James and Nolan

[2010] FamCA 125

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JAMES & NOLAN [2010] FamCA 125

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Best interests

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr James

RESPONDENT: Ms Nolan

FILE NUMBER: WOC 201 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 25 February 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Watts J

HEARING DATE: 2 September 2009

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Litigant in person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Verekers Lawyers

Orders

1. The amended application for final orders filed by the father on 21 March 2007 be dismissed. 

2. The mother have sole parental responsibility for making decisions of a long term nature for … born … July 2005 (“the child”). 

3. The child live with the mother at all times.

4. The child not spend any time with the father.

5. The father is restrained from approaching the mother or the child at any time.

6. The mother send to the father photographs of the child on each of the child’s birthdays and at Christmas time each year.

7. The mother receive from the father any cards, letters and other written material addressed to the child, and the mother, if she believes the material is appropriate, give the child the material.  This material will be forwarded to the mother by the father, care of her solicitors’ office or such other address as the mother may advise the father in writing from time to time and the mother will use her best endeavours to keep the father informed of her mailing address at all times.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: WOC 201 of 2007

MR JAMES

Applicant

And

MS NOLAN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. These proceedings are about parenting arrangements for a child born in July 2005 (currently 4 years old). The applicant father is seeking orders that he be allowed to communicate with the child once a week by telephone. The respondent mother opposes this.

2. The remaining orders sought by the mother are not opposed by the father.

3. The father is currently incarcerated in a correctional facility and appeared by electronic means (telephone). The father is due to be released from incarceration in March 2011.

APPLICATIONS

Father

1. The father sought orders that he have weekly telephone contact with the child.

2. The father did not seek any orders for face to face time with the child at this time.

3. The father had been given an opportunity to prepare written material for hearing but was not able to do so. The father stated that this was due to lack of resources within the correctional facility and his inability to organise Legal Aid during the time that he had available. 

Mother

1. The orders sought by the mother are set out in her amended response to an application for final orders filed 15 January 2009. The orders which the mother sought were as follows:

   1.That the amended application for final orders filed by the applicant father in [sic] the 21 March 2007 be dismissed.

   2.That the mother have sole parental responsibility for the child of the relationship, namely […] born […] July 2005 in relation to the care, welfare and development of the [sic] long term nature involving the child.

   3.That the mother shall have sole responsibility for making decisions about the child’s day to day care welfare and development during times the child lives with or spends time with the mother.

   4.That the child shall live with the mother at all times.

   5.That there is no order that the child spend any time with the father. 

   6.(deleted)

   7.That the father is restrained from approaching the mother or the child at any time.

2. The mother in her affidavit sworn 7 August 2009 stated that she would agree to send photos of the child to the father on each of the child’s birthdays and at Christmas time each year (paragraph 3). The mother also agreed to allow the father to forward cards, letters and other written material to the child (paragraph 4).  Further, she proposed that if the father wishes to forward letters and cards to his daughter, then they may be forwarded to the mother’s solicitor’s office or such other address as advised in the future (paragraph 35). 

3. Lawyer for the mother indicated that the mother had considered making an application under section 118 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to prevent the father from instituting future proceedings of this nature without leave of the Court. That application however was not pursued.

SHORT HISTORY

1. The father was born in 1969 and is currently 41 years old. The mother was born in 1969 and is currently 40 years old. The father’s son of previous relationship, J, was born in 1988 and is currently 21 years old. The mother was previously married and the child of the marriage, S, was born in 1996 and is currently 14 years old.

2. The parties entered into a relationship in 2002 and separated, on a final basis, at the end of 2006. The parties did not cohabitate. The child of the relationship, the subject child, was born in July 2005 and is currently 4 years of age. 

CREDIT

1. The father on many occasions denied guilt in relation to the crimes for which he had previously been convicted. When confronted with his history of aggression and violence, the father was reluctant to take responsibility for his actions and sought to minimise the apparent gravity of these incidents. I found a number of things that he relayed during hearing to be inconsistent and at times inherently unlikely. I am unable to accept his credibility. 

2. The mother gave evidence in a straightforward manner. There is nothing to cast doubt upon the mother’s evidence and no issue arises in respect of the credit of the mother.

3. Where there is a conflict between the evidence of the father on the one hand and the mother on the other, I prefer the evidence of the mother.  

SECTION 60CC FAMILY LAW ACT

Primary considerations

The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents

1. The child has a meaningful relationship with the mother.  The child has not to date developed a meaningful relationship with the father. The mother’s position is that there is no benefit to the child at all in having a relationship with the father.

2. In her report, the family consultant is of the view that for the child to develop a meaningful relationship with the father, the father and child would need to spend more time together.  The family consultant asserted that the father’s diagnosis of a personality disorder was referred to in a psychiatric assessment contained in the subpoena material. However, I was not referred to such information in the subpoena material nor was the family consultant tested about this statement. When raised during cross examination by lawyer for the mother, the father stated that he had no recollection of a personality disorder diagnosis.  The family consultant advised that the potential positive effect for the child of a meaningful relationship must be weighed against what the family consultant asserted was the father’s diagnosis of a personality disorder and his criminal record, which in combination suggest that he would struggle to form a positive relationship with his daughter.

3. That opinion, strongly expressed, has some force when the father’s criminal record is considered, but has to be considered in light of the fact that the assertion about the father’s mental status is not confirmed. 

4. The family consultant stated that the father is likely to continue to have difficulties with many aspects of his life and that ‘these difficulties are likely to impact on his ability to form a positive relationship with his daughter’.

5. That opinion can be supported if one considers the father’s criminal record, history of incarceration and instability.  

The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence

1. The mother’s case is that the father is a danger to both herself and her children. In particular, the mother has concerns for their physical safety as a result of threats made by the father and members of his extended family. The mother additionally is concerned about the child’s psychological wellbeing if the child were to have telephone contact with the father.

2. The Family consultant opined that:

   ‘[the father] has a history of violent and threatening behaviour which, if it were to continue and [the child] was exposed to it, would be likely to have a negative effect upon her emotional well being and development. It is also possible that such behaviour could present a physical danger to her’.

3. Support for a similar conclusion as to the risk of harm to the child is found in a letter from the Department of Community Services dated 6 November 2008 annexed to the mother’s affidavit sworn 8 January 2009, where the Department of Community Services stated:

   “It has been well documented over 20 reports to the Department of Community Services that the mother and the children have been victims of repeated domestic violence and where [the father] has breached AVOs on nine occasions.”

4. In cross examination by lawyer for the mother, the father stated that he had only been convicted of breaching an Apprehended Violence Order on one occasion and this related to the incident at G Car Park in April 2006.

5. The mother, in paragraph 8 of her affidavit sworn 7 August 2009, states that before moving to their current premises she and her children have had to move to three safe houses as arranged by the Department of Community Services as a direct result of actions of the father.

Incidents directly involving the mother

Incident involving the fire

1. On 28 November 2006 the father visited the mother’s premises. According to NSW Police subpoenaed records tendered by the mother, the mother alleges that she and father had an argument about their relationship which the mother was attempting to end. The mother asked the father to leave and the father refused. At 7:30am on 29 November 2009 the father asked the mother to drive him somewhere. When the mother refused, the father became angry and tried to punch her. The mother then alleges that she backed into the corner of her bedroom to avoid being assaulted and that the father then pulled the sheets from the bed and attempted to set fire to the mattress protector. The mother then put the small fire out, left the premises and notified the police. The father was convicted of maliciously destroying or damaging property, contravention of Apprehended Domestic Violence Order and common assault. At the present hearing the father asserted that it was in fact the mother who had started the fire. In cross examination by the father, the mother denied that this was the case. I find that the father did what the mother alleged. 

Incident involving the baby capsule

1. According to subpoenaed New South Wales Police event reports tendered by the mother, on 25 October 2005 the mother asserted that she contacted the father and arranged for him to meet the mother at the mother’s residence so that the father could collect his belongings. Soon after the father arrived the mother and father began to argue and the mother stated that she became fearful and told the father that she and the children were leaving the premises. The father became angry and took the baby capsule that is used to secure the child in the car and began to cut the straps of the capsule with a scissors. Despite protest from the mother, the father continued to cut the straps rendering the capsule useless. The father then left the premises. When raised in cross examination by lawyer for the mother, the father stated that he had also slashed the tyres of the mother’s car and that he had done these things so that the mother would not drive her car as the mother had threatened to kill herself. This assertion was not put to the mother during cross examination.  I do not accept the father’s explanation for the behaviour which he admits.  This incident is an example of controlling and damaging behaviour by the father against the mother. 

Incident involving breach of Apprehended Violence Order in December 2005

1. According to subpoenaed New South Wales Police event reports tendered by the mother, on 11 December 2005, approximately 8 weeks after separation, the mother refused to allow the father to enter the mother’s residence to collect his tools as she stated that this would be in breach of the Apprehended Violence Order which prevented the father from approaching within 50 metres of the mother’s premises. Later that day when the mother was outside her home, the father entered the mother’s premises. The mother stated that she was too fearful to enter the house and that when she went to the front yard, she heard a bang and the father pointed his finger at the mother like a gun and said he would put a bullet in her head. When the mother returned to the premises she noted that the door frame had been split, the deadlock removed and the wall damaged. The mother further observed that a television, $30.00 cash, a Playstation and the father’s tools were missing. In cross examination by lawyer for the mother, the father denied that this occurred. The mother was not questioned about this incident.  I find that the father did what the mother has alleged. 

Incident at G Car Park

1. According to subpoenaed New South Wales Police event reports tendered by the mother, on 4 April 2006 the mother attended G Local Court to have the Apprehended Violence Order against the father reinstated. According to the mother, the father sat behind the mother in the court room and repeated sentences such as “It’s all over for you, I’ve got all the proof”. The father became angry and yelled at the Magistrate “Bad karma is coming mate, no one gives a damn”.  The father was then removed from the Court by security. The mother then left G Local Court and was walking to her car at G Car Park when the father walked towards her and yelled “You fucking lying bitch”. The father then ran towards the mother and attempted to cut her off as she tried to run away. The mother ran to G Police Station. The father was arrested shortly after and escorted to the dock area where he began kicking the doors and yelling “Once I am out of here I am going to burn the fucking station”.

2. This incident was put to the father for comment during cross examination by lawyer for the mother, and the father maintained there were no other seats in the court room and that he did not swear at the mother. When asked if he had threatened to burn down the police station, the father said “No, I did not get charged for it. All I got was a 12 month suspended sentence”. The father then stated that the judge had taken into consideration that neither the mother nor the father were aware at the time of the incident that they had parked in the same car park.  Again, I find the father did what the mother has alleged. 

Incident where the father took the child from the mother

1. According to subpoenaed New South Wales Police event reports referred to by the mother, on 24 January 2007 the mother was leaving Court and returning to her car when she realised that the father was following her. The mother maintained that the father took the child from her pram and ran across the road. The mother ran after the father and tried to flag down cars to get help. A police officer then intervened and the father voluntarily gave the child back to the mother. The father was charged with contravention of an Apprehended Violence Order, breach of bail and stalking or intimidation with intend to cause fear of physical/mental harm.

2. In cross examination by lawyer for the mother, the father stated that he was concerned for his daughter because the mother said that she was going to commit suicide.  The family consultant recorded generally that the mother denied ever threatening to commit suicide.

3. I find the mother had not threatened to commit suicide and that this incident as the mother left the court, apart from being a criminal act by the father, was another example of unstable and unpredictable behaviour by the father which would have had the effect of terrorising the mother and alarming the child.

Incident at Relationships Australia involving threat to kill the mother

1. According to a Relationships Australia file note tendered by the mother, on 29 October 2008 the father attended Relationships Australia offices after a contact session with the child at Centrecare had been cancelled. During the session at Relationships Australia, the father telephoned Centrecare to arrange future contact and declined both options for contact put forward by Centrecare. An argument ensued and the father became infuriated and stormed out of the Relationships Australia session stating, with reference to the mother, “I will go home and fucking kill her”. Following this threat, the mother was notified and arrangements were made to relocate both her and the child. 

Other incidents

1. There is a body of evidence about the father’s inability to control his anger and his propensity to act in a threatening manner.

Father’s history of incarceration

1. As an adult, the father has been imprisoned on three occasions. The first transgression relates to theft of a car in 1990, whereby the father was sentence to 6 months imprisonment. The second incident involved assault of a doctor in 2003, whereby the father was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment. The most recent incarceration occurred in December 2008 following conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs and damage to property by fire in excess of $15,000. The father was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment commencing September 2009. During the present hearing the father stated that he was not drunk and that he wanted to appeal this conviction as he was not breath tested on the night.

Incident at L Community Centre

1. On 22 March 2006 the father attended L Community Service Centre where, according to subpoenaed New South Wales Police event reports tendered by the mother, he argued with staff in an aggressive manner and then punched the glass petition in the reception area causing it to shatter. In cross examination by lawyer for the mother, the father asserted that he was upset at the time because when he had said to the supervisor ‘Mate, you don’t help children. All you are after is your paid thing’, the supervisor had responded ‘You have never been raped’. The father stated that he had been raped a number of years ago. The father said that he pointed his finger at the supervisor and his finger touched the glass and it shattered.  The father’s explanation about what angered him seems improbable and his evidence about the force with which he “touched the glass” is inherently unlikely. 

Incident involving threat to blow up G Community Service Centre

1. On 31 October 2008, as detailed in DoCS subpoena material tendered by the mother, the father telephoned the DoCS Helpline expressing concern that the child was being assaulted. The father became aggressive, yelling and screaming and then made threats to “blow up your fucking joint” (referring to the G Community Service Centre) and “go there and do your fucking jobs in for you”. On 1 November 2008 the father was convicted of using a carriage service to make a hoax threat and fined $1000.

Father’s aggressive behaviour during the interview for the family report

1. The father was interviewed by the family consultant on 11 October 2007 and as outlined in the Family Report dated 20 November 2009, the family consultant observed a number of aggressive behaviours on the part of the father.

2. The family consultant stated that the father appeared very angry with the Court process as well as with the mother and both of her children.

3. At the time of interview the children were situated in a separate waiting room from the father.  The family consultant reported that on one occasion, the father had walked past the door of the separate waiting room and motioned to the door with his right arm in an aggressive and threatening manner. 

1. The family consultant stated that at the conclusion of the interview when it was explained to the father that despite his expectation that the interviews would result in him spending unsupervised time with the child on the coming weekend, this would not be the case, the father became extremely irritated and angry.  The family consultant noted that the father spoke extremely loudly about how unhappy and angry he was and that the father said that when his brothers found out they would be upset.  The family consultant formed the view that the father was hinting that the brothers may take some aggressive action but that it was unclear who this action may be directed toward. When this proposition was put to the father during cross examination by lawyer for the mother, he denied making a threat of aggressive action.

2. The family consultant recommended that the father undertake an anger management course.

3. The father accepted during the hearing that he has a problem with anger management and conceded that one of the conditions of his release from an earlier period of incarceration was that he undertake an anger management course. The father asserted, and this was confirmed by the welfare officer present, that no anger management courses were presently being offered by the gaol. 

Conclusion about risk

1. I find that the child has been repeatedly exposed to both physical and psychological abuse perpetrated by the father against the mother.

2. Obviously there is no immediate risk to the mother of physical abuse whilst the father is incarcerated.  However, I have no evidence to indicate that the likelihood of psychological abuse has diminished.  In fact, the father’s denials of past contact would indicate that likelihood persists.  Weekly telephone between the child and the father would create an opportunity for that abuse to continue. 

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child’s maturity or level of understanding) the Court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views

1. The mother, in paragraph 31 of her affidavit sworn 7 August 2009, states that on the child’s birthday she gave her a painting from the father and that the child spontaneously said “It smells smokey. Daddy had smiles for me. I don’t want to see him anymore he is bad to my sister, mummy and me”.  This evidence has no weight.  The child is not of an age to express views which the court could take into account.

The nature of the relationship with each of the child’s parents and other persons

Mother

1. The child’s primary attachment is to the mother. The family consultant reports that at interview the mother and the child interacted in a warm and relaxed manner throughout the interview.

2. I am comfortably satisfied that the mother and child enjoy a secure relationship which is beneficial for the child.

Father

1. The family consultant saw the child and her father together on 11 October 2007.  The family consultant stated that the father and the child played happily together and interacted in a relaxed and age appropriate manner. I conclude that the father has a genuine affinity for his daughter and that despite the obvious limitations stemming from the timing of the 2007 Family Report she was at that time comfortable in his presence. 

The willingness and ability of each of the child’s parents to facilitate, and encourage, a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent

Mother

1. The mother, in paragraph 31 of her affidavit sworn 7 August 2009, states that she has done what she can to accommodate the father’s wishes to see or speak with the child. The mother further asserts that she would be prepared to send photos of the child to the father on each of the child’s birthdays and at Christmas.

2. During cross examination by the father, the mother was asked about her completion of parenting courses at Relationships Australia. The mother responded ‘I have done about five courses with Relationships Australia and watched several videos and I feel I have done everything possible to help you have a relationship with your daughter with their help’.

3. In cross examination by the father, the mother was asked whether or not the father had seen the child in the clothes that the father had previously bought for the child. The mother said ‘I gave you last year almost a whole album full of photos that you have probably had over the time that we have separated of [the child] and also Father’s Day coming up - and because it has been her birthday, I was going to get some photographs for you of [the child].  I have never been asked to do those things but I do those things for you from [the child]’.

4. The mother’s willingness to send photos and letters suggests that whilst she would not readily foster a close relationship between the father and child, I am satisfied that she will ensure that a connection is maintained.

Father

1. During his interview with the family consultant, the father stated that the mother was a ‘bad mother’ for not letting him see his child.

2. During cross examination by lawyer for the mother, the father stated that he would like his child to have both a mother and a father and that even though they are not together anymore he would like to show his daughter that he and the mother can get along.  Although the father expresses this wish, the facts and events which I have described means it is a wish which is not based upon any realistic foundation.  I am of the view that the father’s present unpredictability and reduced capacity for emotional control as detailed throughout the evidence suggests that there is an unacceptable risk that he would not behave in the way he describes. 

The likely effect of any change in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from either of their parents or their grandparents

1. The issue for consideration in this matter, being a request by the father for telephone contact with the child, would not alter the present circumstances of the child, as no such communication is currently taking place and has not for a considerable period. 

The practical difficulty and expense of the child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain personal relationships and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis

1. I have no evidence about the logistical difficulties of the father arranging a weekly telephone call from prison, but I infer the granting of an order for telephone contact with the child would not present an insurmountable practical or financial burden.

The capacity of either of the child’s parents to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs

Father

1. The father has had little involvement in the child’s life to date and has no experience in caring for her on a day to day basis.

2. The family consultant asserted that the father has difficulties with abusive and threatening behaviour and that he lacks insight into the impact of his behaviour on the mother and on other people in his life. Furthermore, she formed the view that although the father can interact with the child in a positive way when playing with her in a structured setting, ‘his apparent inability to cope with the frustrations and the obstacles that life has presented him with, raises major concerns about how he would cope with the difficulties and frustrations involved in caring for a young child, even for short periods of time’.

3. According to the family consultant, the father views the mother as having three different personalities of which he dislikes some and likes one.  The family consultant concludes that if the father were to view the child in a similar way, this would have an extremely negative and detrimental effect on the child’s development.

4. The family consultant noted that in spite of his inadequacies, the father clearly loves his daughter and is committed to being involved in her life.

5. I find that despite the father’s apparent dedication to pursuing a relationship with his daughter, the father currently lacks the skills to provide adequately for her needs.

Mother

1. It is the mother’s case that she has provided for the child without the father’s assistance since the birth of the child. This is not disputed by the father.

2. In the Family Report, the family consultant recorded the father’s view that the mother “goes off her head” and that both her children should be “taken off her”. The father then stated that the mother had been hospitalised for mental illness and was on medication. The mother denied that she suffered from a mental illness but stated that she had sought assistance for depression after the birth of the child and had been prescribed anti depressants for a short period.  I accept her evidence about that. 

3. The family consultant contended that although the mother has overcome most of her problems, she would benefit from ongoing counselling to assist with her emotional difficulties.  Nonetheless, nothing is raised by the father and I find no evidence before me to suggest that the mother’s ability to care for her child is impaired.

4. I conclude that the mother has and will continue to provide adequately for the child’s needs.

The attitude to the child and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents

Father

1. During his interview with the family consultant, the father stated that he would never do anything to harm the child and that he wanted to be able to do everything for the child, including taking her to school, the movie and to the circus. The father stated that the child is always very happy to see him but that he was upset and annoyed that he had so little time with her.

Mother

1. The mother has undertaken all responsibilities for parenting of the child since birth and intends to continue to do so.

Any family violence involving the child or any members of the child’s family

1. I have already discussed at length when considering the second primary consideration, matters going to the father’s anger and aggression. 

2. In cross examination by the father, the mother was asked whether the father had ever been violent with either of the mother’s children. The mother replied that the father had not been physically violent and I was not directed to any evidence to suggest otherwise.

3. The family consultant recorded that at interview the mother maintained that after she became pregnant, the father became emotionally and mentally abusive towards her.

4. The family consultant reports that at interview the father stated that he had not ‘hit’ the mother but that the father had then stated that he had ‘slapped’ her. During cross examination by lawyer for the mother, the father denied that he had hit or slapped the mother and when asked why the family consultant may have recorded this information if it was not true, the father responded ‘maybe she does not like me’. I find that the father has been physically violent towards the mother. 

5. During the hearing the father asserted that the mother had hit herself in the breasts and stomach and caused bruising to herself. The mother denied that this was the case and contended that it was the father who had punched the mother. The mother stated that in early 2005 when she was eight months pregnant she had driven with her eldest daughter to the house of a friend of the father to pick up the father. The mother relayed that the father was intoxicated and did not want to go with the mother and that the father then punched the mother and knocked her out.  I accept the mother’s evidence about this incident. 

6. The father also stated during his interview with the family consultant that the mother had been abused by her former husband and that this was why the mother was falsely accusing him of physical violence.  That explanation is inherently unlikely. 

7. I am satisfied that notwithstanding the father’s denials, there have been incidents of physical violence by the father against the mother during the time that they were together.

Any family violence order

1. A Final Apprehended Violence Order dated 11 December 2008 exists against the father to protect the mother and her children. The Final Apprehended Violence Order remains in force until varied or revoked. As well as the mandatory orders restricting assault, harassment, intimidation and stalking, additional orders include that the father must not go within 100 metres of work, school, child care or residential premises at which the mother or children may be, and that the father must not approach or contact the mother and her children.

2. Any order for telephone contact with the mother would have to be made within the provisions of Division 11 Part VII Family Law Act in mind. 

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

1. At the commencement of the hearing, lawyer for the mother indicated that an application might be made under Section 118 of the Family Law Act seeking an order that the father, due to the vexatious nature of the proceedings, be prevented from instituting future proceedings without leave of the court. This application was not pursued by lawyer for the mother.

CONCLUSION

1. I find that it is not in the child’s best interests for her to have telephone time with her father whilst he is incarcerated.  I understand that in making these final orders not only will there be no face to face time between the child and the father, a matter agreed to by the father at least until his release from goal, but in addition the child will not have any direct communication with the father at all. This finding is based on the conclusion that I have reached that at the present time it is not in the child’s best interests at this time to have contact with her father. 

2. The overwhelming matter guiding my decision in this respect is the father’s history of family violence and his inability to control his anger.  That inability is substantiated by a significant history of aggressive outbursts, and in the mother’s case, actual physical violence.  The father’s lack of insight into the impact of his behaviour on others exacerbates his already reduced capacity for healthy interaction.

3. Despite at least two recommendations, the father told me that he is yet to undertake an anger management course in an attempt to alter his behaviour. Whether or not the father gains any measurable benefit from such a course, if he should undertake it, is of course a matter for future conjecture.  Should the father make an application after his release from incarceration, he would, at the very least, need to demonstrate a significant change in behaviour.  It might be that an underlying personality disorder, of which I have no direct evidence, but which is referred to in the family report, will stand in the way of the father changing his behaviour in the future. 

I certify that the preceding eighty-one (81) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Watts.

Associate: 

Date:  25 February 2010