Houlerman & Fanning
[2024] FedCFamC2F 194
•19 February 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Houlerman & Fanning [2024] FedCFamC2F 194
File number(s): PAC 5976 of 2018 Judgment of: JUDGE NEWBRUN Date of judgment: 19 February 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Unacceptable risk – Orders made for children to spend no time with father. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65D, 65DAA. Cases cited: B and B (1993) FLC 92-357
Betros & Betros [2017] FamCAFC 90
Saif & Saif [2020] FamCA 119
Slater & Light (2013) 48 Fam LR 573
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 174 Date of hearing: 5-7 February 2024 Place: Parramatta Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Jones Solicitor for the Applicant: Rafton Family Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Connor Solicitor for the Respondent: Ark Law Lawyers Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr Schroder Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Sydney West Family Lawyers ORDERS
PAC 5976 of 2018 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR HOULERMAN
Applicant
AND: MS FANNING
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE NEWBRUN
DATE OF ORDER:
19 FEBRUARY 2024
ON A FINAL BASIS THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The children X born 2011, Y born 2013 and Z born 2015 (“the children”) spend no time with the father.
2.The mother may apply for an Australian travel document (passport) for the children without first obtaining the consent of the father and shall be the only person with parental responsibility for the children for the purposes of applying for, and being issued with, an Australian passport for the children.
3.Pursuant to s 65Y of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the mother shall be at liberty to cause the children to travel outside of the Commonwealth of Australia.
4.The mother is restrained from abusing, insulting, belittling, rebuking or criticising the father to or in the presence of the children or any of them and from permitting any other person to do so and the mother is further restrained from discussing these proceedings in any way in the sight or hearing of the children or permitting any other person to do so.
5.The mother shall within 21 days at her discretion either:
(a)Attend upon her General Practitioner for the purpose of obtaining a Mental Health Plan to receive psychological therapy, counselling and support in relation to being the victim of domestic family violence and abuse, or;
(b)Attend upon Victims Services NSW, through Victims Access Line, to seek counselling and support being the victim of domestic violence.
6.The mother shall complete and submit to B Counselling a referral form as provided to her by the Independent Children’s Lawyer so as to enable X to receive counselling and therapy in relation to family conflict and breakup, grief and loss. Provided that X meets the eligibility criteria the mother shall thereafter ensure X attends upon such service as long as he is required to do so by such service.
7.In the event X does not meet the criteria for enrolment in B Counselling the mother shall attend upon X’s treating specialist in relation to X’s ASD as soon as practicable an obtain advice as to an appropriate agency or service that will be able to provide such counselling and therapy in relation to family conflict and possible grief and loss for X.
8.Within 21 days, the mother do all things necessary to enrol the children Y and Z into C Program and thereafter, if they are deemed suitable for such program, cause them to attend at the first opportunity.
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 NEWBRUN
INTRODUCTION
This final parenting hearing relates to the children X born 2011, Y born 2013, and Z born 2015 (“the children”).
The father is aged 43 years. The mother is aged 34 years.
The parties commenced cohabitation in 2008. They separated in about May 2016.
The father’s time spent with the children post separation has been very limited.
Final parenting orders were made on 31 March 2022 for the children to live with the mother and the mother to have sole parental responsibility.
PROPOSALS
The father sought orders as set out in his proposed Minute of Order; inter alia, he seeks orders that X spend time with him in accordance with his wishes, and that the 2 youngest children spend time with him supervised on 12 occasions each year.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer (“the ICL”) sought orders as set out in his proposed Minute of Order, inter alia, that the father spend no time with the children. The mother adopted the ICL’s proposed orders.
MATERIAL RELIED UPON
The father relied upon the following documents:
(a)His Case Outline filed 1 February 2024;
(b)Further Amended Initiating Application filed 7 November 2022;
(c)His affidavits filed 8 November 2022 and 1 February 2024;
(d)Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum of Ms D dated 4 June 2019;
(e)Family Report of Ms D dated 14 January 2021.
The mother relied upon the following documents:
(a)Her Case Outline filed 2 February 2024;
(b)Her affidavit filed 31 January 2024;
(c)Family Report of Ms D dated 14 January 2021.
The ICL relied upon the following documents:
(a)Case Outline filed 2 February 2024;
(b)Further Amended Initiating Application filed 7 November 2022;
(c)Father’s affidavits filed 8 November 2022 and 1 February 2024;
(d)Response filed 4 March 2021;
(e)Mother’s affidavit filed 29 January 2024;
(f)Family Report of Ms D dated 14 January 2021.
The following documents became exhibits:
(a)Exhibit A: Father’s criminal history, pages 1-17, 42-49 of ICL tender bundle;
(b)Exhibit B: COPS report, pages 2-3 of mother’s tender bundle;
(c)Exhibit C: COPS report 25 September 2018, pages 4-5 of mother’s tender bundle;
(d)Exhibit D: Pages 6-7 of mother’s tender bundle;
(e)Exhibit E: Pages 11-24 of mother’s tender bundle;
(f)Exhibit F: Colour photograph at page 29 of mother’s affidavit of 29 January 2024;
(g)Exhibit G: Supervised contact record of 6 December 2019, pages 20-25 of ICL tender bundle;
(h)Exhibit H: Email correspondence, pages 18-19 of ICL tender bundle;
(i)Exhibit I: Pages 26-27 of ICL tender bundle;
(j)Exhibit J: Pages 28-39 of ICL tender bundle;
(k)Exhibit K: ICL Aide Memoire, meeting with children on 31 January 2024;
(l)Exhibit L: Psychological report of Ms E, psychologist, December 2022;
(m)Exhibit M: Family Report of Ms D dated 14 January 2021;
(n)Exhibit N: Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum dated 4 June 2019, and;
(o)Exhibit O: Page 31 of ICL tender bundle.
EVIDENCE
In determining this case, the Court has had regard to all the written evidence referred to above together with the oral evidence given. Throughout these Reasons the Court will refer to a number of facts taken from that evidence. Any such reference should be regarded as a finding of fact unless a contrary intention is clear from the context. In determining disputed questions of fact the Court is required to assess the evidence on the balance of probabilities. In order to limit the size of this judgment not all factual issues will be addressed, and the Court will not set out the entirety of the evidence. Evidence of the parties relevant to the Court’s determination will be considered either in this section or whilst addressing the section 60CC considerations (i.e. section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”)) (see below). In the event of any conflict between the evidence in this section and evidence referred to under the Court’s discussion under section 60CC, the latter evidence shall take precedence.
As to the Court’s impression of the mother and father when giving their oral evidence, the Court found the mother to be a truthful witness, who usually sought to give responsive answers to questions asked of her. Her demeanour was calm.
As to the father, he usually sought to give responsive answers to questions asked of him. On occasion he presented in a hostile manner and with frustration at questions being posed to him. He impressed as being in numerous respects an unreliable witness, particularly in relation to family violence and adverse behaviour alleged to have been perpetrated by him, and in relation to his historical use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and relating to his mental health.
Oral evidence of the father
The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of the father’s oral evidence.
The father stated he was presently unemployed and that he lives in a three-bedroom residence at Suburb F. For 2 days each week he works at a retail store without formal pay but he is provided with products.
The father stated he lives in a residence with his best friend Ms G. Ms G leases the residence from a community housing provider. Ms G has a son, Mr H, 21 years, who occasionally comes to the residence. The father does not pay formal rent however he buys food for the household and which costs between $400 and $450 per fortnight.
The father denied that he was in a de facto relationship with Ms G. He does not sleep with her. Ms G does not work and she receives benefits.
The father has been on Jobstart benefits for about nine months. He has been looking for labouring work.
The father confirmed an incident had occurred at his residence over 12 months ago involving Mr H, who was then living at that residence. He confirmed that he had asked Mr H to borrow his phone to which Mr H refused. The father had then exchanged words with Mr H. The father stated that he had told Mr H that he was an ungrateful spoiled little “shit”. He confirmed that Mr H had been aggressive towards him having puffed his chest out and had called him a “fucking dog”. The father stated that he then asked Mr H whether he wanted “to have a go”. The father stated that his response to Mr H was not to back down from Mr H’s intimidation.
The father was asked whether he had used foul language towards Mr H, to which the father responded that Mr H used such language towards him so why couldn’t he use it towards him.
The father was asked whether he had ever been angry with Ms G. The father stated that he had been angry with her when she had called him “a shit on Facebook.”
The father was asked whether he chose not to have Ms G prepare an affidavit in these proceedings, to which the father responded that this case has nothing to do with her.
The father stated that he has a nephew, related to his deceased sister, who he brings up to his residence twice per year and who stays overnight.
In relation to the father using illicit drugs in about August 2022, the father stated that his older nephews, who live in another region, had offered him illicit drugs one night during this month having observed the father’s depressed mood. The father stated that if he was spending time with the children there would be no illicit drugs present.
The father stated that he has a new treating psychologist, Mr J. He first spoke with the psychologist in early November 2023, the previous psychologist having retired. The father had been waiting for a new psychologist to become available at K Psychology. He stated that he had been seeing counsellors whilst waiting for a new psychologist.
The father stated he had not participated in a general parenting course since orders of 31 March 2022. He stated that there was no community course available in relation to special needs.
The father was asked whether he accepted that the child X had special needs, to which the father responded that he could not know this because he has not been able to see him.
The father stated that he rarely has contact with his own father who resides in Tasmania. He hadn’t seen him for about two years.
The father stated that it depends on the circumstances as to whether he might become aggressive.
The father stated that he had never physically abused the mother or the children. However he stated that he had threatened to harm Mr L, the mother’s former partner, in mid-2016.
The father denied that he had an alcohol problem.
The father stated that he hadn’t used illicit drugs between 2016 and 2022. He was questioned as to a conviction for a drug-related offence in early 2021 at the Local Court. The father stated that illicit drugs were found in his pockets but he does not know where the “fucker” came from. He states he wasn’t using illicit substances at this time.
The father was questioned as to a number of police reports regarding himself.
The father stated he did not recall an argument or any violent altercation in early 2020 with Ms G. He stated he did not recall slapping a woman in early 2020.
The father was questioned about an incident at Centrelink, in late 2018. After discussions with Centrelink staff, the father had become angered and had struck a glass windowpane, damaging it. The father confirmed that a close friend had passed away the week prior to this incident and that he had told police that at the time of the incident he was not in a good head space.
The father was questioned in relation to an incident with Ms G in early 2018 at their residence. The father stated that he does not remember a lot of stuff and that Ms G disassociates. The father stated that it was just an argument that occurred between himself and Ms G and that she had broken a window with her phone. The father stated that he does get agitated with police and that it depends how they treat him.
The father was questioned in relation to another incident with Ms G in early 2018 at their residence. The father denied Ms G’s allegations to the police that she had had to lock herself in the bathroom to avoid violence from the father.
The father acknowledged that there were police records in existence, going back a long time, disclosing incident complaints from persons previously in a domestic relationship with the father.
The father acknowledged that he had posted the messages appearing in Annexure B to the mother’s trial affidavit filed 29 January 2024 to Facebook.
The father acknowledged inflicting self-injury at the time of separation, a photo of which he sent to the mother via Facebook. The father stated that at this time his whole world had just caved in. He stated he didn’t want to kill himself at this time. He had sought medical treatment. He acknowledged that, on reflection, the mother viewing this photo might have caused her some concern regarding the father seeing the children.
The father stated that at separation he decided to separate from society. He went to live in Region M with his mother and resided there in a small room. He did not immediately see any doctors.
The father recounted an incident, over a period of about 45 minutes, where he considered committing suicide but decided not to do that. He stated that he may have told the mother that he had considered committing suicide. On reflection, he stated that telling the mother about that might cause the mother concerns. In this context the father stated that if he had been able to see the children at this time his depression would have decreased.
The father was questioned in relation to previous orders for hair follicle testing by himself. He acknowledged that a hair follicle test could provide a timeline, going back some months, for the detection of previous illicit drug use. The father acknowledged that the Court has not been provided with a hair follicle test between October 2022 and the present time in relation to the father, both in relation to possible illicit drug use and alcohol consumption.
The father was asked why he had consumed illicit drugs from his nephews in about August 2022. He stated that he had no hope in anything and stated, “What’s wrong with feeling good for a bit?” The father stated that he thought the positive benefit of taking the illicit drugs at that time was that it would make him feel numb, not hurt and abandoned, and “all the rest of it.” On reflection he stated that consuming the illicit drugs was probably a poor choice by him.
The father stated that if in the future the children were spending time with him and he was stressed he would not partake in consuming illicit drugs. In this context, the father stated that he would not consume illicit drugs because he would have something to look forward to, having had everyone close to him in his life gone.
The father stated that he had started using illicit drugs and drinking alcohol from about the age of 10 years. He used various illicit drugs and later cannabis. He stated that by age 18 he was drinking alcohol daily which included spirits and beer. He stated he was an alcoholic and he drank from sunup to sundown. He stated that at age 18 he was still using illicit drugs which was mainly cannabis and another drug.
The father clarified that since 2011 he has probably had around 6 to 7 nights drinking alcohol. As to his alcohol drinking habits from November 2022 to date, the father stated that he might have a cold beer after some exercise. He stated that his last binge drinking was the night he used illicit drugs in about August 2022. He stated that on New Year’s Eve 2022 or 2023 in the context of driving a car he was found to have a low range of alcohol in his blood.
The father was asked whether reflecting on his past behaviour, either in the presence of the children, a woman, or police, he was able to resolve disputes without abuse or violence. The father answered in the negative but stated that this behaviour had not been in the presence of the children. In relation to the police, he stated that he respects the police uniform but that one doesn’t have to respect the person wearing it. The father stated that he had shown respect to women, and in this context, he stated that just because you argue with someone that does not make you a wifebeater.
The father was questioned about the incident at Centrelink where he broke a windowpane. The father was asked what effect his behaviour might have had on Centrelink staff who were there to help people with difficulties. The father responded by stating that he did not care. The father then stated that he was not directing his anger at the Centrelink staff. He stated that he had become angered by a security guard within the Centrelink office who had walked over towards him whilst looking at him and positioned himself about a couple of metres away from him and crossed his arms. The father stated that instead of hitting the security guard he had hit the windowpane. The father denied that he had lost control of his temper. He stated that he had just found out that his friend had committed suicide.
The father was asked whether, looking into the future, he could be trusted not to lose his temper and not harm the children. The father responded by stating that what he does without the children is different to what he might do with them.
The father clarified paragraph 43 of his affidavit filed 8 November 2022 where he stated, “I stopped regularly using illicit drugs in or around 2008”; he stated that by the word “regularly” he meant a few times a week using an illicit drug. He stated he has not used marijuana since 2004.
The father was asked whether, in the future, if he was experiencing serious depression, he would use illicit drugs for short periods of time. The father responded by stating that he was being asked an impossible question but that he believed that he would not resort to illicit drugs.
The father stated that the assault in relation to which he was jailed in about 2006 related to slapping a woman. He stated that at the time he assaulted this woman the woman was “swinging on my balls”. He had defended the assault charge but was convicted. He was jailed for a period with a non-parole period. He agreed that he was convicted of contravening an ADVO relating to the assault conviction.
The father stated that he had completed an anger management course when he was in prison. He had never heard of a Men’s Behaviour Change course designed to change the behaviour of violent men towards women.
The father stated that if the children were permitted to spend time with him, such time would be spent at the residence that he presently shares with Ms G. He agreed that in such event the children would likely come into contact with Ms G. The father confirmed that Ms G suffers from a mental health disorder when she has mental health episodes. The father clarified by stating, inter alia, that when she has an episode, “It’s not her, she freaks out.” The father stated that he had last seen Ms G “[have an episode]” about a year ago. The father stated that she has psychologist appointments fortnightly or monthly and takes medication.
The father stated that the AVO placed on him in relation to Ms G (see paragraph 57 of the father’s affidavit filed 8 November 2022) requires him to, inter alia, not stay in the same residence as Ms G. He confirmed that he had breached the AVO by visiting Ms G at her residence after he had left Region M. He stated that Ms G had asked him to come to Sydney from Region M and he knew the AVO was still in force. He stated that he knew that he was in breach of the AVO by attending her residence. It was then suggested to the father that the manner in which he breached the AVO had not shown respect to the Court which had imposed the AVO, to which the father responded that he had just lost his mother and sister, he was aggrieved not spending time with the children and his mental health was also a factor.
As to any possible risk to the children spending time with the father at his shared residence in relation to Ms G, the father asserted that he had a previous agreement with her that if he was to spend time with the children at their residence that Ms G would go and stay at her parent’s home. It was then put to the father that Ms G was not here to give evidence to which the father stated that he did not care.
The father was questioned as to the content of the Orders of 31 March 2022.
The father confirmed that he had not attended the Triple P or Circle of Security course. He stated that he had spoken to N Family Services last year and was waiting for an email from them regarding available general parenting courses. The father stated that N Family Services do not offer a parenting course focusing on children with special needs and challenging behaviours. He stated that he had contacted the P Contact Centre and provided a copy of the above orders to them.
The father confirmed that during the relationship he clipped the child X once “up the arse” when he was speaking disrespectfully to the mother and not obeying her. He confirmed that he had previously referred to Mr H being an ungrateful spoilt “little shit”. The father was then asked whether, on reflection, using these expressions and behaving as he did at the Centrelink office, suggested he acts impulsively and cannot control his anger, to which the father denied.
The father confirmed orders of the Local Court of early 2021 and early 2022 relating to sentencing for contravening prohibition/restriction in AVO (domestic) and requiring him to continue in treatment with a psychologist at K Psychology. The father stated that his problem in relation to these offences was alcohol and not illicit drugs.
The father stated that he had no difficulties with alcohol consumption, and he could be trusted not to consume alcohol at all.
The father confirmed, as he had related to the Family Report writer, that he supported physical chastisement of the children if they were naughty, and referred to a smack on the bottom. He stated that as a child he was smacked and it taught him respect for his elders.
The father disputed the child X’s statements to the Family Report writer to the effect that the father had slapped him across the head for no reason and very often; he stated that the child had been fed lies. He stated that his view was that the mother had poisoned X’s mind to make these statements. The father again stated that he had only slapped X once (on his backside). A short time later the father stated that he was not suggesting that the mother should force X to spend time with him.
Oral evidence of the mother
The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of the mother’s oral evidence.
The mother stated that she had started living with one Mr L after the parties’ separation.
The mother denied that she had threatened her parents that they would not be able to see the children if they continued to have a relationship with the father.She stated that she was told it was not viable to have an affidavit from her parents.
The mother stated she was not angry when the father commenced these proceedings and that she had not wanted the father out of the children’s lives; in this context the mother stated that she had arranged a mediation in 2016.
The mother confirmed that the father had physically assaulted her over 10 occasions (whilst residing at the parties’ former residence at Suburb Q). She stated that she had not reported such assaults to the authorities.
The mother stated that she had suggested that her parents go on affidavit.
The mother was questioned as to her concerns relating to the children spending time with the father. She stated that she held concerns in relation to the father’s illicit drug use, his alcohol use, and mental health issues. She stated that she still held such concerns in relation to the father spending time with the children in a supervised contact centre.
The mother denied that the children were living in a household hostile to the father. She stated that the children were not influenced by her anxiety which was not shown in their presence.
The mother stated that she maintains her concerns in relation to the father’s use of illicit drugs, his use of excessive alcohol, his violence, and his diagnosis of a mental health condition, depression (including suicidal ideation) and anxiety.
The mother stated that the child X, now in Year 8, was seeing a psychologist to address his ADHD including his angry behaviour. He was ingesting medications for ASD (autism spectrum disorder), ADHD, ODD and anxiety. The mother stated that X struggles to make friends. He has some friends at his school. The mother stated that it was not easy for her as a parent dealing with X’s diagnoses. She stated that it was important not to escalate verbal arguments with X. The mother obtains assistance at X’s school for his diagnoses, including learning support. X was diagnosed with ASD in 2022 and his other conditions were diagnosed when he was about eight years of age. X has a positive relationship with his siblings.
The mother stated that the child Y, now in Year 6, was struggling at school and had difficulty understanding questions. As with the child X, the mother is seeing signs of ADHD and a learning disorder in Y. She stated that the child Z, now in year three, was hyperactive like X and she was also seeing signs of ADHD in Z.
The mother stated she was getting some assistance from her parents in relation to caring for the children.
The mother was questioned as to how the children might cope with spending supervised time with the father on six occasions each year. The mother stated that X would be angry (if such time was ordered). Y and Z would not be happy either (if such time was ordered).
The mother stated that she was not getting any counselling assistance regarding alleged domestic violence and she was not aware she could obtain such assistance. She would be willing to get such assistance.
The mother stated she was agreeable to the children Y and Z attending the C Program relating to possible grief in relation to not having a relationship with the father. She stated that she would ensure X’s attendance at B Counselling with N Family Services to enable him to deal with possible grief in relation to not having a relationship with the father.
Child Inclusive Conference
This conference was held on 28 May 2019. Each party and the children were interviewed by the family consultant, Ms D.
The Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum is dated 4 June 2019. The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of this Memorandum.
Under the heading “Family violence” the Family Consultant stated:
[Ms Fanning] alleged that [Mr Houlerman] was physically abusive, verbally abusive and controlling during their relationship. [Ms Fanning] said that [Mr Houlerman] would push, shove and try to hit her in the face. [Ms Fanning] said that this would occur “every other week.” [Ms Fanning] stated that the physical violence worsened during the course of the relationship. [Ms Fanning] alleged that [Mr Houlerman] had thrown household items and had called her names, for example, “slut, bitch.” [Ms Fanning] said that [Mr Houlerman] would restrict her access to money. [Ms Fanning] said that after she separated from [Mr Houlerman] that he would threaten her current partner ([Mr L], born […] 1986) saying that he would stick a knife in [Mr L’s] throat. [Ms Fanning] expressed concern for her safety and that of [Mr L] if [Mr Houlerman] were to find out where she lived or where the children went to school.
Under the heading “Child safety and wellbeing”, the Family Consultant stated:
[Ms Fanning] expressed concern in relation to the children’s physical well-being with [Mr Houlerman]. [Ms Fanning] alleged that [Mr Houlerman] is an “agro angry person” and that there is a potential that he would be violent if he spent time with the children. [Ms Fanning] alleged that [Mr Houlerman] would hit [X] “over the back of his head.”
[Ms Fanning] expressed concern about the children’s emotional well-being. [Ms Fanning] stated that [Mr Houlerman] is “too all over the place” and she is concerned that he would be angry and aggravated with them.
Under the heading “Drugs and alcohol”, the Family Consultant stated:
[Mr Houlerman] did not report any concerns in relation to himself in regards to drug or alcohol use. [Mr Houlerman] stated that he used to use “[…]” (marijuana), [and other illicit drugs]. [Mr Houlerman] said that he stopped taking drugs in 2008. [Mr Houlerman] said that he used to be a problematic drinker but this was no longer an issue because he no longer drank alcohol.
Under the heading “Mental health” the Family Consultant stated:
[Mr Houlerman] reported that he had experienced depression and anxiety after the breakdown of his relationship with [Ms Fanning]. [Mr Houlerman] said that he had attended counselling sessions with [Dr R] through a medical practice in [Suburb F]. [Mr Houlerman] reported that he was diagnosed with [a mental health condition] in either 1996 or 1998 and that he takes [medication] to manage this condition. [Mr Houlerman] reported that he did not think his mental health condition would affect his parenting ability.
[Ms Fanning] reported that she had concerns about [Mr Houlerman’s] mental health. [Ms Fanning] said that [Mr Houlerman] had been diagnosed with [a mental health condition], depression and anxiety. [Ms Fanning] stated that [Mr Houlerman] does not take his prescribed medication for treatment of [his mental health condition]. [Ms Fanning] that [Mr Houlerman’s] housemate had to seek assistance from the doctor to get [Mr Houlerman] back on his medication.
Family Report
The Family Report was prepared by Ms D, Court Child Expert, and is dated 14 January 2021.
The Family Report writer interviewed the parties and the children in November 2020.
The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of the Family Report.
Under the heading “Relevant family background”, the Family Report writer said:
9.[Mr Houlerman] and [Ms Fanning] each reported there is a current Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) made against [Mr Houlerman] with [Ms G] as the person in need of protection (discussed further below). [Mr Houlerman] stated this was made in [late] 2019 for a period of two years. [Mr Houlerman] reported there had been a previous ADVO made against him (in 2000) with [Ms S] (previous partner) as the person in need of protection. [Mr Houlerman] and [Ms Fanning] each reported there had not been an ADVO made between them.
Under the heading “Family Violence”, the Family Report writer said:
57.[Mr Houlerman] said there had been three ADVOs made against him previously. He stated the first was made in 2000 by [Ms S] ([Ms T’s] mother), one with [Ms U] (2006) and a current one with [Ms G] (made [late] 2019). [Mr Houlerman] said [Ms S] thought an ADVO would stop him spending time with [Ms T]. [Mr Houlerman] alleged that [Ms U] (previous romantic partner) was “hurting him” ([Mr Houlerman] did not provide further information about what this meant) and he retaliated by slapping her, resulting in the ADVO being made against him. He explained the current ADVO, with [Ms G], was being heard in Court “to be revoked.” …
58.[Ms Fanning] alleged [Mr Houlerman] was physically abusive, verbally abusive and controlling during their relationship. She alleged [Mr Houlerman] would “push and hit” her, leaving her with “a sore face or sore arms.” She said this would occur “every week to two weeks.” [Ms Fanning] stated she would just “push him off to try and get him off.” [Ms Fanning] alleged [Mr Houlerman] was verbally abusive towards her, for example calling her names such as “bitch, slut and dog.”
59.[Ms Fanning] alleged [Mr Houlerman] made threats about [Mr L], for example he had said he “doesn't care what happens to him, going to stick a blade in that cunt's throat and any others that get in my way” and “you just gave me the incentive to go around and see cunt now” after finding out about her previous partner [Mr L]. [Ms Fanning] said she replied the choice he makes are his own and it would be up to him how he lived his life. [Ms Fanning] alleged [Mr Houlerman] published abusive and threatening messages on Facebook. [Ms Fanning] stated that she had attempted to have an ADVO made protecting her from [Mr Houlerman], due to the threats, but this was not accepted because she did not have “a person, time and place.”
60.[Ms Fanning] alleged [Mr Houlerman] was controlling during their relationship, for example when she went out he would “constantly” ring her and ask her whereabouts. She said if [Mr Houlerman] called she would have to “be home in a hurry.”
Under the heading “Drugs and alcohol”, the Family Report writer said:
63.[Mr Houlerman] reported he had previously taken drugs when he was “younger.” He explained when he was younger he would take “nearly anything.” [Mr Houlerman] did not elaborate as to what this meant. He said the last time he used drugs was in 2012 when he took [an illicit drug]. [Mr Houlerman] said he was working two jobs at the time and was managing feelings of grief after the deaths of his mother and then his sister.
Under the heading “Mental Health”, the Family Report writer said:
68.… [Mr Houlerman] said he takes [medication] to manage his symptoms of depression and he had attended counselling sessions with [Dr W], psychologist. …
…
71.[Ms Fanning] reported she has concerns about [Mr Houlerman’s] mental health. She said [Mr Houlerman] had been diagnosed with [a mental health condition], depression and anxiety. She stated there is “a list of things” [Mr Houlerman] has in relation to his mental health. [Ms Fanning] stated [Mr Houlerman] “keeps going off his medication for [his mental health condition],” and [Mr Houlerman’s] “girlfriend” sought advice from the doctor to “get him ([Mr Houlerman]) to go back on his […] medication. [sic] [Ms Fanning] said she is concerned about the impact on the children if [Mr Houlerman] is spending time with them and he is not taking the appropriate medication.
Under the heading “Child safety and wellbeing” the Family Report writer said:
74.[Ms Fanning] expressed concern for the children's emotional well-being, especially [X], if they were to spend time with [Mr Houlerman]. [Ms Fanning] said she did not know “how he ([X]) would cope.” …
75.[Ms Fanning] stated that [Mr Houlerman] has had “quite a bit” of DCJ involvement in regards to his oldest daughter, [Ms T], resulting in her being removed from [Ms S] and [Mr Houlerman’s] care and instead living with [Ms T’s] maternal grandmother.
Under the heading “Adult relationships” the Family Report writer said:
76.[Mr Houlerman] and [Ms Fanning] do not have a functional co-parenting relationship. There is currently no communication between them in regards to the children.
…
78.[Ms Fanning] stated she stopped communicating with [Mr Houlerman] because of the “threatening” messages from [Mr Houlerman], for example, [Mr Houlerman] telling her he was going to “stick a knife” in her partner's throat.
Under the heading “Evaluation” the Family Report writer said:
99.[Ms Fanning] alleged that [Mr Houlerman] was physically abusive, for example, pushing and hitting her, as well as verbally abusive and controlling. [Ms Fanning] reported that the violence occurred on a weekly or fortnightly basis. [Ms Fanning’s] report seems similar to what is described for [Mr Houlerman] in the above paragraph, with the physical violence appearing to be of low lethality and with the altercations between them being predominately verbal with similar elements of control about socialising with friends. A point of difference reported by [Ms Fanning] is her allegations about threats made by [Mr Houlerman] about her new partner at the time the relationship with [Mr L] commenced and using social media posts as a means to threaten her and her former partner. [Mr Houlerman’s] alleged threats are possibly indicative of behaviour that if carried out would have the potential for high lethality. [Ms Fanning’s] response to the alleged violence is another point of difference, [Ms Fanning] reported being scared by [Mr Houlerman’s] behaviour both during their relationship and after the relationship broke down.
100.If [Mr Houlerman’s] behaviour was intended to elicit fear and control and attempt to coerce [Ms Fanning] into behaving in a certain way, then a difference in the power dynamic would likely have been experienced by [Ms Fanning]. If the intent of [Mr Houlerman’s] behaviour was to cause fear, intimidation, submission through the use of threats, emotional abuse, restriction of contact, actual harm it is also possible that [Ms Fanning’s] behaviour (as reported by [Mr Houlerman]) was to respond in a violent manner, proportionate to the perceived threat as a defensive strategy. It would appear from [Ms Fanning’s] account that she continues to be fearful of [Mr Houlerman].
101.Exposure to family violence would be expected to have a detrimental impact on the children's mental and physical well-being. It can be associated with a range of mental health and social difficulties. The children could also be adversely affected through ongoing contact with the person who perpetrates family violence including the risk of parent undermining the role of the other parent and their relationship with the child, increased risk of exposure to threats and denigration of the other parent and psychological manipulation. If it is determined that either parent perpetrated family violence, then it is recommended that the children spend no time with that parent. …
102.It is noted that [Mr Houlerman’s] speaking style, during interview, does suggest he speaks in an aggressive style, explaining to the Family Consultant he would have “kicked the door in” and “everyone knows someone.” Even if these are idle threats or a manner of speaking of [Mr Houlerman] with no intention of violence they could be perceived as such by the listener, with the result of eliciting a fear response in person hearing them.
103.A significant issue in this matter appears to be [Mr Houlerman] allegedly has a history of perpetrating family violence against his intimate partners and, at times, in the presence of his children. Previously [Ms S], [Ms U] and [Ms G] have been (or are, in the case of [Ms G]) protected by ADVOs made against [Mr Houlerman]. It is concerning, [Mr Houlerman] does not appear to accept any responsibility for his actions in relation to any of the ADVOs being made against him, citing the ADVOs are all spurious. Denying, minimising and blaming others can prevent a person from having the opportunity to make changes would promote the development of a healthy co-parenting relationship in the future. If there is veracity to [Mr Houlerman] having a history of perpetrating violence against his intimate partners this may represent an unacceptable risk of harm to the children and it would be recommended that the children spend no time with him.
…
108.[Mr Houlerman] reported that he had been diagnosed with depression and in a previous interview reported that he had been diagnosed with [a mental health condition]. [Mr Houlerman] reported that he did not believe that either condition affected his parenting ability. [Ms Fanning] expressed concerns about [Mr Houlerman’s] mental health and the impact that it had on his parenting ability. [The mental health condition] can cause the sufferer to experience a disconnection from reality. Psychosis, also experienced by those with [the mental health condition] affects how the person with the condition thinks, feels, and behaves. Experiencing symptoms of [psychosis] can lead to confusion, for both the person experiencing the symptoms and for those around them and to the sufferer to feel misunderstood. Psychotic episodes, and the feelings that come with them, can impact a person's ability to relate to family, friends and colleagues, and it may affect their ability to manage the requirements of running a household. People with psychosis often have hallucinations, that involve seeing or hearing things that seem very real, but others cannot sense. Some people may have delusions or paranoia that can lead people to think they are being spied on, or that others are plotting against them. Psychosis can result in suicidal thoughts, dangerous and violent behaviour, hospitalisations and arrests. With drug induced psychosis it is more likely that symptoms will subside after the drug wears off, with [the mental health condition], however, treatment usually consists of ongoing use of an anti‑psychotic medication.
109.Untreated depression can cause a person to neglect the needs of children and could make them irritable when responding to the demands of caring for children. Exposure to an untreated mental illness could have a detrimental impact on children and can be associated with a range of ongoing mental health difficulties, such as depression, anxiety or difficulty with social engagement. Children can also be adversely affected through ongoing contact with a person who has an untreated mental illness including the need to become a carer for that parent, isolation and feelings of guilt. Children may also experience negative interactions in social situations with the parent with [a mental health condition] and perceive that parent as not supporting them. For children between the ages of five and ten, they may be confused by the behaviour of the parent with [a mental health condition] because they are unable to fully comprehend why the behaviour is occurring and may blame themselves. Social support is important for children's emotional well-being when a parent is experiencing a mental illness as it may ameliorate some of the negative effects.
110.It is unclear why [Mr Houlerman] did not report his previous diagnosis of [a mental health condition] during his interview on 2 November 2020. However, [Mr Houlerman] reported that he is engaged with mental health professionals and that he feels that his mental health condition is unlikely to affect his parenting capacity. If the Court determines that [Mr Houlerman] is managing his mental illness adequately it is unlikely to be an issue that affects consideration of parenting proposals in this matter. If, on the other hand, [Mr Houlerman] has been diagnosed with [a mental health condition] and it is untreated it is recommended that he spend no time with the children until his condition is treated and stabilised.
…
115.In interview, [Ms Fanning] suggested the children spend no time with [Mr Houlerman]. If [Ms Fanning’s] allegations about family violence or [Mr Houlerman’s] consumption of drugs are found to have veracity then this would appear to be suitably protective of the children. …
The Family Report writer gave oral evidence. The Court does not propose to set out such evidence in its entirety.
The Family Report writer gave this evidence in relation to the father’s non-compliance with alcohol testing in respect of the Orders of 31 March 2022, and failure to provide a full mental health assessment in accordance with those Orders:
[COUNSEL]The father came to this court and the hearing before his Honour with non-compliance in – I’m sorry, non-compliance in relation to the alcohol testing. That is, the test results showed an insufficient sample had been provided, and he came before the court in relation to a drug testing that was positive for [illicit drugs]. Do those matters cause you any concern in relation to the father’s drug and alcohol difficulties?
[WITNESS]If the drug and alcohol difficulties are still ongoing, they do concern me about parenting capacity, yes.
[COUNSEL]Because in addition, the father, during the course of his evidence, gave some examples of his continuing use of alcohol which – and if his Honour was to make findings that the father has not been open and frank about the extent of his use of alcohol, would that cause you any concerns in relation to the father’s parenting?
[WITNESS]Yes, it does, because it can affect medication, if medication is being taken for mental health, and it also can negatively affect parenting capacity and the ability to care for the children.
[COUNSEL]In relation to some orders that were made on 31 March 2022, there was a further order that the father shall undertake a mental health assessment and provide a full mental health assessment, obviously, in relation to his mental health issues, to this court and the father failed to provide to the court a full mental health assessment as was ordered. Does that cause you any concerns regarding the father’s mental health issues?
[WITNESS]It would just speak to not having the information about his mental health condition, so it would be difficult to understand how that is affecting him on a day-to-day basis, and how he responds to medication, if he’s taking any, or how he views – or the symptoms he experiences from his mental health condition. So it just doesn’t give a full picture of how he is coping with his mental health conditions.
The Family Report writer gave this evidence in relation to potential supervised time between the children and the father:
[COUNSEL]And if there were safety concerns or if the court was to find that there were safety concerns regarding [Mr Houlerman] and the children, would you agree that supervised contact would mitigate the concerns raised in this matter, being family violence, drug use, alcohol abuse and mental health issues?
[WITNESS]It can but, again, I think that in the circumstances where – where there has been exposure to violence, there would need to be some repair of that relationship before the supervised time commenced – would be a recommendation. I – I don’t think it would be helpful for the children to – especially the older – especially [X], to just start supervised time without any intervention.
The Family Report writer gave this evidence in relation to long-term supervision:
[HIS HONOUR] [Ms D], what’s your view in relation to long-term supervision – that is, if the children were to have supervised time with the father, say at a contact centre, long term? Is that viable?
[WITNESS]Possibly for – like, long term, over a year, possibly not. I think that the – the environment, while good, it’s not a natural environment for the children and I think as children age, they get a bit – well, in my experience – bored or frustrated with the environment, that it is contained and it – a lot of them are aimed at younger children. So there is a – those sort of feelings of frustration and boredom of having to go there.
The Family Report writer gave this evidence in relation to the issue of supervised time ameliorating the risk of harm to children in relation to the visiting parent who has problems with drug or alcohol use or mental health issues:
[HIS HONOUR] If you assume that the father has still got significant problems with drug use or alcohol use or mental health issues, does supervised time ameliorate those matters or not?
[WITNESS]More with the drug and alcohol use it would because it’s a contained period of time. It’s generally two hours a fortnight. So that can contain. Mental health is a bit more ambiguous. It depends on the – the status of the person with the mental health issue. For example, with [a mental health condition], if they’re having an episode where psychosis is involved, that can be experienced as frightening by the children. So that – that’s a bit more ambiguous as to whether – whether a short period of time would ameliorate the risk there.
The Court accepts the evidence of the Family Report writer subject to any contrary view expressed by the Court below, whether express or implied, in its discussion of relevant matters under s 60CC of the Act.
RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Section 60B of the Act sets out the objects of Part VII of the Act relating to children that inform the making of parenting orders.
In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, a court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration: s 60CA of the Act.
Section 60CC of the Act provides that in determining what is in the child’s best interests, the Court must consider the matters set out in subsections (2) and (3).
Under section 60CC(2A) of the Act, the Court, in applying the meaningful relationship primary consideration and the need to protect primary consideration under s 60CC(2) of the Act, is to give greater weight to the need to protect primary consideration.
When making a parenting order in relation to a child, the Court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child: s 61DA of the Act.
If the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in relation to the child applies, and is not rebutted, the Court must firstly consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child and reasonably practicable.
If equal time is found not to be in the child’s best interests, or impracticable, as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in s 60CC, the Court must consider making an order that the child spends substantial and significant time (as defined in s 65DAA(3) of the Act) with the parents, unless contrary to the child’s best interests as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in s 60CC, or impracticable.
If neither equal time nor substantial and significant time is considered to be in the best interests of the child, or impracticable, then the Court may make such orders in the discretion of the Court that it thinks proper, being orders that are in the best interests of the child, as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in section 60CC: sections 60CA, 60CC, 65D.
The best interests of the children
Section 60CC considerations
(2)(a) (the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents: a primary consideration)
In Saif & Saif [2020] FamCA 119, Foster J stated:
95.The reality is, in the context of this interim hearing, that the Court is obliged to have regard to the maintenance and promotion of the children’s relationships with both parents. A relationship may be less than optimal but nonetheless meaningful: (Godfrey & Sanders [2007] FamCA 102 at [33]-[36]; Sigley & Evor (2011) 44 Fam LR 439 at [182]).
96.In Mazorski v Albright [2007] FamCA 520, Brown J considered ordinary definitions of the term “meaningful” and observed:
[26]What these definitions convey is that “meaningful”, when used in the context of “meaningful relationship”, is synonymous with “significant” which, in turn, is generally used as a synonym for “important” or “of consequence”. I proceed on the basis that when considering the primary considerations and the application of the object and principles, a meaningful relationship or a meaningful involvement is one which is important, significant and valuable to the child. It is a qualitative adjective, not a strictly quantitive one. Quantitive concepts may be addressed as part of the process of considering the consequences of the application of the presumption of equally shared parental responsibility and the requirement for time with children to be, where possible and in their best interests, substantial and significant.
97.In McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92 at [121] the Full Court accepted as appropriate this interpretation by Brown J of “meaningful relationship”.
The children have meaningful relationships with the mother and will benefit from a continuance of those relationships. The mother has been the children’s primary carer and their primary attachment is to her. Since the parties’ separation in about May 2016, the mother has been the children’s sole carer.
The father’s time spent with the children post separation has been very limited. The children presently have no meaningful relationship with the father. The father had one visit with the children, the mother being present, in about mid-2016. He spent some time with the child X in mid-2017 at an athletics carnival, and the child Z was present at the home of the maternal grandparents in mid-2017 when he was there helping with renovations. Later, after interim parenting Orders were made, the children had about two supervised visits with the father at a contact centre; one supervised visit in about December 2019 and another in February 2020.
It is possible that the children may benefit prospectively from developing a relationship with the father if it is safe physically and psychologically for them to do so. However presently, as discussed below under the need to protect primary consideration, it is not safe for them to spend time with the father, whether supervised or unsupervised.
(2)(b) The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence (a primary consideration)
The Court accepts the mother’s evidence relating to family violence and other adverse behaviour perpetrated against herself, the children, and third parties by the father during their former relationship and post separation. This behaviour by the father included:
(a)When the father was intoxicated he was extremely aggressive and would attempt to start fights, whether against family members, a friend and even strangers;
(b)Being extremely aggressive towards the mother over minor disagreements, including yelling and screaming at the mother and then damaging property around the home;
(c)Being extremely jealous and possessive over the mother, including walking up to the mother and physically removing her from a conversation with a male friend;
(d)Swearing at police officers when the police attended the parties’ home;
(e)When the child X was about 1.5 years old when that child was trying to climb the baby gate the father smacked him and yelled at him, and the child started crying. The father became angered after the mother had intervened and asked him not to physically discipline this child;
(f)Thereafter the father began using physical discipline against X when he was annoyed that the child was not listening or acting in a normal childlike manner. The father would either smack, hit the child on the backside or hit (a slap) him across the head. The mother observed such physical discipline by the father on X on over 10 occasions;
(g)When the father’s employment was terminated by his employer, the father started yelling at him and threw keys at him;
(h)Screaming at the children X and Y resulting in their experiencing distress and crying;
(i)On 8 May 2016 (Mother’s Day) the father became enraged and began yelling and throwing things around. The children witnessed this and were screaming and crying and the mother was extremely worried and scared. The mother left the premises with the children and fled the family home, staying in a hotel for an evening. Due to the father’s erratic behaviour, the mother was fearful of any repercussions from the father and therefore did not report this incident to the police;
(j)In about mid-2016 the mother questioned the father about his lack of financial contribution towards the household. The father became angered and started yelling and pushing the mother. He then slapped the mother with an open palm;
(k)When the parties were residing at the Suburb Q home, on over 10 occasions the father physically assaulted the mother. At times the parties had a disagreement, the father pushed, slapped and screamed at the mother. During this time the father was also extremely aggressive towards X. X had been diagnosed with ADHD. If X did not immediately listen to the father, the father would get aggravated and then scream at him. There were occasions when the father would get angry, and yell at and hit Y;
(l)Post separation, in about mid-2016, the mother permitted the father to have phone calls with the children however during these calls the father would spend more time harassing and interrogating the mother than speaking with the children;
(m)In around mid-2016 the mother permitted a visit between the children and the father at a play centre. The father’s demeanour became markedly agitated and escalated significantly when the children were using play equipment. The mother decided to leave the premises with the children and the father pursued her outside, audibly shouting and screaming, demanding to know where they were going with explicit language, and the children were visibly distressed.
The father’s above discussed family violence and other adverse behaviour is consistent with previous adverse and violent behaviour by the father towards others.
For example, the father stated that the assault in relation to which he was jailed in about 2006 related to slapping a woman. He had defended the assault charge but was convicted. He was jailed for a period with a non-parole period. He agreed that he was convicted of contravening an ADVO relating to the assault conviction.
Further, for example, the Court also refers to the evidence relating to three ADVOs made against the father previously. The first was made in 2000 with Ms S (Ms T’s mother), one with Ms U (2006) which appears to relate to the father’s incarceration, discussed above, and one with Ms G (made late 2019). In cross examination, the father had acknowledged that police records in evidence disclosed incidents, in the context of his past domestic relationships, going back a long time.
The Family Report writer had stated that when a person is being abusive towards a partner or another parent, even if that is not directed to children, it creates an environment for the children that is marred by fear and instability, and it can cause emotional distress for them.
The Court refers to the father’s evidence and disclosures to the Family Report writer regarding his views on physical discipline of children; he is permissive in this regard. The Family Report writer had stated that physical discipline rarely works in the manner that it is intended, it creates feelings of shame and distress in the child, and it rarely creates the outcome that the discipline is seeking. It can lead to a child being physically violent themselves and it is not recommended for any child, let alone one such as X, with a neurodivergent brain.
The Court also refers to the father’s evidence, which it accepts, relating to his adverse behaviour at a Centrelink office in late 2018 when he deliberately struck a windowpane which was damaged. The father was asked in cross-examination what effect his behaviour might have had on Centrelink staff who were there to help people with difficulties. The father responded by stating that he did not care. The father then stated that he was not directing his anger at the Centrelink staff. He stated that he had become angered by a security guard within the Centrelink office who had walked over towards him whilst looking at him and positioned himself about a couple of metres away from him and crossed his arms. The father stated that instead of hitting the security guard he had hit the windowpane. In this respect the father stated “I thought I’d done awesome considering the person I wanted to hit was the security guard that was trying to intimidate [me]. Instead of hitting a person, I slapped a window… I thought I done very well under the circumstances… I was so proud of myself for not hitting that bloke.”
The father probably has a significant anger management problem which remains untreated. In this regard the Court refers to the following evidence:
(a)The mother’s above evidence relating to the father’s family violence and adverse behaviour;
(b)The father’s adverse behaviour at the Centrelink office discussed above. The Family Report writer had stated that the father’s behaviour in the Centrelink office displayed a series of limited coping mechanisms in respect to distress experienced by the father in relation to the death of his family members;
(c)The father’s evidence relating to his inability to resolve disputation without abuse or violence;
(d)The father’s evidence that he does get agitated with police;
(e)The father’s presentation in the witness box when being cross-examined was, on occasion, one of hostility and frustration, particularly when being cross-examined in relation to alleged adverse behaviour by him. Counsel for the father conceded that the father’s mood in the witness had on occasion escalated (whilst submitting that his mood had been impacted by his experience of grief from having lost close family members, and he was having regular counselling);
(f)The father’s evidence that he had only participated in an anger management course when incarcerated for a period during a period from 2006 to 2008, (discussed above). He was not aware of Men’s Behaviour Change programs and he denied that he had an anger management problem.
There is a real possibility that the father’s mental health may not be adequately managed.On 31 March 2022, consent interim parenting orders were made providing, inter alia, that the father undertake and provide the mother and ICL with a mental health assessment conducted by a mental health practitioner, preferably a psychiatrist. This was not carried out by the father. This failure to obtain a mental health assessment is of particular concern having regard to the following evidence relating to the father’s mental health.
Following separation, the father self-harmed, and in this regard the Court refers to the colour photograph of the father’s injury in Exhibit F. In the witness box, the father recounted an incident, in 2016, over a period of about 45 minutes, where he considered committing suicide but decided against it. He was in his car and a bystander approached him and removed a knife from his possession. The Family Report writer had stated her concern that having suicidal ideation raises concern about the impact of mental health conditions on a person and whether someone is accessing treatment for that matter.
The father was diagnosed with a mental health condition when he was a teenager. He has been previously prescribed with medication. He ceased this medication in about 2010 with his GP’s permission as he was involved in sports. In 2017 he spoke to his GP and resumed medication. On returning to Sydney he again came off the medication with his GP’s monitoring. In about July/August 2018 the father and his GP decided to start the father on a dose of medication each day as the father had been noticing certain signs which he knew meant he should recommence the medication. In late 2018 the father’s best friend passed away and the father together with his GP decided to double his dosage.
In August 2019 the father’s treating psychologist, Dr R, stated that he had been seeing the father (nine sessions under a mental health-care plan) for assistance with persistent depression, anxiety and stress. He stated that the father’s mental health has improved significantly over 2019.
The Court observes that on 10 August 2022 the father’s GP’s referral letter addressed to a psychologist at K Psychology thanks the psychologist “for ongoing opinion and management of Anxiety/Depression under GPMH” and requested a full mental health assessment for the father. In that referral the GP noted the father’s current medications, and that the father’s past medical history included a moderate chronic mental health condition (with the associated date being 25 February 2011).
The father’s affidavit filed 8 November 2022 refers to the father experiencing “a very tough time” in his life with close family members dying and his resorting to illicit drugs in August 2022. The father’s ingestion of these illicit drugs was detected in the father’s hair follicle test reported in October 2022. In that affidavit the father states that the loss of his mother, sister and best friend has had a huge impact on him, it was an incredibly distressing and heartbreaking time in his life, and he is still coming to terms with the loss of his closest people.
In the father’s affidavit filed 1 February 2024 he refers to engaging with a psychologist through K Psychology, having previously engaged with a counsellor. His most recent psychologist’s report from January 2024 refers, inter alia, to the father attending K Psychology for support with his mental health since July 2020. It states the father has attended three appointments with the psychologist beginning November 2023 with the most recent appointment being January 2024. This report is a short report and contains no significant commentary on the father’s mental health history, diagnoses or prognosis relating to his mental health. There is no commentary in relation to the effect upon the father of the loss of close family members and related mental health or management of that mental health.
In the father’s affidavit filed 8 November 2022 he asserts that he is now taking daily medication. In his affidavit filed 1 February 2024, the father asserts that he continues to take daily medication for his mental health condition, however he does not take this the night before he has to work as it impacts his ability to wake up in the morning.
In oral evidence, the father stated that he is currently “sitting on” a lower dosage of medication a day. He then clarified that when he was not working he takes a higher dosage but if he is working he takes the lower dosage. He stated that sometimes he does not ingest this medication or he might reduce it; it depends on his stress level on the day. In this context, the following exchange occurred during the father’s cross-examination:
[COUNSEL] When you say you’ve pretty much stayed on –
[WITNESS] Yes.
[COUNSEL] Have you stayed on it since then?
[WITNESS]Generally yes. Probably sometimes I don’t take it or I take less or more. Like tonight I’ll probably end up taking [more] tablets, after dealing with you.
He stated that he is aware of signs as to when he needs to take this medication including perceiving a smell like electrical smoke. He stated that he would prefer not to be on this medication but in reality he needs to take it.
There is no health professional evidence relating to the father’s mental health condition and his ingestion of medication. There is no such evidence relating to the father’s apparent practice of sometimes not ingesting this medication or reducing or increasing the dosage of it.
The father lacks adequate insight into the emotional effects upon the mother and children of the above family violence and adverse behaviour perpetrated by him. For example, in oral evidence, the father on more than one occasion admitted verbal arguments with women including the mother without qualification.
There is a real possibility that the father may continue to have significant issues relating to the ingestion of illicit drugs and alcohol. The father has had significant issues historically relating to the use of illicit drugs and excessive alcohol consumption, including during periods of emotional distress. He admitted to significant illicit drug use and alcohol consumption in August 2022 when experiencing grief and distress. His hair follicle test relating to the use of illicit drugs was positive for illicit drugs in October 2022. He has failed to provide a hair follicle test in relation to alcohol consumption despite orders to do so. The negative urine tests do not provide a sufficient window of observation for alcohol and illicit drug use compared to a hair follicle test.
In the view of the Court, there is an unacceptable risk of physical and psychological harm posed to the children spending unsupervised time with the father for at least the following reasons:
(a)The father has perpetrated significant family violence and other adverse behaviour (see the Court’s findings above) to which the children have been exposed on occasion, and in relation to which he lacks adequate insight;
(b)There is a real possibility that the father’s mental health may not be adequately managed. The father has had significant mental health issues. Historically he has been diagnosed with a mental health condition, anxiety and depression. Whilst it appears that he is having regular psychological treatment, he has failed to comply with a March 2022 Court order that he obtain and provide a full mental health assessment. He is exercising his own discretion as to whether or not he ingests medication for his mental health condition in the absence of any proffered health professional evidence in this regard. The Family Report writer observed that it is possible that psychotic episodes can be experienced by a person suffering the mental health condition.
(c)There is a real possibility that the father may continue to have significant issues relating to the ingestion of illicit drugs and alcohol.
(d)The father probably has an anger management problem which remains untreated. He lacks the ability to consistently deal with disputation without resort to anger or violence. In certain situations (e.g. in disputation with institutions such as Centrelink, the police and with domestic partners) he can become emotionally triggered and react with anger and on occasion with violence. There is a significant risk that the father will act in a dysregulated manner, including verbally abusive, intimidatory and/or and dangerous behaviour (e.g. the father’s behaviour at Centrelink) towards third parties in the presence of the children. Of significant concern is that such inadequate impulse control and emotional dysregulation continues despite past psychological treatment and participation in an anger management course in jail. The father’s difficulties with emotional dysregulation date back a significant period.
(e)There is a significant risk that the father will perpetrate significant verbal abuse and/or excessive physical chastisement, with anger, towards the children, as they mature and exhibit potentially challenging behaviours. This risk is heightened for the eldest child X in particular who is vulnerable by reason of his ASD diagnosis. As for the other two children, the Court observes the mother is concerned that they are exhibiting behaviours consistent with neurodivergence. The father has permissive attitudes in relation to the application of physical chastisement of children.
(f)There is a real risk that the mother’s mental health would be adversely affected with resultant detrimental effects upon her parenting capacity which would negatively affect the children. The Family Report writer had stated that the mother’s account to her indicated that she continues to be fearful of the father. The Court would assess that the mother has no significant capacity to co-parent with the father in view of her fear of the father. The father probably lacks insight in relation to the mother’s fear of him.
The father seeks an order (proposed Order 3) that he spend time with X in accordance with the child’s wishes.
There is force to the submissions of the mother and the ICL that in view of X’s ASD diagnosis and related significant difficulties (in particular see Exhibit L, being the psychological assessment report of X by Ms E, psychologist, dated December 2022), including difficulties in tolerating changes in environment, routines, activities or behaviours, the burden of deciding whether or not to spend time with the father should not be placed upon X through the making of the father’s proposed Order 3. In any event, the Court is of the view, again, that there is an unacceptable risk of harm posed to the children in spending unsupervised time with the father.
The father does not seek to spend unsupervised time with the two youngest children. Rather he seeks to spend supervised time (supervision by a professional agency) with them on 12 occasions each year. In this context he seeks a related order that such supervised time can occur outside of a contact centre, for example in a park. The question arises whether such proposed supervised time between these children and the father might minimise or ameliorate the above risks.
It is helpful at this point to briefly set out relevant case law authority relating to the issue of long-term supervision of children’s time with a parent.
In Betros & Betros [2017] FamCAFC 90 the Full Court comprising their Honours Thackray, Murphy, & Austin JJ said at [13]:
[13]It has long been recognised that the permanent imposition of supervision upon the interaction between children and a parent is undesirable, though sometimes warranted (see Slater & Light (2013) 48 Fam LR 573 at 583–584; Champness & Hanson (2009) FLC 93-407 at [209]–[215]; Moose & Moose (2008) FLC 93-375 at [119]; H & K [2001] FamCA 687 at [40]–[41]; B and B (1993) FLC 92-357 at [79,780]).
In Slater & Light (supra) the Full Court stated, quoting Moose & Moose (supra):
[40]Boland J commented on the general undesirability of long term supervised contact and similarly expressed May J’s concern about orders providing for their own review:
[119]The undesirability of, and the practical difficulties associated with long term supervision in a children’s contact centre are referred to in the Guideline for Family Law Courts and Children’s Contact Services January 2007, Part C 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 (published by the Attorney-General’s Department, the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia). In Fitzpatrick & Fitzpatrick [2005] FamCA 394; (2005) FLC 93-227, May J, having found that the evidence in the case “objectively viewed reveals the potential for an unacceptable risk to the children if contact with the father is not supervised...”, then referred to the difficulty associated with long term supervised contact and said “the necessity for contact to be supervised apparently indefinitely leads to the need to finely balance what is in the children’s best interests”. Her Honour then explained “[w]hilst supervised contact in this case will protect the children from any potential physical harm, the effect on their emotional well-being cannot be ignored”. (See also W & W [Abuse allegations: unacceptable risk] [2005] FamCA 892; (2005) FLC 93-235, (2005) 34 Fam LR 129 at paragraph 114).
In B & B (supra) at 79,780 the Full Court stated:
Given the obligation to protect children from abuse, the Family Court should be careful to ensure that any order for supervised access is not attended by any risk of infringement of the child's right to safety, in the widest sense of that word. Supervised access of its very nature acknowledges the presence of a risk to the child. The Family Law Council in its paper “Access – Some Options for Reform” (1987) recommended that: –
“Orders for supervision of access should never be made in circumstances where supervision is regarded as being necessary for the protection of the child.”
We would not elevate such a recommendation to the status of a legal principle for the reason that, in some circumstances such as in the case of an inexperienced parent or a very young child, supervision may be necessary for a relatively short period of time. A list of appropriate circumstances for supervised access orders was outlined in that Report. Relevantly for present purposes, is the situation where supervised access is intended to assist the re-establishment of a relationship between the access parent and the child.
In our opinion, a trial Judge who has made a finding that an unacceptable risk of sexual abuse exists, or that sexual abuse did occur, should look to the level of trauma, in the widest sense, that has been occasioned to the child or children or may be occasioned in the future, to determine whether supervised access is appropriate. If there is an unacceptable risk of the child or children being exposed to physical, emotional or psychological harm by reason of contact with the abusing parent, then an order for supervised access is not appropriate because of the Court's obligation to protect children from such harm.
In circumstances where abuse has occurred or where there is an unacceptable risk of such abuse, access should be suspended until such time as the access parent can show that there is no longer an unacceptable risk in access recommencing. In some cases this will involve an acknowledgment by the access parent that abuse has occurred, together with evidence of appropriate treatment. In most cases, other family members must have the opportunity to resolve the effects of the trauma to the children and the children have the opportunity to recover from the effects of any such abuse. Without that ``time out'' and counselling/treatment, the children's feelings of distress and fear may well be restimulated by contact with the access parent, despite the alleged assurance of safety provided by a supervisor. Supervised access may then be capable of being ordered for the time-limited purpose of re-establishing a relationship between the access parent and the children. Supervised access is not appropriate as a long term measure.
Suspension of access for a period of time may be important for the custodial parent as well as for the children. It is not unreasonable for the Court to take into account in assessing whether an unacceptable risk exists, the need of a custodial parent to be assured of the children's protection. As primary caregiver, anxiety about the children's exposure to potential harm is likely to impact adversely on that parent's ability to care for the children.
The Court is of the view that that even supervised time would pose an unacceptable risk of psychological harm to the children because of at least the following reasons:
(a)The Family Report writer had recommended that before supervised time could occur there should be some intervention, given the children’s views (discussed below) to enable the re-establishment of the children’s relationship with the father; in this context she had referred to the need to repair the relationships where there had been exposure to violence. Assuming such intervention may well involve some form of therapeutic intervention, the Court has a real concern that in view of the father’s lack of insight in relation to previously perpetrated family violence, previously perpetrated violence in the context of past domestic relationships, and permissive views in relation to physical chastisement, his participation in such intervention would not be fruitful;
(b)The Court has expressed its concerns above in relation to the father’s use of illicit drugs, alcohol and his mental health, in particular its concerns as to whether these matters are adequately managed. The Family Report writer appeared to suggest that supervision could detect a parent affected by illicit drug or alcohol use, and the Court observes that the father is prepared to be subject to a formal Court ordered restraint in relation to using illicit drugs or consuming alcohol prior to spending time with the children.
However, the Family Report writer had expressed her concerns that supervision of a child’s time with a parent suffering mental health issues could be problematical, and used the example of a parent suffering a mental health condition having a psychotic episode which could be experienced by a child as frightening. In this case, again, for example, the father has failed to provide a full mental health assessment in relation to, inter alia, whether his mental health condition is adequately managed.
(c)The above legal authorities indicate that long-term supervision of the child’s time with a parent is generally undesirable and has practical difficulties. The authorities refer to supervised time usually being intended to assist in the re-establishment of a relationship between the child and a parent. (The Court nevertheless acknowledges that those authorities indicate that provided the trial judge provides cogent reasons, an order for long-term supervision is at least theoretically open to be made).
In this case, having regard to the current unacceptable risk of harm posed to the children, as discussed above, in spending unsupervised time with the father, and in circumstances where the father lacks insight into his past related behaviour, if an open‑ended order for supervision was made, it is difficult to see when such an order could be lifted and the children then able to spend unsupervised time with the father.
(d)The Family Report writer referred to long-term supervision, presumably in a contact centre, as ultimately becoming boring for a child, and such a child becoming frustrated with the environment that is so presented to them during such supervision. Even assuming that such supervised time could occur outside of a contact centre, for example in a park, as proposed by the father, there is probably still a reasonable possibility that as the younger children mature they would not wish to spend supervised time with the father at outside venues.
The Court acknowledges that making an order for the children to spend no time with the father is a very serious matter. The Court acknowledges that the children have spent positive supervised time with the father in the past and refers to the contact centre reports in this regard. However, as discussed above under this need to protect primary consideration (which primary consideration in its application is to be given greater weight than the meaningful relationship primary consideration: s 60CC(2A)), an unacceptable risk of harm is posed to the children in spending time with the father, including even supervised time as proposed by him.
Prospectively, should the father seek fresh parenting orders in relation to the children, without being prescriptive, he would need to at least adduce appropriate evidence demonstrating that he had developed adequate insight in relation to the Court’s found family violence and adverse behaviour previously perpetrated by him, including in relation to the effect upon the mother and children of such past behaviour. He would need to present appropriate evidence relating to his adequate management of illicit drug use, alcohol consumption, and management of his mental health, for example, contemporary hair testing results (relating to both illicit drugs and alcohol) and a full mental health assessment. He may well need to present appropriate evidence relating to management of his anger management issue, such as participation in a Men’s Behaviour Change program. He may well need to present appropriate evidence relating to the circumstances of his living arrangements with Ms G or other relevant persons with whom he shares premises.
The Court gives significant weight to this need to protect primary consideration.
Section 60CC(3) additional considerations
(3)(a) Any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child maturity or level of understanding) that the Court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views
The eldest child, X, told the Family Report writer in May 2019 (at the Child Inclusive Conference) and in November 2020 that the father, during the parties’ relationship, had slapped him across the head for no reason. In the latter meeting, he stated that the father had done this very often. This child told the Family Report writer he did not enjoy the supervised time spent with the father. He told the Family Report writer that he did not want to spend time with the father, and this view was repeated to the ICL on 31 January 2024. He told the ICL he did not want to receive cards and letters from the father.
As to whether the mother has influenced X in the formulation of his negative views about the father, the Court finds that whilst it is likely that the mother has on occasion post separation unwittingly made negative comments about the father to X, or displayed her fear of the father in X’s presence, nevertheless X’s views have likely significantly been formed by reason of his adverse lived experience with the father, including exposure to family violence and being hit by the father. The Court would attach some weight to this child’s views.
The middle child, Y, told the Family Report writer, inter alia, that she did not want to spend time with the father. In view of this child’s age in particular, the Court would not attach any significant weight to her views.
The Court attaches no significant weight to the views of the youngest child, Z, in particular by reason of her tender age.
(3)(b) The nature of the relationship of the child with each of the child’s parents; and other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child)
The Court refers to its discussions above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration. The children enjoy positive relationships with the maternal grandparents.
(3)(c) The extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken or failed to take the opportunity to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and to spend time with the child; and to communicate with the child
The mother has taken such opportunities.
During the parties’ relationship, the mother was primarily responsible for the day-to-day care of the children, and she probably made the major long-term decisions for the children. At times during that relationship the father probably did spend some positive time with the children but his relationship with them was likely marred by his family violence and other adverse behaviour discussed above under the need to protect primary consideration. Post separation, the father’s time with the children has been minimal and usually supervised.
(3)(ca) The extent to which each of the child’s parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent’s obligations to maintain the child
The mother has fulfilled her obligations in this regard. The father has been unemployed for a significant period of time and has thereby not paid significant child support.
(3)(d) The likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from either of his or her parents; or any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living
The Court refers to its discussions above under the above primary considerations, including under the above additional consideration relating to the views of the children. Again, the children have spent minimal time with the father post separation and have no meaningful relationship with him.
(3)(e) The practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with the parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis
The Court refers to its discussions above under the need to protect primary consideration.
(3)(f) The capacity of each of the child’s parents; and any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs
The mother has such capacities.
The father may well have some capacity, probably a limited capacity, to meet the children’s intellectual needs; it appears he has been unemployed for a significant period of time and spends a couple of days each week working voluntarily at a retail store. The father adduces no significant evidence relating to how he spends his free time. The father’s ability to provide for the emotional needs of the children is probably significantly compromised by reason of the matters discussed above in relation to the father under the need to protect primary consideration.
(3)(g) The maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child’s parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the Court thinks are relevant
As to the father, the Court refers to its discussions above in relation to the father under the need to protect primary consideration.
(3)(h) If the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child: the child’s right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture); and the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right
Not applicable.
(3)(i) The attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents
The mother has usually demonstrated appropriate attitudes to the children and to the responsibilities of parenthood.
The Court refers to its discussions above under the need to protect primary consideration, in particular its discussions in relation to the perpetration of family violence and other adverse behaviour by the father. The Court also refers to its discussion above in respect to the mother speaking to the children about the father (see above under the additional consideration (3)(a)). In this context the Court refers to the following evidence of the Family Report writer:
[HIS HONOUR] And if you assume for the moment that the mother’s allegations of family violence made against the father are correct – that is, assume what she said to you about family violence experienced during the relationship is correct. Is it more understandable or not that a parent such as the mother in those circumstances might consciously or unconsciously reveal her concerns in that regard to the children?
[WITNESS]Yes. The wellbeing of a mother directly or – is intricately linked to the wellbeing of a child. They’re not mutually exclusive. So it’s important to understand that the behaviour of the mother could be impacted by her experiences. So while it’s not the best thing to talk to the children about that or make them aware of that, sometimes that can be difficult just because your coping strategies are not fully – fully there either.
In the view of the Court, it is likely that the mother’s speaking to the children on occasion negatively about the father was influenced by her previous exposure to family violence and other adverse behaviour perpetrated by the father. The Court does not accept that post separation the mother engaged in deliberate parental alienation of the children’s relationship with the father; the Court finds that post separation the mother sought to protect the children from being exposed to family violence and adverse behaviour by the father.
As to the father, the Court refers to its discussions above in relation to the father under the need to protect primary consideration.
(3)(j) Any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family.
The Court refers to its discussions above under the need to protect primary consideration.
(3)(k) If a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child’s family – any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order, taking into account the following: the nature of the order; the circumstances in which the order was made; any findings made by the Court in, or in proceedings for, the order; any other relevant matter.
The Court refers to Exhibit A, being the father’s criminal history.
The Court refers to its discussions above under the need to protect primary consideration in respect to the father.
(3)(l) Whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child.
In the view of the Court, the ICL’s proposed order that the children spend no time with the father would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the children as compared to the father’s proposed orders seeking, inter alia, supervised time in relation to the two youngest children. In this regard the Court refers to its discussions above under the need to protect primary consideration in particular.
(3)(m) Any other fact or circumstance that the Court thinks is relevant.
As to the mother’s proposed Order 6 relating to the father being able to send cards, letters, and gifts to the children, vetted by the mother, the Court observes that no submissions were made by any party. In any event, the mother, in her evidence in chief, stated that she did not wish to provide her residential address, which position is consistent with the Court’s above findings as to unacceptable risk. There is no evidence as to the mother being comfortable with a post office address being provided. For such an order to be of practical effect, a post office facility would have to be maintained by the mother being of sufficient size to house possible gifts to the children. The mother should not be required to pay the cost of maintaining such a facility. The father does not adduce relevant evidence as to his financial capacity to maintain such a facility. There was no evidence adduced as to whether the mother could emotionally cope with the facilitation of such an order, she being required to vet such material potentially to be provided by the father to the children. Such proposed order will not be an order in the best interests of the children.
The ICL’s proposed orders relating to overseas travel by the mother with the children will be orders in the best interests of the children. Such orders were similarly sought by the father.
The ICL’s proposed orders relating to X attending the B Counselling service or, if not suitable, attending another organisation for counselling and therapy will be orders in the best interests of that child. Such orders were similarly sought by the father.
The ICL’s proposed orders relating to the youngest children attending the C Program will also be orders in the best interests of those children, and again, such an order was similarly sought by the father.
SUMMARY
Evaluating the above discussed considerations under s 60CC of the Act, and other matters discussed above, the Court is of the view that it will be in the best interests of the children to make the following final parenting orders:
1.The children X born 2011, Y born 2013 and Z born 2015 (“the children”) spend no time with the father.
2.The mother may apply for an Australian travel document (passport) for the children without first obtaining the consent of the father and shall be the only person with parental responsibility for the children for the purposes of applying for, and being issued with, an Australian passport for the children.
3.Pursuant to s 65Y of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the mother shall be at liberty to cause the children to travel outside of the Commonwealth of Australia.
4.The mother is restrained from abusing, insulting, belittling, rebuking or criticising the father to or in the presence of the children or any of them and from permitting any other person to do so and the mother is further restrained from discussing these proceedings in any way in the sight or hearing of the children or permitting any other person to do so.
5.The mother shall within 21 days at her discretion either:
(a)Attend upon her General Practitioner for the purpose of obtaining a Mental Health Plan to receive psychological therapy, counselling and support in relation to being the victim of domestic family violence and abuse, or;
(b)Attend upon Victims Services NSW, through Victims Access Line, to seek counselling and support being the victim of domestic violence.
6.The mother shall complete and submit to B Counselling a referral form as provided to her by the Independent Children’s Lawyer so as to enable X to receive counselling and therapy in relation to family conflict and breakup, grief and loss. Provided that X meets the eligibility criteria the mother shall thereafter ensure X attends upon such service as long as he is required to do so by such service.
7.In the event X does not meet the criteria for enrolment in B Counselling the mother shall attend upon X’s treating specialist in relation to X’s ASD as soon as practicable an obtain advice as to an appropriate agency or service that will be able to provide such counselling and therapy in relation to family conflict and possible grief and loss for X.
8.Within 21 days, the mother do all things necessary to enrol the children Y and Z into “C Program” and thereafter, if they are deemed suitable for such program, cause them to attend at the first opportunity.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and seventy-four (174) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Newbrun. Deputy Associate:
Dated: 19 February 2024
0
7
1