HUA & JIANG

[2020] FCCA 3222

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HUA & JIANG [2020] FCCA 3222

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – best interests of child – injunctive relief sought for the personal protection of a child and mother – orders made.  

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 60B, 60CA, 62G, 69ZL, 68B(a), 68B(b)(i), 60CC

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s10A

Cases cited:

Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36

Eaby & Speelman [2015] FamCAFC 104

Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286

Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101

Applicant: MR HUA

Respondent: MS JIANG

File Number: PAC 4410 of 2019

Judgment of: Judge Newbrun

Hearing date: 13 November 2020

Date of Last Submission: 13 November 2020

Delivered at: Parramatta

Delivered on: 25 November 2020

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Ms Chueng – Metta Legal

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr Widjada – Lavulo Lawyers

Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr Naidovski – Sydney West Family Lawyers

ORDERS

1. That the Child X (herein referred to as X), born 2006, shall live with the Mother.

2. That X shall spend time with his Father in accordance with the views as expressed by X, with both parents to do all reasonable things to facilitate such time.

3. That pursuant to s 68B(a) and s 68B(b)(i) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Court grants an injunction for the personal protection of X and the Mother, hereby restraining the Father from:

   (a)Approaching, contacting or attempting to contact the Mother and/or the Child except as otherwise provided in the Orders or otherwise agreed to in writing between the parties.

   (b)Entering or attempting to enter any place where X attends school, after school care or vacation care, including travel to and from school.

   (c)Entering or attempting to enter, or attending at any extracurricular activity attended by X.

   (d)Assaulting, molesting, harassing, threatening or stalking X.

4. Pursuant to section 62G(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 the parties and the Children of the relationship shall attend upon a Family Consultant nominated by the Dispute Resolution Coordinator of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on a date and at time/s to be advised for the purposes of the preparation of a Family Report.

5. That the Family Report shall deal with the following matters:

   (a)Any views expressed by the Child and any factors relevant to the weight to be attached to those views, provided that the Child shall not be required to express a view in relation to any matter;

   (b)The nature of the Child’s relationships with each of the Child’s parents and other persons;

   (c)The likely effect of any changes in the Child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the Child of any separation from either of the parents;

   (d)The capacity of each parent to provide for the child’s needs, including emotional and intellectual needs;

   (e)The attitude to the Child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the Child’s parents.

6. The parties shall attend all appointments with the Family Consultant and shall ensure the subject Child attend all appointments with the Family Consultant, as requested by the Family Consultant.

7. The Family Consultant may inspect the Court file, and any documents produced on subpoena access to which has been granted to a party or the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

8. The proceedings are adjourned for mention following release of the family report to 8 October 2021 at 9.30am.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

PAC 4410 of 2019

MR HUA

Applicant

And

MS JIANG

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These are short form reasons pursuant to section 69ZL of Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (the Act) relating to an Interim Hearing held on 13 November 2020 in relation to the Child, X, born 2006.

2. The Father seeks interim parenting Orders as set out on pages 1 and 2 of his Case Outline filed 12 October 2020; inter alia, he seeks Orders that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the Child; that the Child lives with the Mother when not spending time with the Father pursuant to these Orders; that the Child spends time with the Father effectively in an equal time arrangement between the parties; that the Child spends time with the Father on a week about basis during school holidays; that the parties are to ensure that the Microsoft Family Program is fully installed, functional and utilised on all of the Child’s devices to manage the Child’s excessive video gaming and to promote the Child’s focus on his academic curriculum.

3. The Mother seeks interim parenting Orders as set out on pages 4 and following of her Case Outline filed 8 October 2020; inter alia, she seeks Orders that the Mother have sole parental responsibility for the Child; that the Child live with the Mother; that the Father spend time with the Child as follows, “That whenever the Child tells the Mother to make contact with and spend time with the Father, the Mother shall assist the Child to do so” and other interim related parenting orders.

4. The ICL seeks interim parenting Orders as set out on pages 2 and following of his Case Outline filed 9 October 2020; inter alia he seeks Orders that the Child live with the Mother; the Child spend time with the Father in accordance with the views as expressed by the Child, with both parents to do all reasonable things to facilitate such time; that pursuant to section 68B(a) and section 68B(b)(i) of the Act, the Court grant an injunction for the personal protection of the Child restraining the Father from, inter alia, entering or attempting to enter any place where the Child attend school, including travel to and from school.

5. The Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum dated 22 February 2020 became Exhibit A.

6. The Father relied upon the documents set out on page 1 of his Case Outline.

7. The Mother relied upon the documents set out on page 2 of her Case Outline, except that she only relied upon her Affidavit filed 5 May 2020.

8. The relevant principles in relation to parenting proceedings, including interim proceedings, are well settled: see Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286.

9. In Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia discussed the problems associated with making findings on disputed evidence as follows:

   [120] As has frequently been emphasised interim parenting proceedings, and orders made as a consequence, are a necessary but temporary measure until all the evidence can be tested, evaluated and weighed at a final hearing by the making of final parenting orders. Decisions judicial officers have to make in interim proceedings are difficult and, often for very good reason, a conservative approach, or one which is likely to avoid harm to a child is adopted. This is often to the understandable distress of a party who may not achieve the outcome he or she desires, or thinks to be in the best interests of their child or children. Interim parenting orders are frequently modified or changed after a final hearing, and any allocation of parental responsibility made at an interim hearing is disregarded at the final hearing (s 61DB).

   [122] In SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13 the majority (Boland and Thackray JJ) discussed at paragraph 88 of their reasons the care necessary to be exercised in making findings in interim parenting proceedings. Their Honours said:

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

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

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

10. Of this, the Full Court in Eaby & Speelman [2015] FamCAFC 104 said at [19]:

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

11. The Court also refers to the decision of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36, especially at paragraphs 46 to 52. In that decision, the Full Court stated, inter alia, that (at paragraph 49), “It is also important to stress here that the requirement to “consider” each factor (under s60CC of the Act) does not mean each must be discussed, especially where the evidence leads inexorably to a particular conclusion: SCVG & KLD (2014) FLC 93-582”. Further, it stated, at paragraph 50, “When it is obvious that the findings made as to some of the s 60CC factors will be determinative of the child’s best interests on an interim basis, it is a sterile and unnecessary exercise to address other factors”.

12. Section 60B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) sets out the objects of Part VII of the Act relating to children that inform the making of parenting orders.

13. 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: section 60CA of the Act.

14. 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). In this context the Court refers to its discussion above in relation to Banks & Banks.

15. The Father was born in Vietnam and is aged 68 years. The Mother was born in China and is aged 39 years.

16. The parties were married in China in 2004.

17. The Mother migrated to Australia in 2005. There is a significant suggestion on the material before the Court that the parties’ commenced cohabitation shortly after the Mother arrived in Australia.

18. On 1 November 2016, the District Court of NSW revoked an ADVO made on 15 April 2016. The Father alleges that he had consented to a six-month AVO, with the protected person being the Mother, without admitting the facts. It upheld a conviction appeal relating to a previous offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. However, in relation to a conviction appeal in respect of an offence of contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (domestic), it dismissed the appeal but varied the Orders to provide for a conviction under section 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), with no penalty imposed.

19. The Father alleges that separation occurred between the parties in about January 2018. The Mother moved out of the family home and the Child remained living with the Father.

20. Following the separation, and from about early 2018, the Mother usually spent regular weekly overnight time with the Child. There is a suggestion in the decision of the AAT dated 28 November 2018 that during 2018 the Child would spend block time with the Mother during school holidays as well.

21. The Mother alleges that prior to late March 2019 she observed that the Child was very stressed and that he had told her that the Father did not feed him well and forced him to eat things that he did not want to eat.  She also alleged that the Child had told her that the Father keeps hitting him and that he did not want to return to live with his Father.

22. The Mother alleges that thereafter she enrolled the Child back at School A.

23. The Mother alleges that in the first half of April 2019 she heard the Father shouting outside her home. She also alleges that she received abusive voice messages from the Father. The Mother alleges that in late April 2019 she heard the Child ask her not to force him to see the Father, and that he was not ready to see the Father.

24. The Mother alleges that the Child came into her primary care in about late March 2019. She alleges that the Child has remained in her primary care since that time.

25. The Father alleges that the Mother made false statements to the Child Support Agency in 2019. The Court is unable to resolve this allegation at this Interim Hearing having considered the material on this topic.

26. The Mother alleges that in 2019 the Child told her that he is fed up with the Father following him to and from school. The Mother alleges that the Child told her that the Father screams at him and will not leave him alone.

27. The Mother alleges that the Child is settled living with her since 24 March 2019.

28. The Mother alleges that since 24 March 2019 she has not heard the Child say that he wants to go see the Father.  She alleges that on a number of occasions when the Father came to her home, the Mother observed that the Child would not go to the door to look at the Father shouting outside their property. She alleges that she has heard the Child say to her on these occasions that he does not want to talk to the Father right now and that he asked the Mother not to ask him to go see the Father.

29. The Mother alleges that she understands it is important for the Child have a relationship with the Father. The Mother alleges that she has said to the Child that he should at least contact the Father or see him in a public place.

30. The Mother alleges that since about 2015, she has heard the Child tell her that he just does not feel like seeing the Father now and that when he is ready to see the Father he will phone him to come get him.

31. The Mother alleges that on special occasions the Child had told her that he was not ready to talk to the Father or see him right now and that he was fed up with the Father allegedly beating him and calling him names.

32. The Mother alleges that previously she recalls attending upon the Child’s psychologist about the Child’s behaviour. The Mother alleges that thereafter she understood that the Child’s behaviour problems were the parties’ problems.  She alleges that the Father, to the contrary, stated that the psychologist was not right and that it was the Child’s problem so that he had to change his behaviour and listen. The Mother alleges that during the relationship she attended parenting programs with Parenting Program B including Parenting Program C.

33. The Father alleges that in 2019 he wanted the Child to attend a particular religious school because that school focused not only on academic performance but also on the behaviour of students. The Father alleges that the Child is suffering from an undiagnosed videogame addiction or gaming disorder.  The Father refers to a WHO document, however, the Court would observe that there is no expert or other health professional material before the Court suggesting that the Child has such a disorder.

34. The Father alleges that the Child’s negative behaviour includes playing videogames non-stop during the day, afternoon and throughout the night, usually seven days a week. He attaches to his Affidavit a report from a Microsoft software program detailing an alleged example of the Child’s excessive game time from August 2019. There is force to the submission of the ICL that at least one significant unknown, in relation to what appears at first glance to be lengthy periods of time spent on the computer in relation to, for example, Chrome and Roblox, is whether there were significant periods of “downloading” of games, which downloading time would not necessarily involve the Child being actively using the computer at all.

35. The Child told the Family Consultant, inter alia, that when he lived with the Father he did more gaming, as the Father allegedly allowed him to play computer games whenever he wanted to. He stated to the Family Consultant, “Even when I asked him to open his laptop (so he could play computer games) at 1 AM.”

36. The Mother alleges that she has placed a password on the Child’s laptop while he stays with her.  She alleges that she continues to speak to the Child about spending more time on his schoolwork.

37. The Court is unable to resolve the parties’ competing allegations as to the extent of the Child’s playing videogames, there being conflicting allegations on this topic.

38. The Father alleges that the Child went from being an A grade student to now being on the verge of being an E grade student all as a result of uncontrolled video gaming, and a lack of discipline and control on the part of the Mother which has encouraged, allegedly, the Child’s negative conduct. The Father alleges that the Child’s videogame addiction is worse than drug addiction. He alleges that the longer the Child is withheld from him, the worse the Child’s addiction will become.

39. In Year 7, Semester One and Two 2018, the Child’s school reports are, on one view, overall, satisfactory.

40. In Year 8, Semester One, 2019, the Child’s school report is on one view, overall, satisfactory.

41. There is a summary of a school meeting held on 9 August 2019 in which the Father is noted as having stated that he is concerned about the Child’s use of technology at home. It is noted that a school officer spoke with the Child about the amount of computer time.

42. The school report for the Child for Year 9, first semester 2020, on one view, reveals a deterioration in the Child’s school performance from previous years.  In this regard, in relation to the Child’s school subjects, there are numerous entries, for example, referring to the Child “rarely” achieving certain targets. The Child’s subjects include English, industrial technology, photographic and digital media, in EEO videogame design, history, mathematics, science, physical education. There is no significant material adduced from the Child’s school, including his teachers, apart from the school reports, as to the reasons for the Child’s academic school performances.

43. It is unclear to the Court whether the Child’s alleged video gaming activity (and again the Court is unable to resolve the parties’ competing contentions as to the extent of the Child’s video gaming activity) is significantly contributing to his recent school academic performances.  Common sense would suggest that there may be any number of other possible contributing causes to such performances, including, for example, disinterest, lack of academic ability, and stress relating to these proceedings including the Father allegedly following the Child home from school.

44. The Mother alleges that she wishes that the Father stop sending abusive messages. The Mother alleges that on a date in July 2019 she read a text message from the Father to the Child referring to the Mother as the Child’s devil Mother who the Child helped destroy the Father.  In relation to these allegations, similar allegations are made by the Mother to the Family Consultant.  Further, she alleged to the Family Consultant that she was fearful for her current safety, and alleged that she is concerned that the Father may attempt to physically harm her.  The Mother alleged to the Family Consultant that the Father currently stands outside their home shouting out abusive comments towards her.  She alleged that the Father’s behaviour annoys her neighbours and landlord and she is fearful that her landlord may not renew her lease as a result.

45. The Father alleged to the Family Consultant and submitted that the Child is malnourished in the Mother’s primary care.  In this regard, the Court would observe that it was common ground between the parties that the Child had been interviewed by the Family Consultant face-to-face.  There are no comments made by the Family Consultant that she observed malnourishment or had any concerns in relation to the Child’s physical appearance. The Family Consultant stated that the Child’s presentation and the information he shared in the interview was not reflective of the Father’s description of him.

1. The Mother alleged to the Family Consultant that she is aware that the Father has been attending the Child’s school up to three times a day, and the teachers have felt harassed and contacted the police as a result.

2. The Court refers to the Child’s statements made to the Family Consultant.  Inter alia, the Child reported that the Father follows him to and from school, stands outside the Mother’s home and shouts at him and the Mother and attends his school about 50% of the time. He stated to the Family Consultant that he wants the Father to stop following him, bothering his friends and people around him, and stop coming to their house.  The Child told the Family Consultant that yesterday the Father followed him from school to home.

3. The Child stated to the Family Consultant that he did not want to see the Father currently. He stated that this might change in the future but at the moment if he is forced to go and see the Father he will not go.

4. The Child stated to the Family Consultant that he did not like the Father trash-talking the Mother.  He reported to the Family Consultant that sometimes he had to listen to the Father’s comments such as, “your Mother is cheating you”, “poisoning your mind”, “gives you games”, and “game is like a drug.”

5. The Child reported to the Family Consultant that he has tried to explain to the Father that after school, sleeping, and his other activities, which include spending time with his friends, that there is no more than an hour left in a day for gaming, should he wish to play computer games. The Child reported, however, that the Father did not believe him.

6. The Child reported to the Family Consultant that he likes living with the Mother.

7. The Child reported that the Mother is better at discipline, and that sometimes the Mother can be relaxed about things, but he would not listen to the Father anyway.

8. The Child reported to the Family Consultant that it is a challenge for him to get away from home, without the Father noticing him. He reported that the Father talked to him loudly on the bus and says to him “gaming is drug”. The Child reported that he worries that someone else could take what the Father is saying out of context and think that he is all these bad things.

9. The Child stated to the Family Consultant that he does not want to get an AVO, just tell the Father to stop bothering him.

10. The Child reported to the Family Consultant that he could reconsider in the future whether he wanted to see the Father, however, he stated that he did not think his Father’s behaviour will be getting any better.

11. The Family Consultant stated that the Child appears to be under stress in relation to the Father’s alleged behaviour. The Family Consultant stated that if the Father is displaying behaviour, as allegedly described by the Child and the Mother, then this will be impacting on the Child’s ability to freely socialise with his peers, feel comfortable in school and feel comfortable at times at home.

12. The Family Consultant stated that the Court may wish to consider, in light of the Child’s age, to give greater weight to his wishes about spending time with the Father.

13. The Family Consultant stated that it may assist the Court to consider making a family violence Order for the protection of the Mother and the Child.

14. The Child would appear to have a meaningful relationship with the Mother and to benefit from a continuance of that relationship.

15. There is a significant suggestion on the material before the Court that the Child’s former relationship with the Father has deteriorated and is fractured. There is a significant suggestion on the material before the Court that the Child is reacting adversely to alleged behaviour of the Father towards him, including, inter alia, the Father’s alleged following him from school, making adverse statements to him on the school bus, going to his school, the Father’s alleged negative comments to him in relation to video gaming, and in relation to the Father’s alleged denigration of the Mother to the Child.

16. The Child may prospectively benefit from having a meaningful relationship with the Father provided it is emotionally safe for him to do so.

17. The Father alleges that the Mother’s parenting capacity for the Child is unsatisfactory. On the material before the Court, there is a significant suggestion that since the Child coming into the Mother’s primary care in early 2019, her parenting capacity of the Child has been satisfactory.  Rather, the Court has a concern, based upon all the material before it, that the Father’s approach towards parenting the Child, since the Child has come into the Mother’s primary care, is causing the Mother and the Child significant stress.

18. The Court takes into account and would place significant weight upon the views expressed by the Child to the Family Consultant not to spend time with the Father against his wishes. In this context, the Court takes into account the Child’s statements to the Family Consultant that if he is forced to go and see the Father he will not go. The Court takes into account the age of the Child, being about 14.5 years of age.

19. The Court has a significant concern that if it was to make discreet orders for the Child to spend time with the Father, there is a real risk that the Child will react adversely and not comply with such orders, and that thereafter, the prospects of the Child’s former relationship with the Father being restored and enhanced in a timely fashion will be detrimentally affected.

20. The Mother alleges that the Father perpetrated physical and controlling family violence against herself and the Child.  The Father denies these allegations. The Mother’s allegations are detailed and often particularised. The Mother sought an AVO to which the Father consented for a period. There is a significant suggestion, on the material before the Court, as discussed below, that the Father has been verbally harassing the Mother and Child. The Court observes that the conviction appeal for the assault upon the Mother was upheld, however, the conviction appeal against the contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (domestic) was dismissed. The Mother reported alleged domestic violence at the instance of the Father to Mr D, clinical psychologist, in about May 2019. The Child did not mention physical discipline by the Father to the Family Consultant but this does not necessarily suggest that that did not occur in the past. Taking these matters into account, without proceeding to make any findings of fact, if the Court were to order that the Child spend time with the Father, unsupervised, the Court has a real concern that the Child would be exposed to unreasonable verbal harassment and discipline at the instance of the Father which in turn may lead to the Child suffering emotional harm.

21. The ICL seeks injunctive relief against the Father in his proposed Order 3. The Court has a significant concern relating to the Mother and Child’s allegations respectively that the Father is verbally abusing them, including attending near their premises without invitation and harassing them, as well as following the Child from school, and confronting him on the school bus.  The Family Consultant expressed her concerns that the Child is under stress in this context and that the Father’s alleged behaviour may well be impacting on the Child’s ability to freely socialise with his peers, feel comfortable in school, and feel comfortable at times at home.  The Family Consultant had stated that it may assist the Court to consider making a family violence Order for the protection of the Mother and Child.  In the view of the Court, based upon all the material before it, including the opinions of the Family Consultant, it will be appropriate to make the ICL’s proposed injunctive relief against the Father in proposed Order 3 in the ICL’s proposed Orders set out in his Case Outline (with minor amendments so as to reflect the injunction being made both for the child and mother’s personal protection).

22. The Court has not overlooked the Father’s historical care of the Child, including assistance with medical care and schooling.

23. The Father has sought to take opportunities to participate in making decisions about long-term issues for the Child, to spend time with the Child, and to communicate with the Child, in particular post separation.  The Mother has made decisions as to the Child’s schooling, it would appear, without reference to the Father, however, there is a significant suggestion that the Mother in doing so was acting protectively towards the Child.

24. As to parental responsibility, there would appear to be no major looming major decision to be made for the Child. The Court is not persuaded that it will be in the best interests of the Child to make an express order for parental responsibility at this interim stage. 

25. An equal time arrangement, as proposed by the Father, would not be in the best interests of the Child. The Court refers to its discussions above in relation to the Court’s significant concern that if it was to make discreet Orders for the Child to spend time with the Father that the prospects of the Child’s former relationship with the Father being restored and enhanced in a timely fashion would be detrimentally affected. Further, on the material before the Court, there is a significant risk that an equal time arrangement would lead to conflict between the parties, with the real prospect of the Mother experiencing stress which would in turn potentially affect her parenting capacity, and thereby potentially lead to emotional harm to the Child.  The parties’ ability to communicate in relation to co-parenting the Child is unsatisfactory, and the Mother alleges that she is fearful of the Father, inter alia, by reason of the Father’s alleged previous verbal abuse of her. Similarly, an Order for substantial and significant time, in relation to the Child spending time with the Father, would not be in the best interests of the Child, and the Court repeats its comments above in relation to equal time. Orders for equal time and/or substantial and significant time would probably be reasonably practicable.

26. The Court is not persuaded that the Mother’s proposed Order 4 relating to the Father undertaking an anger management course and a teenager parenting course that assists perpetrators of domestic violence would be in the best interests of the Child; there is a significant suggestion on the material before the Court that the Father lacks insight into his alleged behaviour towards the Mother and Child, previously discussed.

27. In relation to the Father’s proposed Order 7, the Court refers to its discussions above in relation to the Father’s allegations that the Child is involved with excessive video gaming activity at home, including its discussions in relation to the Microsoft family program; the Court has a significant concern that to make such an order may well lead to the parties experiencing significant conflict with indirect negative consequences upon the Child. The Father’s proposed Orders 6 and 8 are, in the circumstances of the parties’ present negative relationship, too general to be of any significant assistance in this case at this interim stage.

28. Evaluating the above discussed relevant considerations under section 60CC of the Act, it will be in the best interests of the Child to make the following interim parenting Orders:

29. That the Child X (herein referred to as X), born 2006, shall live with the Mother.

30. That X shall spend time with his Father in accordance with the views as expressed by X, with both parents to do all reasonable things to facilitate such time.

31. That pursuant to s 68B(a) and s 68B(b)(i) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Court grants an injunction for the personal protection of X and the mother, hereby restraining the Father from:

    (a)Approaching, contacting or attempting to contact the Mother and/or the Child except as otherwise provided in the Orders or otherwise agreed to in writing between the parties.

    (b)Entering or attempting to enter any place where X attends school, after school care or vacation care, including travel to and from school.

    (c)Entering or attempting to enter, or attending at any extracurricular activity attended by X.

    (d)Assaulting, molesting, harassing, threatening or stalking X.

32. Pursuant to section 62G(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 the parties and the Children of the relationship shall attend upon a Family Consultant nominated by the Dispute Resolution Coordinator of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on a date and at time/s to be advised for the purposes of the preparation of a Family Report.

33. That the Family Report shall deal with the following matters:

    (a)Any views expressed by the Child and any factors relevant to the weight to be attached to those views, provided that the Child shall not be required to express a view in relation to any matter;

    (b)The nature of the Child’s relationships with each of the Child’s parents and other persons;

    (c)The likely effect of any changes in the Child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the Child of any separation from either of the parents;

    (d)The capacity of each parent to provide for the child’s needs, including emotional and intellectual needs;

    (e)The attitude to the Child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the Child’s parents.

34. The parties shall attend all appointments with the Family Consultant and shall ensure the subject Child attend all appointments with the Family Consultant, as requested by the Family Consultant.

35. The Family Consultant may inspect the Court file, and any documents produced on subpoena access to which has been granted to a party or the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

36. The proceedings are adjourned for mention following release of the family report to 8 October 2021 at 9.30am.

I certify that the preceding seventy three (73) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Newbrun

Associate: 

Date: 25 November 2020