to find him and speak to him man-to-man, you do know that ay”. The mother terminated the phone call but did make an audio recording of it.
The mother received a number of text messages later that day and on the following day.
The mother told the father to stop contacting her as he is not allowed to do so.
The mother went to the police in September 2020 and made a complaint about the continual breaching of the DVO. In that statement, the mother wrote:-
(The father) has caused me extreme anxiety to the point where I have to lock my entire house up, packed my bags up and I ready to run if I have to do. I have also started initiating a safety plan regarding his behaviour. This has become an ongoing issue where I have had to do this. I am afraid (the father) will turn up to my address. I did not give (the father) any lawful permission to contact me unannounced.
This complaint then became an open investigation for the police.
September 2020 incident
This incident is the culmination of what had occurred previously and is the pivotal occurrence in the assessment of what parenting orders are in the best interests of X.
Notwithstanding that the mother had made a complaint to police in September 2020, the mother still facilitated X’s time with the father the following day. X was in the father’s care one morning in September 2020.
At about 9.00am that morning, the father began phoning the mother with profanity laced calls, calling the mother a “stupid, fucking, silly cunt”. The father repeatedly told the mother that, “You’ve signed my death warrant, now I’ll sign yours”. The father said that he would “hunt your father down and slaughter him too”.
The father asked the mother to contact police so that he could have a shootout with them. The father made continual threats to harm the mother and the child. I will speak of these later in these reasons.
The mother was quite understandably shaken by the ferocity of these phone calls and left her residence as she was unsure as to what the father was actually planning to do. The mother was extremely worried about X. The mother was able to ascertain that X was with the PGM. The mother sent messages to the PGM trying to organise a meeting at the police station, but the PGM declined and indicated that she would meet the mother at a service station.
Statement of the PGM
The PGM gave a police statement after this incident. She described the father coming out of his room that morning. She said that X was with him but that the father appeared “flustered”. She said that she asked the father what was wrong, and the father replied, “[Ms Houghton] has gone to the police again. They are going to try and arrest me. They will have to shoot me”.
The grandmother described the father as pacing around the house, clearly agitated. She said that X was following the father around and she heard him say “daddy, what’s wrong?”
The father responded to X “your mother has called the cops and they are going to have to shoot me if they want to take me to jail”. X became visibly upset at this and said, “I don’t want you to die, daddy”.
The PGM said that she was not happy with the way that the father was speaking to X and so grabbed X and said to the father to stop speaking this way in front of child. She said that the father then stormed off to his room. She said that X asked her whether the police were going to shoot the father and the PGM comforted him and said that this was not going to happen and that the father was just a bit upset.
She took X outside for a little while and then came back into the house. She said that the father was in the kitchen using a bread knife to get some bread to make a sandwich. She said that X then said to the father “daddy, I don’t want police to shoot you”. As the child said this, the father turned and walked away. Both the paternal grandmother and X then followed him.
The PGM said that the father put the bread knife on a glass cabinet, she said that X then jumped into the father’s arms and wrapped his arms and legs around the father saying, “I don’t want the police to take you away”.
The father then said to the PGM that she was going to have to take X back to the mother. The PGM called her sister and arranged to go to her house with X. The PGM said that she tried to call the mother, but the mother did not answer. The father said to X, “come on mate, go with Nanny now”.
The PGM said that she had to tear X away from the father and X kept saying “I don’t want my daddy to die”. She said that she tried to reassure X by telling him that this would not happen to the father.
What X said that day
According to the PGM, when X left her car and went to the mother, the mother asked him how he was. X replied, “I’ve had a really bad day today”. X then said that “the police are going to kill me and dad”.
According to the PGM, nothing else was said. The PGM said that the mother did not enquire about this statement, nor did she react. The PGM said that the mother just took X’s hand and walked off to her car. PGM said that, notwithstanding what X had just said, the father had not said anything like that during the course of the morning.
According to the mother, X came over to her and said, “hi mum” and that his father “wanted to kill both of us, but me and Nanny got away from him so I can’t get killed”. The mother said that she became quite emotional and this and could see that X was also very upset. She said that she bent down to hug him.
The mother said that her cousin, Mr J, was with them and he came over to her. X told Mr J “I didn’t have a good day today because daddy wanted the police to come, and daddy wanted to kill me too. But Nanny got me away from dad”.
The mother told X that he was safe, and she then said to X “Nanny got you away, did she?” X replied, “yeah from dad because daddy was really naughty, daddy got a weapon, daddy got a weapon, it was dangerous, Nanny saved me”.
The mother said that in the car there was some further conversation where X told her that “Daddy came over and took me off Nanny. He said we are going to the police and me and you are getting killed”. The mother said “What? Me and you are getting killed?” X replied, “me and daddy”.
What X said in September 2020
Ms K is the sister of the mother and the maternal aunt to X. She runs a family day care at her home, called L Business. The maternal aunt said that she was looking after X, after the incident, and he was attending daycare.
The aunt said that, in September 2020, X began making disclosures to her. She said that she has an iPhone to take photos as part of the daycare facilities. She utilised this iPhone to take notes of what X said. Those notes are annexed to the affidavit of the mother. The notations were made as part of her obligations as a child care provider and are written as such.
The notations that the maternal aunt made are reproduced below:-
Observation Narrative
Approximately 8:45am, [X] was sat down at the [table], playing with the animals.
[X] then began conversing with [Ms K] about events that occurred in September, 2020.
[X]: ‘you make me feel safe, and Aunty [Ms M] and Aunty [Ms N] and Grandma but mostly my mummy.:
[Ms K] “im glade you feel safe with me [X], you can always tell me tings if you want to because it is safe here. Would you like to talk a little bit about your weekend?”
[X] “lots of things happened that were scary”
[Ms K] “how about we just start at the beginning? So where were you over the weekend?
[X] “I was at nannies house”
[Ms K]: was that for 1 sleep over or 2 sleep overs?
[X]: I had 2 sleep over. But the really bad day was on the number 2 sleep over.
[Ms K]: ok so what happened?
[X]: I was with Nanny and playing video on my game and Daddy came and tried to take me from Nanny. He decided to turn bad and was yelling so loud and saying lots of bad words. Daddy then got me and was yelling at me and nanny the he wanted to kill us dead.
[Ms K]: oh buddy that sounds very scary
[X]: Daddy was being angry and scare and he got a big [weapon]. Nanny then got me and nanny got me away so I can’t get killed. I didn’t have a good day.
[Ms K]: no it doesn’t sound like you had a good day at all.
[X]: daddy wanted the police to come. Daddy wanted the police to kill us. (begins to cry) I was very, very, very, very scared. Daddy came and got me from nanny and he said me and you are getting killed dead.
[Ms K]: what happened then?
[X]: I was crying, I cried and I cried and I cried I cried and I cried I cried and I cried I cried and I cried and I cried and I cried
[X] then got up from his chair and cuddled [Ms K].
[X]: I was so scared I was going to ged dead. Nanny just got me and took me away in her car, and then got [Ms O]. And [Ms O] drove me and nanny and Grandy and brought me all the way to mummy and then I was safe.
[X] cuddled [Ms K] more firm. It was the worstest day ever.
[Ms K]: Buddy that sounds like the worst day ever. How do you feel now?
[X]: im safe here with you and my mummy and Aunty [Ms N], and Aunty [Ms M] and my Grandma and (dog) and (cat).
At 9:19am [Ms K] contacted [Q Service] to request a mentor come out to visit explaining the conversation with [X].
At approximately 13:30 –[Ms P] from [Q Service] began a conversation with [X] about the different set ups, who was in care and some art work.
[X]: it wasn’t a good weekend.
[Ms P]: oh no, its a bit disappointing isn’t it.
[X]: and can I say about my weekend with dad?
[Ms K]: yes you can tell her its safe here.
[X]: Daddy changed his mid to being bad and then he got a [weapon] and then nanny got me away from there.
[Ms K]: what did he say? What words?
[X]: that we were going to get dead and jail but nanny got me away to my mummy. I was a lot scared and I cried and I cried and I cried.
[Ms P]: maybe it was good that your nanny got you away at that time.
[X]: yah.
In her evidence before me, the maternal aunt explained that, as part of the protocols for setting up a home day care, she needs to have a “mentor”. The term “mentor” is a term that is used in the protocols by the organisation “Q Service”. As a result of the disclosures that X had made, it was appropriate (according to the protocols) for the maternal aunt to ask a mentor or to come out to observe what had happened. In this case, the mentor was “Ms P”.
This information was relayed to the mother. It caused the mother to be concerned for her safety. The mother set up CCTV cameras at her home which were movement detected.
September 2020
The mother was advised by the Department of Child Safety that she should not allow the child to spend time with the father. The mother said that she was told that, if she did allow X to spend time with the father, the Department would be making an application for guardianship of the child.
The mother, accordingly, did not allow the father to have any time with the child. As of September 2020, the police had not yet taken any action against the father. According to the arrangements, the father was supposed to have X in his care that day. The mother, through her solicitors, contacted him and told him that, because of the involvement of the Department and other agencies, she was not going to allow the father to spend time with X.
That afternoon, the mother received a barrage of voice and text messages from the father. The mother said that within the space of five minutes, she received 22 missed calls, 26 blocked calls and numerous abusive voicemails. At that point, she was already at the Suburb R Police Station talking to police about the events of September 2020. The mother reported that the police officers heard the messages.
While the mother was with the police, she received a notification on her phone that the cameras she had installed at her house had been activated. She, and the police, could see that the father was at the front door of the mother’s house.
What X said to police in September 2020
As a result of the disclosures, the police decided to attempt to interview X, notwithstanding his tender years. As can be seen on the recording (which is Exhibit 4), it was difficult to keep X still and certainly keep him on track when he was talking to police. Nevertheless, X did tell the police that the previous Sunday was a “bad day with dad”.
X told police that his father was happy because he was making a games video but then he began to become angry. X said that he didn’t know what made the father angry. X told police that his father got a weapon and took him off Nanny. According to X, the father then said, “we are going [X]”. X said that he replied “no” and that Nanny then said, “I didn’t want this to happen” and that the father then said, “it did happen”.
X described the weapon as having sharp bits and that the father held it. X said that he couldn’t remember the words that daddy was saying but that he “cried and cried and cried and cried” for his mother. X said they were in the TV area when his father had the weapon. X said that Nanny screamed out “put that weapon down” because it was dangerous.
X said that, when his father had the weapon, it made him cry because it was bad. He said that he and his Nanny were able to drive away to go to his mum. He said when he got to his mum, he was feeling safe, and he stopped crying. X said that his father got the weapon from Nanny’s kitchen table and that Nanny normally uses the weapon for chopping some goodies.
The police then finished the interview and turned off the recording devices. As the interview finished, X then said to police that “Nanny saved me from daddy because daddy wanted to kill me”.
The police officer then activated her digital recorder and began recording. Again, X reiterated that “Nanny saved me from daddy because daddy wanted to kill me”.
Subsequent events
The mother filed the present application in November 2020.
The mother reported that X has been under the care of a therapist since the September 2020 incident. She said that X has made disturbing comments at random events. These comments include telling people that “my dad tried to kill me”. X has reportedly said “I hate my life” or “I just want my dad to die” or “I just want to die”.
The mother has also reported that X has said after therapy sessions or interviews, “No one believes me about what happened”, “I don’t want to see/talk about my dad, why is no one listening to me?” “Why do we still have to do this?”
The mother recalled seeing X on a date just before his fifth birthday (sometime in 2020) pouring an excessive amount of salt into a cup of water. When she asked what he was doing, X replied “I’m making a poison for my dad to drink”. When the mother said to him that she didn’t think giving his dad poison was a very kind thing to do and that he could talk to her about his thoughts and feelings before doing anything like that, X replied “okay mummy, I was just trying to come up with a plan”. The mother said that such thoughts and behaviour like this have worried her over the intervening three years.
Court orders
This matter first came before Her Honour Judge Purdon Sully on 16 November 2020. On that occasion, Her Honour ordered that the child live with the mother and spend no time with father. Her Honour appointed an ICL and adjourned the matter for mention on 15 February 2021.
On that date, the father did not appear, and Her Honour set the matter down for a default hearing on 21 April 2021.
On that date, the father (through a lawyer) appeared, and Her Honour ordered that the parties comply with whatever directions were given by the ICL for the purposes of the compilation of a family report. Her Honour adjourned the matter for mention to 18 August 2021.
The matter was instead heard on 24 August 2021 and the family report had been distributed to the parties. Her Honour ordered that the father submit to hair follicle testing within seven days and that the ICL request further testing of both parties. Her Honour ordered the parents to complete certain parenting programs and for the father to obtain an updated mental health assessment.

The ICL was also ordered to obtain a report from the therapists working with X to see whether X was at a point where he could spend time with the father. Her Honour adjourned the matter to 25 November 2021.
I add, at this point, that the psychologist, Ms S, began working with the father and X pursuant to the orders of Her Honour. On 12 October 2021, Ms S contacted the father and explained that her plan was to have further sessions with X before any reintroduction could occur. Ms S described that the father then became aggressive on the phone call and was talking over Ms S. She described him as swearing. The father was denigrating the mother and the ICL.
He insisted to Ms S that a reintroduction had to occur immediately. The father twice stated to Ms S that he “may as well find and kidnap [X]” before he hung up. Ms S reported this to police and to the mother.
Once the mother was contacted and told what the father had said, she contacted the school. The school was concerned, given the history of the father, and the school was placed into lockdown. It seems that the matter then left the docket of Her Honour, and the case management was then undertaken by a judicial registrar.
On 25 October 2021, the judicial registrar ordered that the paternal grandmother be joined as a party to the proceedings. The PGM had sought orders for time with X separate to those sought by the father. The Judicial Registrar ordered a child impact report be prepared.
The Judicial Registrar also ordered that a family therapist was to be appointed by the parties, it would seem, for the purpose of reunification. The matter was then adjourned until March 2022.
The matter came before the Judicial Registrar again on 22 April 2022 which was simply to release copies of the Child Impact Report.
On 11 May 2022, the matter was before the judicial registrar again. It was ordered that the ICL arrange for an updated family report and that the matter would be listed before a Senior Judicial Registrar for an interim hearing.
That did not happen. On 31 August 2022, the Judicial Registrar adjourned the matter to 23 November 2022.
On that date, the Judicial Registrar adjourned the matter for another week but noted that the parties may be able to resolve the issues before the Court.
On 1 December 2022, the parties consented to the child living with the mother. The parties consented to an order that the father attend upon a psychiatrist and that he was to engage with a psychologist and engage in a drug and alcohol program. The parties agreed to an order that the father and the child engage in individual and joint therapy with Mr T, a clinical psychologist. The parties agreed to X spending time with the PGM at a contact centre.
The Judicial Registrar listed the matter for a compliance and readiness hearing on 6 March 2023.
On that date, His Honour Judge Middleton made trial directions, made an order pursuant to s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and set the matter for trial before me beginning 7 November 2023.
The trial began before me on 7 November 2023. The mother had completed all her evidence early on the second day. The father was still being cross-examined, rather vigorously, by Counsel for the mother at the end of the second day. After the second hearing day, Counsel for the mother became ill and the trial was adjourned, part heard, to 21 February 2024.
The Evidence of the Mother
The mother was an impressive witness. The mother was cross-examined, and a number of propositions were put to her.
She was asked whether she had used drugs since X was born. She admitted that she did use illicit substances fleetingly in 2016. She was asked whether she had sent the father abusive texts. She admitted that she had in the context of what the father had sent her.
She was asked whether she had used electronic devices to track where the father was. She said that she had a “find my phone” app on her phone from the time in which they were together. During the times when the father was constantly breaching the DVO, she did use that app to ensure that he was not anywhere near her.
She was asked whether she had ever used the father’s phone to look at text messages. She said that she had but explained that the father had asked her to fix his phone. She couldn’t do that and left the phone in a cupboard. The father did not ask for the phone to be returned. Later she found the phone, turned it on and it was now working. She looked through the phone and found text messages between the father and the PGM.
The mother was asked whether she had ever told X that she would kill him. She admitted that she had said something like that when trying to get him to stop behaving in a particular manner (she believes that he would not stop jumping on the bed). The mother explained that, in exasperation, she said that if he didn’t stop, she would kill him. She said that she did not ever mean that and realised that she had gone too far and immediately apologised to X.
It was then put to the mother, by Counsel for the father, that she had complained that the father had used drugs, sent her abusive texts messages, disobeyed the law and told X that he would kill him. When she agreed, it was put to her that she had behaved in the same manner.
Though I said nothing at the time, I believed such a question was demeaning and insulting. To attempt, in any way, to minimise the father’s uncontradicted behaviour with that of the mother, is ludicrous. The fact that such propositions were put to the mother, on instructions, illustrates to me that the father’s lack of insight into his own behaviour is appalling. It also indicates to me that the father is still trying to control the mother by having his counsel attempt to “gaslight” her by attempting to compare her behaviour to that of the father’s. (This behaviour got worse as I will explain later in these Reasons.)
The mother was cross-examined about the incident in February 2020. It was put to her that she had told X that her new partner was X’s father and that the father was not the father anymore. The mother disagreed with that proposition. It was then suggested to her that she was taunting the father when, in the presence of X, the mother told the father that her new partner was “fucking me hard”. The mother agreed that she had said those words, but it was in the context of the behaviour of the father that I have earlier described (and which the mother told the police in a written statement in September 2020 which is annexure H-32 to her affidavit).
The mother conceded that, as far as she knew, the father had complied with the terms of the DVO over the past three years.
The mother conceded that she has undergone infrequent safety drills with X. She conceded that she does have a bag packed and ready and has a safe place where she can go if the father were to come after her. It was put to the mother that these drills may be part of what is still bothering X. The mother conceded that this could be so, however there have been many triggers to the troubles X has, and given the past behaviour of the father, the mother must be prepared for the worst.
The mother was asked, in cross-examination by counsel for the ICL, whether the mother overreacted when she was contacted by Ms S on 12 October 2021 by having the school locked down. Again, I found question to be insulting but, on this occasion, I asked Counsel for the ICL as to what the overreaction was. Counsel told me that the overreaction was the locking down of the school. I explained that the mother could not have been responsible for the decision to lockdown the school and the only thing that the mother would be responsible for doing is informing the school of what Ms S had told her. I asked Counsel for the ICL whether he was suggesting that the action that the mother took, in informing the school of what Ms S had told her, was, itself, an overreaction. When Counsel told me that this was the question he wished to ask, I disallowed the question because of its insulting nature.
The mother was a truthful witness. She made appropriate concessions. She did not seek to argue the inarguable. The mother did not sugarcoat her evidence, nor did she attempt to put a gloss or “spin” to her evidence to somehow make it more palatable to the court. She simply told the truth and let the consequences fall where they may.
The mother conceded that she had “escape plans” if it were that the father breached the conditions of his DV order. This included having several “safe houses” to which she could escape as well as having packed provisions in a few locations in case the situation was such that she would not be safe returning home. The mother also told the Court that she had conducted practice “drills” which included members of her family and X in which the preparedness, for the eventuality of the father ignoring the DV order, was tested and fine-tuned.
The mother conceded that having X partake in these drills may be something that would heighten the child’s fear and, consequently, cause him anxiety; but the mother said that these steps were necessary given the history of the father’s compliance with DV orders made by the Courts.
Evidence of the Father
In contrast to the mother, the father was a very unimpressive witness. It was obvious to me that he had come to Court prepared to make certain concessions, but when other appropriate concessions should have been made, the father would not do so. The father constantly interrupted and spoke over the questioner and tried to make speeches rather than answer the question. When the questions became too hard, the father became evasive and claimed that he had no memory of that particular incident.
The father said that he acted disrespectfully in front of his son and did not behave as a father should. He said that he could understand why the mother didn’t want him to see X anymore, but he wanted to implore upon the Court that he was a changed man.
The words, that he uttered, rang hollow. It seemed to me that he was saying these words simply because he knew that this was what the Court wanted to hear. I do not accept that he truly believed what he was saying.
However, one of the ways in which he could have illustrated that he was a changed man, was by telling the truth to the Court. However, the honesty displayed by the mother was not reciprocated by the father.
What the father told the Court was that he had addressed all his issues and that the Court should have no problems finding that he is of no risk to X.
With respect to his drug use, he said that whilst he may have used drugs in the past, he has abstained totally from drugs for the last five years. He said he had been using illicit substances since he was 10 but ceased using the drug in 2016 (when he was 25). He said that he had been using illicit substances since he was 15 but ceased all such use in 2016 as well. The father said that he does drink alcohol and does so most nights, and on the weekends, but there had never been any problem with his intake of alcohol.
The father said that there was nothing in his mental health history that would give the Court any concern.
The father was then taken to medical records of his admissions to hospital. The father had six admissions to the mental health unit from the years 2011 to 2020.
Admission in late 2010
In late 2010, the father presented to the mental health unit (MHU). The father had consumed cold and flu tablets, seemingly, in response to difficulties in his romantic relationship that led to a breakdown of that relationship two weeks before the admission. The hospital material noted that this coincided with increased use of illicit substances but also gambling.
The notes of the hospital detailed that the father has both maternal and paternal family histories of substance misuse and gambling addiction. The hospital noted that the father was insightful into his problems and motivated to seek help to address his issues. The MHU noted that the father denied any current risk and he agreed to seek help if those thoughts occurred in the future. The father said that he planned to contact U Service (an organisation that provides psychological services to young people) and had already engaged with a drug and alcohol counsellor.
Admission in early 2011
In early 2011, the father again presented to the MHU. The MHU notes disclose that the father said that he had taken an overdose with the intention of ending his life as he was stressed. Despite what the father had told the MHU three months earlier, he said that he had continued using illicit drugs and he was spending between $300 and $400 a week on the drug. The PGM was present and the MHU noted that the PGM was aware of the father’s substance misuse.
The father told the MHU that he had engaged with U Service after his admission in late 2010 but stopped engaging as he felt that he had improved.
The father was discharged, and the MHU wrote a letter to his GP (reproduced at page 40 of Exhibit 1) which said that the MHU would follow up until links have been made with relevant services which including U Service and V Service (which provides drug counselling and rehabilitation services). The letter requested the GP to make the appropriate referrals.
Admission in mid-2016
As earlier noted, the father was the subject of an Emergency Examination Order (EEO) following an altercation with the paternal grandfather in which the father struck the grandfather with an object. As noted, on that visit to the MHU, the father denied self-harm but told hospital staff that he had ended a relationship two weeks ago with the mother. He said that he used illicit substances heavily during the relationship. He said that he ceased using illicit substances two weeks ago. He said that he had also ceased his heavy illicit substances use three weeks ago.
The father told the MHU that he had been losing his temper at times and that this was an ongoing concern as a DVO was in place. The father said he had just completed a Court ordered C Centre domestic violence men’s group program. The MHU noted that the father was not reporting any psychotic features.
The hospital noted that they would provide support and follow-up. The MHU contacted the GP who informed the MHU that he would complete a mental health care plan for the father. The group D Centre saw the father at the hospital and were to provide support and follow-up.
Admission in early 2017
This admission has been previously described during these Reasons. During this admission, the father said that he “hears external voices every now and then telling me to hurt myself and remind me of past behaviours that I regret…been hearing them since I stopped using [illicit substances a year] ago”. The father denied that he was any risk to others or to himself and he denied having any self-harm ideation despite his admission being caused by a “[self-harm] attempt”.
The MHU did not note any evidence of psychosis.
The MHU noted that the father needed ongoing counselling with the psychologist, psychoeducation around alcohol and gambling, and giving the father information regarding rehabilitation for his addiction to alcohol and gambling.
Contact with MHU in mid-2017
As earlier noted, after his discharge and sentencing for breaching his DVO, the father had been given supports to help him with his issues. Again, as earlier noted, the father again breached the DVO during the incident that occurred in early 2017. Again, as earlier noted, the police were investigating this incident during mid-2017.
In mid-2017, the father contacted MHU and said that he was having a couple of bad weeks where he was having bad thoughts. He described continuing to drink alcohol and gamble significant amounts of money. The father claimed that this was causing self-harm ideation, but he denied that he was going to act on this ideation.
Notwithstanding that the MHU had put the father in touch with D Centre, and that it was a condition of his probation that he undertake a course run by D Centre, the father still had not even contacted D Centre.
Notwithstanding that the MHU had put the father in touch with psychological support services, the father had not visited his GP to discuss a mental health care plan. The father had ceased taking the medication that was prescribed for him almost immediately after his discharge in early 2017.
The MHU noted that the father agreed to make an appointment to see his GP early in the next week and to remain connected to ensure that his situation remains settled.
Admission in early 2019
As previously noted, the father committed an act of domestic violence (and thereby breached the DVO again) in early 2019. After that incident, the father was admitted after lacerating himself with a weapon. The father told the MHU that his intention was for self-harm and that he had considered self-harm.
The father denied any self-harm or homicidal ideation. The MHU noted that there were “Nil psychotic features”. The father told the MHU that he “wanted to engage with their services”.
He was discharged with the contact details of support services.
Admission in early 2020
As earlier noted, in early 2020, the father committed an act of domestic violence which was a breach of his DVO order. In early 2020, the father was charged with breaching the DVO and committing a public nuisance. He attended at the Suburb W MHU the next day. There was no delusional thought content elicited and there was no evidence of perceptual disturbances.
The father said that, after he was arrested, he went to the hotel and consumed a great deal of alcohol before going home. He said that he started to think about how the incident in early 2020 could now affect the continued time he spent with X. He then consumed a large amount of prescription medication. The father told the MHU that he was having thoughts of “not wanting to be here”. The MHU noted that, whilst the father was initially expressing hopelessness about matters to do with X, he nevertheless was demonstrating good future orientation and planning.
The MHU noted that, upon reviewing the history of the father, it appeared that he presented “with adjustment difficulties during periods of conflict with his ex-partner and charges being filed with QPS. He appears to report chronic feelings of worthlessness and [self-harm] ideation. It appears he is currently presenting with an adjustment disorder with depressive symptoms on a background of [a] personality disorder”.
A safety plan was completed which included the PGM locking away medication and sharp objects, the father abstaining from alcohol, the MHU maintaining supervision of the father and the father contacting the MHU if required. It was noted that the father appeared “well engaged”.
The MHU summary noted that the father had an appointment with Dr Y for diagnostic clarification around ADHD and that the father had an appointment for an ADHD assessment in March 2020. The summary noted that the father would be living in a house with his mother and that they were supportive of him. The summary noted that the father denied any self-harm ideation and that the father told the MHU that he was determined to make positive changes for him and his four-year-old son.
Admission late 2020
As previously noted, the police were investigating the occurrences of late 2020. The police interviewed the mother in late 2020, and interviewed X in late 2020. After these events, it seems that the police sent a message to the father that they wished to question him. The father went to the MHU.
When he presented, the father told the MHU that he had been hearing voices to tell him to harm the mother and her family for the last six months. He said that the day before he received a text from the mother 20 minutes before he was supposed to pick up his son and that this text informed him that he could not spend time with his son. He said that this made him very distressed and that he contacted the mother and made threats to her.

Section 65D of the Act subject to s 61DA (“the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility”) and s 65DAB (“parenting plans”) gives the Court the power to make a “parenting order”. A “parenting order” is defined by s 64B of the Act.
In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order s 60CA requires that I must have regard to the best interests of the children as my paramount consideration.
In determining what is in children’s best interests I must consider the matters set out in s 60CC(2) the “primary considerations” and s 60CC(3) the “additional considerations”.
There are two primary considerations. The first is the benefit to the children of having a meaningful relationship with both their parents and the second is the need to protect a child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
The Act indicates that these considerations are to be considered as having particular importance. They are described as “primary” and, as a note to s 60CC indicates, are consistent with the first two “objects” of Part VII, as stated in s 60B that the best interests of children are met by ensuring they have the benefit of both their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives to the maximum extent consistent with their best interests and protecting them from physical or psychological harm or from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.
There are 14 “additional considerations” set out in s 60CC(3) which I will refer to later in detail in these Reasons.
I must also consider the extent to which each parent has fulfilled his or her parental responsibilities and has facilitated the other in fulfilling his or her parental responsibilities. I must ensure that any order I make is consistent with any family violence order and does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence to the extent that doing so is consistent with the child’s best interest being treated as paramount (s 60CG).
I will also be guided by s 60B which sets out the objects of Part VII of the Act and the principles underlying it.
Application of law to the circumstances of the case
I must now consider the application of the legal principles in the circumstances of this case namely the background facts and the findings I have and how they apply in determining what parenting orders are most likely to promote the best interests of X.
Primary considerations – section 60B
Turning firstly to the application of the primary considerations namely,
(a)the benefit to the children of having a meaningful relationship with both parents.
(b)the need to protect the children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
My conclusion as to these primary considerations are in summary: -
(a)It is important to X that he has a meaningful relationship with both his mother and father, and
(b)There is a great need to protect X from being exposed to the risk of family violence, harm or abuse.
My reasons for reaching those conclusions are as follows:
(a)The mother has demonstrated that she has a committed involvement as a parent in the X’s life. The father has always wanted to be in the life of his son and the evidence of Mr T is that X enjoys the company of his father.
(b)There is overwhelming evidence of the father exposing X directly and indirectly to family violence.
I treat these primary considerations and my findings as being central to the structure of the orders that I ultimately propose to make with respect to the best interests of X. Obviously, s 60CC(2A) has great relevance here.
Additional considerations – section 60CC(3)
Going through the considerations seriatim, I find as follows: -
(a)In my view, X is too young to be able to form any firm and considered view about this subject.
(b)I have already spoken at great length about the relationship X has with the mother and father therefore there is no reason in my view to consider this part further. I will speak further about the relationship X has with the PGM later in these reasons.
(c)I have detailed the extent to which the parents have taken the opportunity to make decisions spend time with X and to communicate with X. I have taken these matters into account.
(ca)Whilst the mother has mentioned the lack of child support, this is not an issue that looms large in these proceedings.
(d)In this matter, the child has not been seen the father except for the occasions in which there has been joint therapy. I have looked at all the possibilities of the orders that I could make and have considered the effect on X in each of those scenarios.
(e)There are no practical difficulties with any of the possible range of parenting orders I may make.
(f)This circumstance has been the focus of my deliberations. I have looked very carefully at the capacity of the mother, the father and the PGM as to whether they can truly provide for the needs of X, especially his emotional and intellectual needs.
(g)I have taken into account these considerations though they are not matters that looms large.
(h)This circumstance does not apply.
(i)In many ways, the circumstances a corollary of circumstance (c). I have taken those matters well and truly into account.
(j)This circumstance has had significance in my deliberations.
(k)This circumstance has also had great significance in my deliberations,
(l)In making these orders, I am mindful of the fact that X has been the subject of litigation for most of his young life. I am very mindful of the fact that what has been proposed, by the father and the ICL, are very similar proposals to what has been tried before. As was said during submissions, insanity is doing the same thing again, yet expecting a different result. It seems to me that the proposals of the ICL and of the father will certainly lead to further litigation.
(m)I have detailed, in these reasons, all matters that I consider relevant.
Parental responsibility
Under s 61DA(1), when making a parenting order, the Court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the children for their parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for them. The presumption does not apply however if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent has engaged in abuse of the children, or family violence.
In this case, having regard to the findings I have made, the presumption does not apply. Notwithstanding that the presumption does not apply, the Court must still make an assessment as to whether it is in the best interests of the child for there to be an order for there to be equal shared parental responsibility. In this case, it is obvious that the parents should not ever be forced to discuss matters and try to come to a common decision.
Thankfully, no party has submitted anything other than that the Court should order that the mother have sole parental responsibility for X.
I must now look at what time, if any, is appropriate for the father to be spending with X.
Conclusions as to parenting
While it is that the father (and to a far lesser extent, the ICL) have made submissions that criticise the mother, both agreed that the mother should have sole parental responsibility and that the child should live with mother. The criticisms of the mother, especially from the father, ring hollow.
There seems to be some perverse logic in the submissions in that any valid criticism of the mother is equivalent to a positive statement for the father. In other words, if the mother is seen to have shortcomings, that means that the father necessarily must have his contentions looked upon more favourably. The father must know that this is not the case, yet he instructed his Counsel to make illogical criticisms of the mother. The only logical inference is that the father wishes to use these proceedings to somehow attack the mother vicariously in a way that has been prevented by the DVO.
The mother has submitted that a “no time” regime should be ordered by the Court.
The ICL has submitted that the father should have supervised time with X until he has achieved certain milestones. After those achievements, the parties should attend mediation. If the mediation is not successful, the father would be allowed to bring an application for time to be increased and for there to be progress to unsupervised visits.
The father has submitted that he should spend supervised time with the child at a contact centre until the end of November 2024. After that he should progress to visits that are supervised by the PGM. Then there would be a progression to unsupervised visits and overnight stays for one night and then eventually two nights.
Much was made of the fact that there had been no breaches of the DVO since September 2020, but this does not mean that the father has understood how he has committed family violence upon the mother. All it shows is that the father has understood that the order is there for a reason and that he must comply or there will be consequences.
The way the father chose to conduct the proceeding, illustrates to me that he has learnt nothing about the family violence he has inflicted upon the mother. I have little doubt that, if the Court made the orders proposed by the father, the father would continue to commit family violence in a very coercive and controlling manner.
I am not convinced that the father has been free of drugs as he claims. Whilst he belatedly gave to the Court the results of two hair follicle tests, these were not conducted at the behest of the ICL, and the father took the tests at a time of his choosing. Given what he had told the hospital in September 2020 (that he had abstained from drugs for two months because he knew he was going to be tested), as well as the many statements given to staff at the MHU about his drug taking, I cannot conclude that the father is not using illicit drugs.
Given what the father has told staff at the MHU about his drinking, it is clear to me that the father has a serious problem with alcohol and there has been nothing that has been presented to this Court that shows that he has done anything to address this problem.
Whilst I am not convinced that the father has any underlying mental health issues, he is still someone who cannot regulate his emotions and uses the mental health system as some form of “get out of jail free card”. Nevertheless, even though his issues are nothing out of the ordinary, it is also clear that he has done nothing to address those issues notwithstanding the numerous times that assistance has been offered to him.
I have considered whether I should impose an indefinite supervised visiting regime for the father. The problem, with such a regime, is that it is less than ideal. Given the history of the father, I am not convinced that the father would maintain the visitation schedule.
The ICL proposes that supervised visitation only cease when father has completed certain milestones. However, the father has had the chance to complete such milestones in the past and has not completed. Given his track record, it would seem that the father would only be undertaking such measures as a “tick a box” procedure without allowing the value of these milestones to actually be absorbed and understood by him.
The history of the father gives me no confidence that what would be sought to be achieved, by having the father complete these milestones, would ever be actually achieved.
But, even if the father could get over all those hurdles, the attitude towards the mother, especially as illustrated in the gas lighting attempts during this trial, lead me to the inexorable conclusion that not even supervised visits could ameliorate the risk that the father poses to the child.
I agree with Ms AA that the making of a “no time” order is an extreme step for a Court to take and one that must be exercised with caution. But I have looked at all alternatives and I simply cannot see what orders the Court could put in place to ensure that there was no unacceptable risk to X.
For those reasons, I will be making an order that the father spend no time and have no communication whatsoever with the child. Having regard to the history of this matter I will be making injunctions pursuant to s 68B of the Act.
Should there be time with the paternal grandmother?
It has been a very difficult decision to ascertain what the appropriate orders are regarding the PGM. Her primary submission was that the Court would be allowing the father to have time with X and that she would then see the child during the time that the father spent with X. But if that did not occur, the PGM submitted to the Court that she should be spending each alternative weekend, from Saturday morning until Sunday afternoon, with X.
There is an issue with the attitude of the PGM. In the past she has not been honest with the Court and, it seems to me, that her priority is her own son (the father) rather than her grandson, X. There is nothing wrong with that and it is only natural for a mother to direct her priorities towards her own son. But when it is that the best interests of the father are not compatible with the best interests of X, the grandmother seems to constantly choose the interests of the father.
The affidavit of the PGM in the earlier proceedings
As earlier recounted, when the parties first litigated this matter, the then ICL, Ms Lilley, asked the PGM to provide an affidavit as to how the father had been behaving, both generally and during the time in which she supervised is visits with X.
In that affidavit, the PGM made no mention of the terrible gambling addiction that the father had. Text messages between the PGM and the father show the extent of this gambling and the constant complaining by the PGM to the father about his habit. These matters were also brought up when the father spoke to the MHU in 2017.
There is no explanation as to why the PGM neglected to tell the Court of this issue with the father. If she were being truthful and frank to the Court, she would have told the Court exactly what the issues were that the father was dealing with.
The PGM also said, in that affidavit, that she did not see that the father had any issues with alcohol. She said that she would certainly not tolerate the father drink-driving. Yet, in the incident that occurred in early 2017, the father was drink-driving when he turned up, uninvited and in breach of the DVO, at the mother’s house. The mother recorded the father phoning the PGM and telling her that he was drunk and that he needed her to pick him up.
This incident was not mentioned at all by the PGM in her affidavit. This incident is totally inconsistent with the statement that the father had no problem with alcohol and her statement that she would not tolerate him drink-driving.
The actions of the PGM in September 2020
But this lack of candour, or honesty, pales into insignificance when one looks at the behaviour of the PGM in September 2020. Whilst it is true that the PGM was able to get the child away from the father, or to use the words of X, “Nanny saved me”, nevertheless, the PGM still acted in the interests of the father.
When the PGM contacted the mother asking her to message the PGM to arrange to meet and get X, the mother texted, “I can arrange to meet you at [Suburb BB] Police Station today”. The PGM refused and insisted that the changeover occur at a service station.
The PGM could not explain why it was that she refused to meet at the police station. Given that she knew that the father had armed himself for a confrontation with police, it would have been in the best interests of the child to meet at the police station. There the child would have been able to explain to the mother what had happened and the PGM could have explained to the police the situation that was occurring back at her home to ensure that the police were not entering into a situation that put them in danger.
If the PGM were truly looking out for the best interests of the child, this is exactly what she would have done. She did eventually concede, during her evidence, that she had not acted appropriately by refusing to meet at the police station. That was a big concession for the PGM to make. However, during her submissions at the end of the trial, the PGM ignored this and made the blanket statement that “I have always acted in the best interests of the child”.
Lack of insight would seem to be a hereditary trait.
The PGM could not explain why, at the changeover, she didn’t get out of the car and explain to the mother what had occurred that day. To have at least explained, to the mother, the situation that X had been in would have been a “child focused” action.
The PGM conceded that the child told the mother that “daddy wanted to [harm] both of us” when he went to the mother. In her own affidavit, the PGM said that X said “the police are going to [harm] me and Dad”. The PGM claimed that the child was mistaken or making it up but that what X said to the mother was not true. Why the PGM did not get out of the car to ensure that there was no misunderstanding is quite inexplicable.
I have earlier found that what X had said was the truth. Yet, when the PGM was asked to give a version to police, she sanitised what had happened, and a watered-down version was given so that the father did not look as bad as he would have looked if she had told the truth.
The Trial
The PGM was initially represented by Counsel. When the trial resumed after the November adjournment, the PGM represented herself. I explained to her that she could ask any questions that she wished but that she needed to focus upon her case which was outlined in the draft orders that she handed up to me.
After the father had been cross-examined by Counsel for the mother, I allowed the PGM to ask questions of the father. She did not focus at all on her case but used the opportunity to try and bolster the case of the father. She asked the father questions regarding his presentation at the MHU and suggested to him that the doctors had told him that there was nothing they could do for him, to which he agreed.
The PGM put to the father that he had left the weapon up on the cupboard and that he had told X that he had to go to the PGM (in effect, disagreeing with X who had said that nanny got me away from daddy). Again, the father agreed with that suggestion.
Neither of these issues had anything to do with the case that the PGM was mounting before the Court. But it was an illustration that the PGM still is looking out for the interests of the father ahead of the interests of the child, especially by suggesting that the Court could not trust what the child said but should prefer the version of the father.
Conclusion
The Court simply cannot trust the PGM. If it were that the child was to have unsupervised time with the PGM, the Court could not be satisfied that the PGM would not either allow the father to come and see the child or to pass messages from the father to the child. The PGM cannot even conceive of why this would be deleterious to X. This lack of insight is too great a risk.
However, it seems to me that this risk can be ameliorated by the PGM being allowed to see X for two hours on the last Saturday or Sunday of every month at a contact centre. The contact centre would have to monitor all conversations that the PGM had with the child so that there would be no mention of the father or of any of the events that have been spoken about in these Reasons. This includes photographs or videos that depict the father.
There can be no conversation that could lead to identifying where the child lives, the school he attends or the locality of any extra-curricular activity. Obviously there can be no other form of inappropriate conversation occurring either.

The PGM is currently seeing the child at the CC Contact Centre. I am unsure whether this contact centre would be able to cater for such close supervision. Part of the order would be that if the PGM does mention the father or make any other inappropriate remark about the mother or these proceedings, time with X would cease immediately.
The PGM would be responsible for the costs associated with such contact centre.
Orders
I am of the view that it is necessary to issue the injunctions against both the father and the PGM.
The choice of contact centre will be solely a decision of the mother. Obviously, the mother will need to be satisfied that the contact centre she chooses will be able to do what is necessary in this case. Such considerations will include the convenience to the mother and the ability to not only enforce these orders but to provide to the mother detailed reports of the visits when she requests.
The actual day that the PGM sees the child, whether that be the Saturday or the Sunday, will be a matter for the mother to decide after taking into account any other extra-curricular activities of X.
I am of the view that the appropriate authorities need to have copies of these Reasons so that if there is any further problem, the authorities will have a clear idea of the history and background of the matter.
I will make the orders accordingly.

I certify that the preceding three hundred and ninety-four (394) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Vasta.
Dated: 29 February 2024

File number(s):	BRC 15957 of 2020
Judgment of:	JUDGE VASTA
Date of judgment:	29 February 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – parenting – history of family violence – whether father poses an unacceptable risk – where report writers entered into finding of facts – no time order and injunctions made – where paternal grandmother seeks time – where court cannot trust paternal grandmother – where order for supervised time only made
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60CG, 61DA, 64B, 65D, 65DAB
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	394
Date of last submission/s:	22 February 2024
Date of hearing:	7, 8, 9 November 2023 and 21 and 22 February 2024
Place:	Brisbane
Counsel for the Applicant:	Ms Chekirova
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Cornerstone Law Offices
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Mr Taylor
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Derek Legal
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	the Second Respondent appearing on her own behalf
Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Mr Jones
Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Bridges Family Law Specialists

BRC 15957 of 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MS HOUGHTON Applicant
AND:	MR DUNNE First Respondent MS PIERCE Second Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE VASTA
DATE OF ORDER:	29 FEBRUARY 2024