Jurak & Jurak - [2023] FedCFamC2F 341

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Jurak & Jurak [2023] FedCFamC2F 341

File number(s): NCC 1609 of 2021

Judgment of: JUDGE BETTS

Date of judgment: 27 March 2023

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – one child, aged two – where the child has lived with the mother and spent very limited time with the father since separation – where the father has a history of family violence stemming from his volatile, aggressive and dysregulated behaviour – where the father has a long history of mental health issues – where the father chose to cease his supervised visits with the child in January 2022 – where the mother and ICL seek a “no time and no communication” order – where the father seeks that the child live with him and spend regular time with the mother – where the father would rather spend no time with the child than accept any order for supervision – where the Court must determine whether or not the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm for the child – best interests.

FAMILY LAW – Property – where the parties agree that the combined net assets come in at under $1M – where the Court must consider the contributions and the allowance (if any) for future needs – where the wife seeks an 80% - 20% division – where the husband seeks an approximately equal division – just and equitable.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), Pt VII and Pt VIII

NSW Mental Health Act

Cases cited:
Hickey & Hickey and Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia (Intervener) (2003) FLC 93-143

M & M (1988) FLC 91-979

MRR & GR (2010) FLC 93-424

Stanford & Stanford (2012) FLC 93-518

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 306

Date of last submission/s: 1 February 2023

Date of hearing: 30, 31 January and 1 February 2023

Place: City AJ

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Willoughby

Solicitors for the Applicant: AH Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Flanigan

Solicitors for the Respondent: AP Lawyers

Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Legal Aid NSW City AJ Family Law

ORDERS

NCC 1609 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS JURAK

Applicant

AND:
MR JURAK

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE BETTS

DATE OF ORDER:

27 MARCH 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
PARENTING
1.The Applicant Mother is to have sole parental responsibility for the child X born in 2020 (“the child”).
2.The child shall live with the Applicant Mother.
3.The Father spend no time and have no communication with the child.
4.The Father is hereby restrained and an injunction shall issue pursuant to section 68B of the Family Law Act1975 restraining the Father from:
(a)approaching within two hundred (200) metres of any place where Ms Jurak or X may live or work including B Street, Suburb C, NSW;
(b)entering any school or daycare attended by X or removing X from same;
(c)approaching or contacting Ms Jurak or X.

5.Pursuant to section 11(1)(b) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth), the Mother may apply for a passport for the child X born in 2020 notwithstanding that the consent of the Father Mr Jurak has not been obtained.
6.Pursuant to section 65Y(2) of the Family Law Act1975, the Mother is permitted to travel internationally with the child notwithstanding that the prior consent of the Father has not been obtained.
7.The Mother is restrained and an injunction shall issue pursuant to section 68B of the Family Law Act1975 from moving the permanent residence of the child overseas.

PROPERTY
8.That within seven (7) days, the parties do all acts and things to cause the $127,208 presently held in trust by AW Lawyers to be distributed to the Wife’s solicitor.
9.That by no later than 26 May 2023 (“the settlement date”), the Husband is to pay the Wife the sum of $204,080 (“the settlement sum”).
10.Pending payment of the settlement sum, and unless done expressly for the purpose of paying the settlement sum to the Wife, the Husband is restrained from:
(a)encumbering or further encumbering the property known as D Street, Town E NSW (being the land in Certificate of Title Folio Identifier No. …);
(b)transferring or otherwise dealing with his interest in D Street, Town E;
(c)withdrawing, disposing of or in any way dealing with the money in any financial institution accounts pertaining to the mortgage or any mortgage offset account;

11.Except as otherwise provided for in these orders:
(a)each party is declared to have no interest in the items of property in the possession or name of the other party; and
(b)each party indemnifies the other party in relation to any and all liabilities attaching to any item of property in their possession or otherwise being retained by that party pursuant to these Orders or otherwise.

12.In default of the Husband complying with Order 9, the following Orders shall apply.
13.By no later than 30 June 2023, the parties must do all acts and execute all documents necessary to sell by public auction the property known as D Street, Town E NSW, being the land in Certificate of Title Folio Identifier No. ….
14.The reserve price is as determined by the agent having conduct of the sale.
15.Each party has the right to bid at the auction.
16.The agent for the sale is to be Ms F of Real Estate G of H Street, Town E, and the conveyancer for the parties on the sale is to be J Conveyancing of K Street, Town E.
17.Pending settlement of sale of D Street, Town E, the Husband must keep the property tidy, clean and in good repair and must permit inspection by agents and prospective purchasers at all reasonable times.
18.The parties must do all acts and execute all documents to cause the proceeds of sale of the property to be paid in the following order of priority:
(a)Reasonable expenses of the sale including agent’s commission and legal costs and disbursements;
(b)Discharge of any mortgage associated with the property;
(c)Such of the balance to be paid to the Applicant so as to effect an overall property division of eighty percent (80%) of the net non-superannuation property to the Wife and twenty percent (20%) to the Husband in accordance with these Reasons for judgment;
(d)Any outstanding statutory debts, rates, liabilities of whatsoever nature and kind are to be paid for by the Respondent from his share of the proceeds.

19.In the event that either party refuses or neglects to execute any Deed or instrument necessary to give effect to all or any of the Orders made herein, a Judicial Registrar of the Court be appointed pursuant to Section 106A to execute such Deed or instrument in the name of said party and to do all acts and things necessary to give validity to the operation to the said Deed or instrument. The Judicial Registrar’s jurisdiction will be enlivened upon being satisfied by Affidavit that neglect or default, as the case may be, has occurred.

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 Jurak & Jurak has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE BETTS
INTRODUCTION:

Following the breakdown of their marriage, Ms Jurak (“the Wife”) and Mr Jurak (“the Husband”) have been unable to reach agreement either as to their parenting dispute or their property settlement dispute. This Court must therefore decide both.
The parties’ relationship was short. They commenced cohabitation in 2017 when the Wife moved from Sydney to live with the Husband at Town E, married in 2019 and finally separated on 21 November 2020. In May 2021, the Wife relocated back to Sydney where she lives with her parents. On 14 May 2021, she commenced these proceedings.
The parenting proceedings relate to their son X, who was born in 2020 and is presently two (2) years, eight (8) months old. Since separation, X has lived with the Wife and spent very limited time with the Husband – predominantly supervised.
The Husband chose to discontinue his supervised time with X in January 2022. The last time he saw X was at the Family Report interviews on 14 March 2022.
In the parenting proceedings, the Wife is seeking an order that the Husband have “no time and no communication” with X, bolstered by various protective injunctions. Her case is that the Husband poses an unacceptable risk of harm to X on account of: his long history of volatile, aggressive and dysregulated behaviour; his perpetration of family violence including seemingly genuine threats to kill the Wife which required both mental health and Police intervention; his contemptuous attitude towards the Wife and towards her solicitor (whom the Husband has also threatened); the Husband’s limited insight into his own behaviours and lack of empathy for those who have been impacted by them.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) shares the Wife’s concerns. He strongly advocates for a “no time and no communication” order.
The Husband contends that X should live with him and spend regular time with the Wife. He vehemently denies that he poses any risk to X. His case is that the Wife is a “narcissist”, no more than a “compulsive / pathological liar” whose complaints about him are confected. He scoffs at the suggestion that the Wife is afraid of him, or that she has any reason to be. He accuses her of parental alienation and otherwise suggests that she has sinister and serious personality defects and flaws, which pose insidious psychological risks to X.
The Family Report writer’s unchallenged evidence is that:
·the Husband does not yet have an attachment relationship with X;
·changing X’s primary care arrangements could have profoundly negative long-term impacts on his development; and
·given the serious risks posed by the Husband in this matter, his time with X required supervision (at least as a starting point).
The Husband refuses to accept any order for supervised time; he will instead “walk away”.
Each parent also seeks an order for sole parental responsibility.
As for the property settlement proceedings, the parties agree that the combined net assets come in at under $1M. The main issues are the contributions assessment and the allowance (if any) for future needs. Ultimately the Wife seeks an 80% - 20% division of property in her favour; the Husband seeks an approximately equal division.
For the Reasons which follow, I propose broadly to make the orders sought by the Wife.
THE HEARING / MATERIAL RELIED UPON:
The final hearing ran from 30 January – 1 February 2023 (3 days in total). On the Wife’s application, citing safety concerns both for herself and her solicitor, the hearing was conducted by videolink.
The Wife was represented by Mr Willoughby of counsel and the Husband by Mr Flanigan of counsel. Mr Squires as ICL conducted the hearing himself.
The Wife relied upon the following documents:
(a)Case Outline Document filed 27/01/23;
(b)Amended Initiating Application filed 06/01/23;
(c)Affidavit of the Wife filed 06/01/23;
(d)Financial Statement filed 06/01/23;
(e)Affidavit of the maternal grandfather, Mr L, filed 13/01/23;
(f)Affidavit of the maternal grandmother, Ms M, filed 13/01/23;
(g)Affidavit of the Wife’s ex-partner, Mr N, filed 13/01/23.
The Husband relied upon the following documents:
(a)Case Outline Document filed 29/01/23, annexure “A” being his proposed Minute of Order.
(b)Affidavit of the Husband filed 09/01/23;
(c)Financial Statement filed 18/02/23;
(d)Affidavit of the paternal grandmother, Ms O, filed 10/12/22;
(e)Affidavit of the Husband’s new partner, Ms P, filed 08/12/22;
(f)Affidavit of the Husband’s friend and former employee, Ms Q, filed 29/12/22.
The ICL relied upon the following documents:
(a)Case Outline Document filed 27/01/23;
(b)Family Report of Mr AL, Child & Family Consultant & Accredited Mental Health Social Worker dated 18/04/22 (which became exhibit 1 in the proceedings).
The parties additionally tendered numerous documentary exhibits in the course of the hearing. These will be referred to as relevant.
Although the Husband had the benefit of legal aid representation pursuant to the s 102NA scheme, his Affidavit and Financial Statement had been drawn by him personally. It showed; his Affidavit in particular was full of gratuitous insults and criticisms of the Wife that no sensible solicitor would have included. His support witnesses also expressed some rather scathing comments about the Mother, including for instance Ms P who – despite not having met her – nonetheless deposed in her Affidavit that:
4.I would like to confirm that I have read all the affidavits from [Mr Jurak] and [Ms Jurak]. I can safely say that after reading [Ms Jurak]’s affidavits I have major concerns on how true the events stated are. Without being biased, this is an obvious tactic to create confusion for the courts.
In the witness box, the Husband colourfully summarised Ms P’s attitude – “that the Wife is full of shit.” Though the Husband denied drafting her Affidavit, or any of the other support witness’ Affidavits, I am satisfied that he had a hand in their drafting at the very least.
Sensibly however, most of the support witnesses for each party were not required for cross-examination. Ultimately, their evidence was of little value.
PART I – THE PARENTING PROCEEDINGS
RELEVANT FINDINGS OF FACT:
The parties
The Wife was born in 1985 and is presently aged 38. She works as an educator in Sydney. The Husband was born in 1988 and is presently aged 34. He works as an allied health worker in Town R where he owns a business.
Pre-relationship
Prior to their relationship, each of the parties had some mental health difficulties.
The Wife suffered from a generalised anxiety disorder and appears to have been somewhat vulnerable and lacking in self-confidence. The Husband, having been relentlessly bullied at high school, had developed into a rather intense person with anxiety and depressive symptoms. He could be quite volatile and reactive, at times acting impulsively and aggressively. In the witness box he accepted that he “possibly” suffered from an undiagnosed mood disorder.
When his first serious relationship broke down in 2011 - at a time when he was living and studying in Sydney - the Husband suffered a mental breakdown. Feeling depressed, he told his flatmates that he “wanted to die”. He became agitated, slapping or punching himself in the face multiple times, resulting in swelling and bruising to his face. When his flatmates tried to reason with him, the Husband punched a hole in his bedroom wall, as well as hitting his head into the walls. His flatmates called an Ambulance for him as well as Police. The Husband found out and left the home in his vehicle; his flatmates followed him in their vehicle and dialled 000. Police soon pulled the Husband over on a busy road, where they found him upset, crying and uncooperative. For his own safety the Police had to handcuff him. He asked them “Why don’t you just take your gun and shoot me?” Police were able to calm him down over time, telling him they were concerned for his safety. They suggested he take an Ambulance to hospital where he would be scheduled; he insisted instead on being taken there in the caged Police vehicle.The Husband was briefly admitted to the S Hospital, where he admitted suffering from depression and anger issues. He said that he had “snapped” that day after talking to his ex-girlfriend over the telephone. [1]
The Husband was discharged from hospital after two (2) nights, seemingly having been prescribed anti-depressants. While in hospital, he had said he felt like cutting his carotid artery and that he felt “very angry” at his ex-girlfriend. The Progress/Clinical Notes record that he “needs lot of training to control anger.” To gain better control of his emotions in future, it was suggested to him that he undertake cognitive behaviour therapy (“CBT”). The Husband did not follow this up, explaining in the witness box that he “did not need to”. [2]
Notably, in recounting this event to the Wife years later, the Husband blamed his breakdown on his ex-girlfriend, labelling her as “crazy”. As will be seen, the Husband’s deflection of his mental health issues onto others was to be a recurring theme.
In 2017, just prior to the parties commencing their relationship, the Husband saw his GP to obtain a Mental Health Plan to manage his ongoing anxiety and stress.
Early relationship
The parents met and formed a relationship in 2017. At that stage the Husband was living and working in Town E, the Wife was living and working in Sydney. They conducted a “long-distance” relationship over the ensuing five (5) months or so, before holidaying together in Country T for about a month in 2017. At the end of that holiday, the Wife resigned from her job and moved in with him in the home he had just purchased at Town E.
Cohabitation
The parties’ relationship seems to have started off well. By 2018 they were engaged to be married.
But cracks were emerging. By mid-2018 the Husband says that he had experienced the Wife’s “severe mood swings, anxiety and panic attacks”. [3] Though this is likely an exaggeration given his evident animosity towards her, I do nonetheless accept as a broad statement that the Wife was struggling with anxiety.
To be fair to her, the Husband’s own behaviour towards her did not help. Put shortly, he was highly critical and controlling of the Wife in general.
He criticised her for making foods that were too sugary, criticised her body shape (wanting her to do specific exercises to give herself a larger bottom), wanted to choose her clothing, wanted her to wear her hair back (even though she said wearing it in a ponytail gave her headaches) and he discouraged her from wearing lipstick.
He made it clear to her that he didn’t like her manner of driving – on one (1) occasion demanding that she pull over to the side of the highway so that he could take over. She quietly complied.
He criticised the Wife’s best friend from Sydney, Ms U, suggesting that they not be friends anymore. He criticised the Wife for “talking too much” at social gatherings.
But perhaps most destructively, the Husband regularly criticised the Wife’s intelligence, adversely comparing it to his own. Over time the Wife began to doubt herself, and I accept her evidence that she would start sentences with apologies such as: “I know I am not very smart, but can I ask a question…?”
To illustrate this last point, and the relationship dynamics generally, I offer up the following quotes from the Husband himself:
Whilst living with [Ms Jurak]I learnt that she was not sporty or academic. [Ms Jurak] struggled playing easy levels of [Game V] (an app on a smart phone). She took far longer than expected for an adult to unjumble words. I was shocked why she couldn’t see that enrolling for “[her occupation]” was a bad idea. [Ms Jurak] also played [sports] in our mixed social team through [the Husband’s then-employer]. [Ms Jurak] never developed [sports] skills…[4]
I consider myself the opposite to [Ms Jurak] both academically and with sports - I studied [subjects] at school before completing two degrees. [Ms Jurak] said to me on several occasions, “You’re one of the smartest people I know.” [5]
We would argue. She would concede eventually that she was wrong but it was exhausting to get through to her and get her to admit it, she wouldn’t apologise. She is a very poor problem solver, lacks intelligence, I was always having to take charge, I had to. I planned our entire wedding. All her ideas were “shit”. What man has to do that? [6]

By 2018 the Husband was suffering burnout at work as an allied health worker. He had to take some time off work and claim workers’ compensation benefits. His treating psychologist Ms W reported on 10 July that at that time the Husband was suffering from “severe depression” and “extremely severe anxiety and stress”. She wanted him to tread carefully in terms of going back to work. [7]
Against her advice, he had quickly returned to working half-days - and was simply not coping. In 2018 he got into an angry exchange with one of the Wife’s work colleagues at a hotel and ended up being asked to leave by staff. He took the Wife with him.
The Husband downplayed this event, but it was sufficiently serious that he emailed Ms W about it. According to Ms W’s letter back to his GP on 9 August 2018:
It appears his emotional reactivity and his aggressive response to this is increasing, which led to some confrontations with the public, friends and staff in a bar last night.
Ms W noted that amongst other things, the Husband reported “feeling angry and easily irritated”, ruminating and having labile mood. Though he expressed an interest in cognitive therapy, she did not yet think he was ready for it – as he was still so reactive and heightened. She wanted him to first focus on some relaxation and anger management techniques in order to better manage his physiological response to stress. [8]
In late 2018 the parties undertook some pre-marriage counselling. I accept the Wife’s evidence that, shortly into their first joint session, the Husband became defensive and angry and ended up storming out. The Wife followed, trying to placate him. The counselling ceased.
Placating the Husband was a way in which the Wife managed their relationship. I accept the Wife’s evidence that the Husband:
suffered from depression and anxiety but also he seemed to suffer regularly from what I can only describe as episodes of explosive rage. It is difficult to say what triggered these – imagined slights from work colleagues, difficulties with clients, workload – but he would storm around the house during the night and I would have to wake and calm him. I would make him chamomile tea and generally support him through this. Looking back now I realize I was often placating [Mr Jurak] and ignoring what should have been warning signs. [9]
As noted earlier, the parties married in 2019. The Husband chose the Wife’s clothing for the honeymoon.
During the honeymoon the parties spoke to a business lending specialist; the Husband became very keen on the idea of purchasing a business which was for sale in Town R and running his own business from there. It was to become his passion over the ensuing months. The Wife vacillated; it was her capital (around $250,000) that he was wanting to apply to the venture.
In 2019 the Husband had further disagreements with his then employer. In an appointment with his GP, he disclosed having poor sleep, racing thoughts, and longstanding suicidal thoughts that had recently become more frequent and intrusive. He asked his GP for a prescription for Valium or Seroquel (saying that such drugs had helped him in the past) but ultimately agreed to a limited supply of low dose Quetiapine. His GP was clearly concerned about him, as she raised with him the possible need for acute mental health intervention. He was strongly against it but gave her an undertaking to seek urgent help if needed. He expressed scepticism about the possible benefits of CBT. [10]
Later in 2019 the Husband resigned from work. He argued with his employer about work practices and the like. I accept the Wife’s evidence that one of his employers later rang the Wife expressing concern for the Husband’s mental wellbeing and telling her that the Husband had called him a “cunt”. The Father admitted to his GP on 26 February that he had felt like being physically violent towards his employers but managed to hold back. He also said he was angry at the Wife for having cold feet about buying the business. His GP considered that a psychiatric assessment was necessary to explore whether the Husband had elements of “PD” (personality disorder) or “an undiagnosed bipolar disorder”.
It is common ground that in 2019, just two (2) months after marrying, the Husband gave the Wife a stark ultimatum: buy the business or the marriage is over. In the face of that coercive threat, the Wife finally relented and agreed to go ahead with the purchase.
In the Husband’s own scornful words:
[Ms Jurak] was a constant barrier to the purchase of the [business] due to her lack of understanding and controlling nature. [Ms Jurak] was truly out of her depth with this business. This did not change throughout ownership. [11]
Thereafter both parties – but particularly the Husband – worked hard to ensure the success of the business, and the Husband’s associated business.
But their relationship remained problematic; they were both experiencing anxiety and the Husband continued acting in a domineering and overly critical way towards the Wife. He accused her of making mistakes at work and never “never apologising” for them. From his perspective this may have appeared true - but it overlooks the unhealthy relationship dynamics and the serious power imbalance between the parties.
In 2019 the Wife saw her GP about her anxiety, obtaining a prescription for an antidepressant. But she discovered soon after that she was pregnant and stopped taking it. The Husband criticised her for stopping that medication but without acknowledging the impact of his own behaviours on her.
In the leadup to X’s birth in 2020 the parties faced significant challenges when the COVID-19 pandemic emerged, requiring a lockdown of the business and the later imposition of various other stringent public health measures. (I will address those matters in more detail in the context of the property settlement proceedings.) The Husband continued to see his GP, complaining about his worsening mood and sleep issues and wanting to increase the dose of his anti-depressant.
X
As noted earlier, X was born in 2020.
Regrettably, and initially unknown to the parents, he was born with a medical condition. He cried and he cried. Neither parent coped very well, especially at night time when they were both exhausted. The Husband, working long hours and with a long history of sleep difficulties, took to sleeping at the other end of the home.
On the night of 20 August 2020, X started crying and the Husband got to him first. When the Wife arrived a few minutes later, the Husband screamed at her for taking so long before storming out and slamming the door.
On the night of 1 September 2020, X struggled to settle to sleep. At around 10pm she asked for the Husband to take over and give her a break. He did; she then went to another room where she fell asleep for a little while. I accept her evidence that when she awoke and re-entered the nursery:
[Mr Jurak] was furious, put [X] on the bed and pushed past me, screaming at me that [X] wouldn’t stop crying. I saw that he had knocked over the picture frames on the tallboy. [Mr Jurak] admitted to kicking the bassinet, throwing the dummy and punching other furniture while holding the baby before I entered the room. [Mr Jurak] then stormed off yelling ‘fuck’, ‘FUCK!’ and slammed every door closed between the nursery and the bedroom including the kitchen sliding door. [12]
On two or three occasions, both parents ended up calling the paternal grandmother in the middle of the night to ask her to come over and help them settle X. Regrettably, from the contents of her Affidavit, it appears that the paternal grandmother shared the Husband’s overly negative view that the Wife lacked appropriate motherly skills or instincts. [13]
The Wife saw a community health nurse on a few occasions in August/September 2020. She talked about the Husband’s stress levels at home, said he was not sleeping well and that he was struggling to adjust to parenthood. She thought he needed to go onto some medication. [14]
The Husband was continuing to work hard and was easily irritated at home. I accept the Wife’s evidence that he criticised her homemaking and mothering efforts, further eroding her confidence.
The Wife was referred to the mobile Z Support Centre van, and from there to the Z Support Centre at Y Hospital. The Wife stayed there for about four (4) days. Z Support staff diagnosed X with a medical condition and prescribed some medication to help manage it.
The Husband’s counsel cross-examined the Wife about the intake form [15] that she completed at Z Support Centre wherein she denied there was family violence in the home and declined to accept any family violence handouts. The Wife explained that back then she did not really understand what family violence was - and that she thought it was limited to physical violence. She said she felt ashamed and embarrassed that the Husband yelled at her at home and thought it was “her fault”. She also said she felt optimistic at that time, hoping for some answers about X and wanting to make a “fresh start” with the Husband. In hindsight, she said she regretted not telling the nurse the full story of her experiences.
I accept the Wife’s evidence as to these matters. Though the Husband had never physically assaulted the Wife, he had nonetheless perpetrated family violence against her of a controlling and coercive nature, primarily through his repeated derogatory taunts and put-downs. In his angry rages, he had intimidated her and made her feel fearful and threatened. He had coerced her into investing her money into a business and the associated businesses.
X’s condition improved after he was prescribed medication but he still cried quite frequently which in turn led to arguments between the parents. The Wife considered that as he had undergone a growth spurt, X needed a larger dose of the medication. The Husband disagreed; he thought that the Wife was not feeding/caring for him properly but was instead potentially “overdosing” him.
On 15 October 2020 the Husband unsuccessfully tried to settle X, before becoming frustrated with him, swearing, raising his voice (at which point X began to cry) and then handing him back to the Wife.
On 18 October 2020, the Husband cared for X for a few hours while the Wife did some study work. When he returned later, X was crying and the Husband was angry. He said that X had just “lost it” and couldn’t be settled, even with a bottle feed. He admitted to the Wife that he was so angry with X that he wanted to shake him, even going so far as to say that he was worried he would “kill him when he is like that.” [16]
That evening, the Husband bathed X after dinner while the Wife was cleaning up the kitchen. X wouldn’t stop crying and the Husband became frustrated, saying “stop fucking crying kid” and “Oh my God X!” The Mother left the kitchen and went to the nursery, where she saw the Husband with a look of rage on his face. As she stepped next to him, the Husband took a step back, shouting “for fuck’s sake kid!” before turning and smashing his own head into a wall. The Wife was left shaken; it was further family violence. The Husband then stormed off into the bedroom. When the Wife tried to discuss the incident with him later, the Husband rebuffed her. She never asked him to bathe X again.
On the morning of 10 November 2020, X started crying again. The Wife was tired and wanted some more sleep. Frustrated, she asked the Husband to go and settle him. The Husband wanted her to feed him but she declined as she said he couldn’t be hungry. The Husband took him away again but could not settle him. The Wife, by then frustrated, came into the nursery and blamed the Husband either for not calling her earlier or giving him the medication. He blamed her for not feeding him.
In this volatile situation, both parents perpetrated family violence. The Wife grabbed X and the Husband threw X’s dummy at her. As the Husband walked past her, she then slapped him on the shoulder area. He then grabbed her hand and told her never to hit him again, before punching the cabinet near the Wife’s head three (3) times. He then left the home for a while to “cool down”.
Leadup to separation
On 15 November 2020 the parents were arguing again; the marriage was “on the rocks”.
The maternal grandmother was in town and she wanted to visit them. The Husband tried to get the Wife to discourage her from coming over - unsuccessfully.
When she arrived, the maternal grandmother saw that the home situation was tense. The Husband was outside watering, the Wife was inside crying while holding X. The Wife asked the maternal grandmother to go out and talk to the Husband, which she did. The maternal grandmother and the Husband had a discussion, which she portrays as entirely benign on her part and which he portrays as provocative and rude. I consider that the truth is likely somewhere between the two versions. In any event, the maternal grandmother then went back inside. The Husband, deeply resenting what he saw as her “interference”, responded reactively. He immediately followed, demanding that the maternal grandmother “get out of the house.” She refused; I accept her evidence that she was concerned about leaving the Wife alone with him when he was so angry.
The Husband then grabbed the maternal grandmother by the arm & started pulling her towards the door. She stumbled a few paces and then he stopped and let her go. He put his forearm on the wall above her head, leaning his own head on his forearm so that he was very close to her face. It was an act of intimidation. Momentarily stunned and horrified, the Wife could only look on. X started crying. After a moment, the Husband called the maternal grandmother a “fucking mole” before leaving and walking off to his bedroom.
In the witness box, the Husband was challenged about this event being an act of family violence. He refuted that it was, clearly seeing himself as the victim. He had no empathy for the Wife who witnessed it, nor for the maternal grandmother who I should add is a slight woman and certainly no match for him in terms of his relative youthfulness, physical presence and strength.
That same night, the Husband called a “family meeting” at the paternal grandparents’ home. This was somewhat ironic given his own complaint that the Wife was involving her family in their affairs. In any event, the Wife and her brother attended on “her side.” I accept the Wife’s evidence that the Husband pointedly refused to apologise for grabbing the maternal grandmother, nor did his parents chastise him or suggest that he do so. The only apparent consensus seems to have been that the event needed to be “put behind them”. After the meeting, the Wife and her brother told the Husband to stay at the paternal grandparents’ home that night – to which he reluctantly agreed.
Meanwhile, the maternal grandmother was worried about what the Husband might do in the future, particularly given that he had not apologised for his actions. The next day, 16 November 2020, she decided that she needed to “take a stand” and went to Police to make a formal complaint. Police spoke to both her and to the Wife.
That evening, Police attended the home and arrested the Husband for assault. They also served him with two (2) Apprehended Violence Orders (“AVO”) they had taken out against him, one to protect the maternal grandmother and the other to protect the Wife and X.
The Husband felt betrayed and devastated. The paternal grandfather collected him from the Police Station afterwards and from there he went back to the home to collect some clothes and belongings. He made arrangements to see X the next day, 17 November.
Regrettably, there was a miscommunication about the timing of his visit with X as a result of which the Husband was left waiting for a couple of hours. He became very angry, thinking that the Wife was being malicious. In the result he and the paternal grandmother spent time with X and returned him to the Wife later that day.
The Husband appears to have had a mental health crisis at some point that day. He rang his GP seeking an urgent mental health appointment, and when the reception staff advised him that the GP was too busy to talk to him that day, he responded by telling them to “get fucked” and that he was “going to kill himself”. His GP made a welfare call later on, but he did not answer. She left him a message suggesting that if necessary he present to the local Emergency Department. [17]
The Wife was feeling stressed too. She had a long consultation with her GP that day during which she made disclosures about the Husband’s emotional abuse of her and about him punching walls and furniture. She already had a ‘plan of escape’ if things escalated. The GP noted that the Wife was seeking input from a psychologist. [18]
On 18 November, the Husband and the paternal grandmother went to the home where they saw X for about 5 minutes. The Father admits that the Wife’s anxiety was “through the roof” on that occasion; she sought his confirmation that he was not going to take X away from her.
On 19 November 2020, the Husband came over to the house where he and the Wife spoke about their marriage. He disclosed to her that earlier in the week, while with the paternal grandmother at their house, he had held a kitchen knife to his throat and told her he was going to kill himself. He said she had just stood there staring at him. (This may have been on 17 November when the Husband had tried to call his GP.) The Husband also told the Wife that he had been thinking that “if the divorce didn’t go his way” he would hang himself in their garage.
That night, the Husband stayed over in what was an attempted reconciliation. The parents slept together, the Husband deposing that this was:
Not bad for a woman who was apparently scared of me and had just put out an ADVO on me for “domestic violence”. [19]
The Husband says he got up to X during the night; the Wife rested. This is his description of the next morning:
I settled him and we went back to sleep until 5am. He would not go back to sleep, so I played with him on his play mat until 7.30am when [Ms Jurak] woke up. She had a full night’s sleep and when she came out into the loungeroom she looked like absolute crap – again, tired and cranky, even though I had been the one with the bad night’s sleep. This was always how it was – whether [Ms Jurak] slept well or not, she simply was not coping with the responsibility of a newborn. [20]
That day the parents jointly attended a community health nurse appointment for X. It did not go well. They got into their familiar argument about the dosing of X’s medication. The nurse enquired about the Wife’s health and about her psychologist, and when the Wife explained that it was to help with her “insomnia” the Husband became quite irritated. In his words:
By declaring insomnia, [Ms Jurak] was absent fault. Insomnia had nothing to do with [Ms Jurak] seeing a psychologist – [Ms Jurak] simply could not admit that her anxiety, depression and mood were out of her control.
Presenting this appearance of “superiority” was a common feature of [Ms Jurak]’s personality. I had seen it for years. [21]
That evening they argued about whether or not he would offer an apology to the maternal grandmother, his associated criminal case and family law issues. Afterwards, the Husband left the home for good, returning to the paternal grandparents’ house. The marriage was over.
On 21 November the Husband went to the home while the Wife was out and removed his personal belongings. This is the agreed date of separation.
Post-separation parenting arrangements
X stayed living with the Wife in the home. By arrangement between the parents, he spent unsupervised time with the Husband for daytime periods only.
The Wife observed that the Husband’s mental health was declining; she was increasingly concerned about him.

On either 1 December or 3 December 2020, Police knocked on the Wife’s door at around 9.45pm looking for the Husband. The Wife told them they had recently separated. She asked them what was wrong and Police disclosed that the Husband had telephoned Lifeline (or perhaps a Men’s Health Service) to discuss some “dark thoughts” and that they wanted to check on his welfare. She gave them the paternal grandparents’ address. She later called the Husband and the paternal grandmother to check on him but they did not answer her calls. The next morning she rang Police who advised her that officers had spoken with him that night and had left after a short while, confident he would not harm himself. According to Police records, the Husband told them he was not suicidal but merely “frustrated”. [22]
On 4 December 2020, the Wife became aware that the Husband had tagged himself on the business’s Town R Facebook page with the caption “I don’t know why I fucking bother.”
Just after midnight on 9 December 2020, two Police officers again knocked on the Wife’s door. Again, they were looking for the Husband. They said he had told friends that he wanted to kill himself and no-one could contact him. She again sent them to the paternal grandparents’ house. The paternal grandfather later took the Husband to the hospital for assessment. Police also attended. The Husband was later discharged home.
That day and the next, the Wife exchanged various texts with the Husband, inquiring after him and expressing her concerns about his welfare. Her messages were polite and respectful throughout. His messages were hateful in response: he labelled her a “sick bitch”; accused her of “betrayal” in relation to the criminal charge (and AVO).
Feeling concerned about her safety, the Wife showed his messages to Police, who advised her to do what she had to do to keep herself and X safe. The Wife decided not to let the Husband come to the home anymore. She changed the locks on the house at the suggestion of Police, as well as padlocking the side gate. She also stopped going out at night; she felt isolated and anxious.
The Wife also required that the Husband’s time with X needed to be supervised by the paternal grandparents. The Father took umbrage at this, labelling it “just a sick tactic of yours to get under my skin. You’re the child in this relationship. I know school kids smarter than you. You never could take responsibility for your actions and you’re still not taking responsibility now. If you’re so scared of me, why not take X and leave? Oh that’s right, it’s more satisfying for you to amend the avo so you can have the house and keep me out altogether. You’re a narcissist. Your communication in shit and you’ll be an awful educator.” [23]
In late 2020, the Husband admitted himself to the mental health unit at AB Hospital. Speaking with nursing staff about the violent Brisbane man who had notoriously set fire to his wife and murdered their children in a heinous act of family violence, he said that he could see how people can hurt their families & children when in distress. He disclosed that he had been considering suicide and had bought a rope. Despite his obvious mental health problems, he declined mental health assistance on the basis that it could prejudice his legal proceedings. He suggested that it was the Wife who had the mental health issues. The medical notes correctly record that he had “limited insight” into his problems. [24]
Notably, the Wife voluntarily took X to visit the Husband at the hospital. The Husband was discharged the next day.
Thereafter the parents agreed that the Husband would spend time with X for 1 ½ hours every second day, supervised by the paternal grandparents – each of whom provided a formal Undertaking drawn up by the Wife’s lawyer. I accept the Wife’s evidence that she found handovers intimidating as the Husband and paternal grandfather did not hide their hostility towards her. The Husband was present (or in the near vicinity) at handovers when he did not need to be. This was despite him telling the Wife that he found it distressing to see her.
Within a week the Husband was demanding an end to supervision but the Wife held her ground. At handover, he yelled out at the Wife “you’re sick, you’re sick!” when she would not agree to longer visits. The Husband was visibly enraged; the paternal grandfather physically put his hand on the Husband’s chest to stop him from approaching her.
The Wife arranged for the Husband to see X for three (3) days in a row - including (3) hours and time on the Husband’s birthday. But when she collected X, the paternal grandfather then told her that the Husband did not want to see X on his birthday the next day.
The brief supervised time arrangements had come to an end. This was clearly a conscious choice by the Husband. [25]
The final breakdown
On 18 January 2021, the Husband’s mental health completely collapsed. Though the exact chronology of that day is somewhat blurry – the paternal grandfather not having gone onto Affidavit – the overall picture is clear enough.
At around 3pm that day, the Father had a lengthy and somewhat dramatic attendance upon his GP, accompanied by the paternal grandfather. According to the GP’s notes of that attendance, the Husband felt he had been worse over the last week. The Husband thought that his then-Psychologist, Mr AC, “may be on to something” regarding a possible Autism Spectrum or ADHD diagnosis. The notes go on as follows:
Very external locus of control about controlling temper – “other people can control it but I can’t, I just snap”
Very fixed on his sense of injustice
Doesn’t feel the legal system is working for him, feels he has to “get justice for himself”
Stated over and over that he feels it is inevitable that he is going to murder [Ms Jurak], and that is the only way to get justice, and that will be fine because then he’ll be in jail with “people like him”
These statements were said during outburst however, and when challenged once more calm, [Mr Jurak] doesn’t continue to state they are true
Doesn’t have any active plan to harm himself or anyone else
After repeated threats, yelling and shouting, [Mr Jurak] was able to say that he had no plans to have any contact with [Ms Jurak], and will not seek her out
Had a significant loss of temper in my room today
Yelling, punching himself, formed up to punch his Dad but stopped
Trial of increase escitalopram
PRN diazepam for worst of anger/rage [26]
On the drive home, the Husband had some form of panic attack about the two (2) week waiting time to next see Mr AC. He felt desperate; that he was not receiving enough support. When he arrived home, he threatened to cut his wrist with a knife, saying he’d “had enough of this”. He then went down into the garage where he attempted to hang himself with a rope he had tied around a steel beam. Distressed, the paternal grandfather helped him down to the floor while the Husband kicked at him. The Husband then absconded and the paternal grandparents called Police.
During this time the Husband telephoned his former employee and confidante, Ms AD. Like the Wife, she too had been concerned about his mental wellbeing for some weeks. The Husband told her about his suicide attempt that day. While they were talking, the Husband then said to her that he could hear Police sirens and that they were coming after him. His demeanour changed immediately; he went into a state of heightened alertness, rambling on before abruptly terminating the call. [27]
Ms AD was alarmed. Over the preceding weeks, the Husband had privately been expressing both suicidal ideations to her, and homicidal ideations in relation to the Wife. She had not broken his confidence - but felt that she now had no choice. She called a friend, who in turn contacted Police.
The Husband’s text messages to Ms AD had included the following:
“It’s like my mood is too overwhelming and consumes me in a way that control my thinking.”
“We spoke at length about my thoughts of suicide and killing others. I think we agree I have a mental health condition because I can change so quickly and react way more than most people would.”
“I told mum and dad that I’m going to end up in jail. My hatred for [Ms Jurak] and her family is just too strong and when I’m in that state nothing is going to stop me.”
“So anyways I had a double dose of my meds last night wanting to kill myself, or her, again.”
“I just hate her so much. I wish she was dead.”
In the meantime, the Husband had gone to the edge of a cliff, where he was threatening to jump. Police arrived and were able to establish a rapport with him and talk him down. He was then transported by Ambulance to hospital where he was involuntarily admitted for some eight (8) days to the Town E Hospital.
Police spoke to the hospital staff, advising them about the Husband’s death threats to the Wife and that they were particularly concerned about the Husband absconding and attending the home which was just a few minutes’ walk away. According to Police:
It is clear the POI [the Husband] has displayed hatred and the want to harm the victim. His demeanour and mental state is the most concerning factor as it is clear that even though he is seeking treatment, he is unable to control or manage these urges to harm himself or others. Police will be making application to vary the current provisional order [AVO].
Police telephoned the Wife, telling her about the Husband’s threats and advising that she should pack herself up and leave with X immediately. She found this most confronting; it was also the third time since separation that Police had had to contact her in relation to their concerns about the Husband’s mental state.
The Wife felt very afraid, but for now she stayed at the home given the Husband had been scheduled. On 19 January she attended upon her GP for a mental health appointment. (She had not yet seen the texts from the Husband to Ms AD.)
While in hospital, the Husband spoke to a social worker. He complained that he Police had served him with a more restrictive AVO, saying that he was “fucked” and his life was “fucked”. He said that this was why he had planned to commit suicide before this admission. Poignantly, the social worker’s notes go on to record:
He expressed also homicidal ideation’s [sic] towards his partner again and was informed that these comments have consequences like the more restrictive AVO. He said this is just to show how frustrated he is “to what a level it has come.”
He feels by making these statements that others he makes the statements towards can understand how desperate he is.
It was difficult for him to acknowledge that these statements scare others and that they have to protect themself [sic] [28]
(my emphasis)
At that stage the Wife had not yet seen the texts that the Husband had sent Ms AD in the leadup to his hospitalisation. Police showed them to her on 21 January; they noted that she was “clearly upset and afraid for her safety”. She told them that upon the Husband’s discharge from hospital she planned to immediately leave for Sydney.
In preparation for discharge, the Husband was given day leave on 22 January when he seems to have gone home with the paternal grandparents. As they discussed the AVO and family law issues, he became upset and angry, punching a hole in the wall and in a window. At one point he was crying on the floor; at another point he was wielding a knife but they talked him into putting it away. While he was off the ward, the Husband also telephoned his sister (a public servant who lives in the area) - accusing her of “betrayal”. His sister felt that he was becoming dangerous; she was concerned about her parents’ safety. [29]
The Husband was discharged from hospital in 2021. As a result of his texts to Ms AD threatening to kill the Wife, Police immediately charged him with 2 offences: breaching the AVO and using a carriage service with a threat to kill. Initially bail was refused and he spent a night in custody. He was bailed the next day, by which time the Wife and X had already left for Sydney.
Wife & X return to Town E / Husband has no contact with X
Against advice from both the Police, and the relevant NSW child welfare authority, the Wife returned to the Town E home some ten (10) days later. To be fair to her, she felt she had little choice. The business needed to be maintained and there were bills to pay. She also had to complete a placement there for her degree. To give her a greater sense of security, she had cameras installed around the home and her extended family members took turns staying with her. (In 2021, the maternal grandmother in fact gave up her employment in Sydney so she could stay in Town E with the Wife and support her.)
In the Local Court, the Husband defended the assault charge relating to the maternal grandmother, and the associated AVO application. He sought that the breach of AVO and the carriage service charge be dealt with under the provisions of the NSW Mental Health Act. He was unsuccessful before the learned Magistrate. Though no conviction was recorded for the assault charge, he was convicted and given a Community Corrections Order for the 2021 offending. He appealed to the District Court.
The Husband was already seeing Dr AE, Psychiatrist, who on 15 March 2021 had generated a report addressed to his legal representatives opining that the Husband had a major depressive disorder, was responding well to medication, and had been undertaking psychotherapy with him to help manage his anger and promote rational thinking. He said that the Husband had “too short a fuse” and was motivated to become less impulsive and reactive, ie “lengthen the fuse”. He considered that the Husband’s depression was in remission and that he could safely care for X – though he recommended handovers occur in a neutral setting.
The Husband was proposing supervised time, but the Wife would not agree. She feared that he may simply “walk out” with X. This was not unreasonable given her experiences.
The Husband continued to “vent”, including on social media. He made various Facebook posts, including that he did not deserve anything that had happened to him (evidencing his lack of remorse and empathy); he labelled the Wife and her family as “a bunch of sociopaths”; when the Wife suggested that he undertake a full psychiatric report prior to seeing X he said she was a “fuckwit” who had “too much empty space between the ears.” [30]
Wife relocates with X
Despite the stalled negotiations about seeing X, the Husband was very keen to at least get some semblance of his life back; he wanted to move back into the home and to take over the business. In May 2021 he obtained $80,000 from his parents which, by agreement, he paid to the Wife in order to facilitate her finding other accommodation.
Within days of receiving that money, on 27 May 2021, the Wife vacated the home and relocated with X to the paternal grandparents’ home in Sydney. The Husband was very upset about it. He moved back into the home and took over the day-to-day running of the business, which the parties agreed to list for sale.
In June 2021, the Wife proposed that the Husband spend supervised time with X at AF Contact Centre at Suburb AG in Sydney. He refused, indignant at the suggestion that his time required supervision or that he should have to travel, reasoning that, after all, it was the Wife who had left.
On 8 July, a third party engaged to sell the business emailed the parties saying he no longer wanted to assist as the parties were at loggerheads about division of the sale proceeds and he did not want to mediate between them. In his emailed response, the Husband described the situation as “classic Ms Jurak being nothing but a stupid selfish bitch”. He also described the Wife as a “disgrace of a human” who needed treatment for a “personality disorder”.
On 27 July 2021, the Husband had an appointment with Dr AE, who recorded that with “considerable reasoning in therapy today” he had convinced the Husband to take down a Facebook post in which he had suggested that he understood why some women were subjected to violence. Even then, Dr AE sat and watched the Husband physically remove the post, seemingly to make sure he did. [31]
On 3 August 2021, the Wife’s solicitor emailed the Husband in relation to business issues, ill-advisedly telling him to “save your tantrums and dummy spits please” – a comment which, while perhaps fair on one view, was hardly helpful. Within fourteen (14) minutes he had responded by email in typical aggressive and reactive fashion, referring to the Wife as her “con artist, dim wit client who can’t even recite her times tables” and concluding his email in a threatening way:
“Keep up the good work and encourage more women not to let their children see their father. There is a special place in hell for people like you”. [32]
On 26 August 2021 the District Court substantially allowed the Husband’s various appeals from the decision of the learned Magistrate. The assault charge was dismissed, apparently on the basis that at the time the Husband was trying to lawfully evict the maternal grandmother from the home – which was registered in his sole name. The associated AVO was dismissed also. The learned District Court Judge also allowed his appeal in relation to the 2018 offences, ordering that they be dealt with under the Mental Health Act. In practical terms, the Husband was ordered to continue treatment with his Psychiatrist, Dr AE, for a period of twelve (12) months and to comply with all conditions of treatment recommended by Dr AE. A final AVO was again made protecting the Wife for a period of 2 years. It was in broad terms, prohibiting the Husband from approaching or contacting the Wife (or X) unless in accordance with the usual “family law” exceptions such as where there was agreement to do so or a contrary parenting order. The Husband was also required to stay at least 200 metres away from the home, the Wife’s work or the paternal grandparents’ address in Sydney.[33]
Notably the Husband’s District Court appeal had been supported by an updated report of Dr AE of 16 August 2021, who, while still supporting the Husband spending time with X, also suggested that the parents not be in the same room for the hearing of the family law proceedings.
On 30 August 2021, the Wife proposed through her solicitor that the Husband communicate with X via Facetime on Father’s Day. He responded by email, rejecting the offer which he labelled as “insulting”. His email was generally angry and abusive, concluding with “You people sicken me.” [34]
On 17 September 2021 the Husband emailed the Wife’s solicitor in relation to a transfer he had identified out of the business bank account; he suggested dishonesty on the Wife’s part. The Wife’s solicitor responded:
“I would like you to rephrase that in a respectful manner. It was a direct debit so she didn’t withdraw it. The bank did so maybe you need to get onto them eh? Perhaps you could use the same disdainful tone. Frankly I don’t think I need to do anything because [Ms Jurak], as honest and decent as she is, will take steps to do it herself. Nevertheless I will forward your message.”
Reactively, and without waiting for his passion to cool, the Husband responded with:
“Shove respect up your arse. You assist women keeping children from fathers and therefore deserve to be treated accordingly. [Ms Jurak] is the least honest and most indecent woman I have ever met. You aren’t any better.” [35]
On 22 September 2021, the Husband emailed the Wife’s solicitor Ms AH about financial matters. He was clearly agitated, demanding urgent answers she could not immediately give as she needed to take instructions. In a heightened state, and no doubt behaving reactively, he telephoned the Wife’s solicitor telling her “I hate you” and “If I see you in the street you had better get ready to run.” [36] Ms AH emailed him to tell him that she took his threats seriously and had notified Police. She pointed out to him that he had denigrated the Wife, made death threats and declined to see X on a supervised basis in Sydney. She said that he was the “master of his own destiny”. Her email concluded with these imploring questions:

But are you really so blind that you cannot see your part in this? That you take no responsibility and blame all those around you?
His response came just thirteen (13) minutes later:
[Ms Jurak] and [Ms AH],
You are both lying, thieving, manipulative disgusting, cowards. The bullying and selfishness you have both displayed is pathological. You both deserve to spend time in jail for what you have done. [37]
Supervised time
Following an interim hearing before a Senior Judicial Registrar of this Court, on 19 October 2021 interim orders were made that the Husband spend supervised time with X on a fortnightly basis, with two visits to occur at AF Contact Centre at Suburb AG and one visit to occur at AF Contact Centre at Town R.
Things began ominously. When completing his intake forms with AF Contact Centre, the Husband needlessly denigrated the Wife:
Q: When you were together with the other parents, how would you describe what it was like to live with them/live with you? --- Draining. She is not a very smart person. She is not domestic. Cooking and cleaning are not her strong points. She came to the relationship with no assets and not a good job. I had the main financial responsibility and pressures of responsibilities at home and with the businesses. She has no problem solving skills. [38]
AF Contact Centre considered that the Husband presented with anger. They suggested he might want to undertake a “AK Course” (anger management) and some counselling but thought he would be resistant as he told them he had done something previously which was “useless”.
In a discussion with the Husband on 21 October 2021, he told the supervisor that it was “all bullshit”, said that the Wife was a “psychopath” and described the whole situation was “a fucking joke.” He explained that he was “a decent person with no criminal record and is being treated like one.” [39]
The first supervised visit occurred at Town R on 6 November 2021. X was somewhat unsettled but the visit was generally positive. The visits at Suburb AG on 13 and 27 November were much the same.
The fourth supervised visit occurred at Town R on 10 December. There was then a short break in visits largely owing to the Christmas period.
In the meantime, the Wife had found travelling to Town R for supervised visits quite burdensome and unsettling for X. On 13 January 2022, she filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking that all future visits occur at Suburb AG instead. On 18 January, the Husband filed a Response seeking orders that required the Wife to return to live in Town E, that he have 48 hours of unsupervised time each week and that the Wife undergo independent psychiatric assessment for her “anxiety, delusions, mood swings and lying.”
The situation was again escalating. The same day as he filed his Response, the Husband rang AF Contact Centre at 10.30am to discuss the upcoming visit which was scheduled to take place on 22 January.
He told the AF Contact Centre worker about the pending interim applications and accused the Wife of acting in a controlling manner. He said that the upcoming visit may be his last one; the travel to Sydney and associated expenses were becoming too much for him given he was also running businesses in Town R. He said he was mentally stable but that the Wife continued to do things that “push his buttons”.
What he said next was unsettling:
[Mr Jurak] said he was going to say something and it was up to me if I pretend the conversation didn’t happen or what I do with it. [Mr Jurak] paused and said he wants to take [X] down to the river to set up a picnic and spend some time with [X] down by the water. I spoke to [Mr Jurak] and explained there is a process that we need to follow and an assessment before offsite visits or visits outside of the centre can take place. I told [Mr Jurak] both parents will have to be part of that process…
[Mr Jurak] said that he was not asking but was telling me that this is what he would be doing on Friday and he understands that puts us in a difficult situation.
[Mr Jurak] said that he feels like his only hope is to bring [X] home to [Town D] to get in front of a judge and have them listen to him. I asked [Mr Jurak] if that was his intention on Friday to ‘bring [X] home?’ [Mr Jurak] said no that was not his intention he is only highlighting his desperation at this point. [Mr Jurak] confirmed his intention was not taking [X] anywhere but down to the river for a picnic for the 2 hours of their visit.
I spoke to [Mr Jurak] and asked if the visit is to take place in the centre this coming Friday 21^st without our okay to take [X] to the river would he still do so? [Mr Jurak] replied and said, ‘I cannot answer that.’
I let [Mr Jurak] know that I will follow up what I need to and have a further conversation with him regarding the visit on Friday. [Mr Jurak] thanked me and the call ended.
Once again, the Husband was letting his emotions get the better of him. Moreover, he seems to have been oblivious as to the intimidating / threatening nature of what he had just said.
The worker called him back at 11.15am, referred him to the Service Agreement, and explained the process to have an offsite visit. She said that, based on their last conversation, the visit could not now go ahead. After a pause, he responded that he would see them at the visit on Friday. She reiterated that the visit would not be proceeding and he then said it was not hard to fill out the appropriate paperwork to leave the centre:
[Mr Jurak] said he runs businesses and knows for a fact it’s not hard, however everyone around him keeps making everything fucking hard and [Mr Jurak] keeps being a fucking cunt. [Mr Jurak] said multiple times, ‘It’s not that fucking hard’ and again said he is sick of all the bullshit he is being put through and he should be able to do these things with [X].
I asked [Mr Jurak] to please not speak that way. [Mr Jurak] was silent and apologised and said, ‘I will stay in the fucking centre. [Mr Jurak] asked, is that what you need? and said again I will stay in the centre, he asked what else he needed to do.
I let [Mr Jurak] know I have spoken to my manager regarding the visit on Friday and we will not be scheduling the visit. [Mr Jurak] said he does not care what the manager said and he has not seen [X] for 5 weeks and prior to visits commencing it had been 8 months. [Mr Jurak] said he would speak to the manager about it and I advised [Mr Jurak] I will ask her to call him.
The manager decided to call the Husband to ascertain whether the visit could still proceed. She wanted to know whether what he had said to the worker that morning about taking X to the river was simply a “heat of the moment” comment or whether there was more to it. She rang him back at 4.15pm, emphasising the rules of the Centre and the need for an assessment if the visit was to occur off-site. After he complained about the Wife’s relocation to Sydney without his permission:
[Mr Jurak] said that if the mother could do this he didn’t see anything wrong with doing it too and bringing his son [X] home. I asked [Mr Jurak] what impact he felt doing this would have on his son [X]. [Mr Jurak] said no harm would come from his son being at home where he belonged. I asked what he thought might happen if he was to leave from the visit at [Town R] and take his [X] home, he said no-one cared when his son’s fucking mother abducted him. He said he didn’t care that he would probably be fucking arrested and at least get before a judge to tell his story. I explained to [Mr Jurak] that I know the court would not view this favourably for unsupervised time in the future and I believe that taking matters into his own hands, ie. being arrested in front of [X] is also detrimental to [X]’s mental/emotional wellbeing and safety. At times during the call [Mr Jurak] degraded his ex, calling her names I explained this is concerning and explained that this practice is viewed as harmful for children, given children are made up from both of their parents. [Mr Jurak] spoke about believing no one is listening to him, and the court making decisions to suit mum. He said he thinks the court will again rule in her favour and that’s why he feels desperate…
I explained that while Worker has explained that the actual visits are going well and have had no concerns about the visits, I said I do have concerns about the communication he has displayed when talking about his ex to staff, his conversation with Worker about not following staff directions re visits and raising his voice at and swearing at staff. I explained I need to determine if the visit is safe to go ahead. He said I have told Worker and I will tell you all that I will stay at centre. I said I understand this but then I hear him say he cannot see any concerns for his son if he was to take his son home…
[Mr Jurak] was heightened and the conversation was going around in circles. I suggested we end the conversation, and I will look at everything discussed today and get back to him.
In the witness box the Husband admitted that he had become “frustrated” by that stage. He said that the travel to Sydney was taking a toll on him and that the Wife should never have left Town E – he felt she was using X as “a pawn.” He said he never actually intended to take X home with him - as doing so would have been “stupid”. The concession was appropriate but it begs the obvious question – why did he say it?
The manager rang him back at 4.45pm, advising that the visit would be cancelled.
[Mr Jurak] said I told you I will fucking stay at the centre this week. I said I know you said this after the remarks about not staying at centre however we need to consider the safety of the child. [Mr Jurak] cut me off and loudly said so on one hand you are saying you want to help and the other hand you are saying I can’t see my son this Saturday, you know what you can go Fuck yourself and he hung up.
On 25 January 2022, the Husband emailed the Wife’s solicitor to advise her that:
As for visitation, until [Ms Jurak] agrees to return [X] to [Town E] permanently, and my time with [X] changes to unsupervised and I am give a significant increase in hours as requested in my response affidavit, all visits are to cease. [X], myself and the rest of the family deserve nothing less.
The supervised visits, which had gone reasonably well, had come to an abrupt and avoidable end. (At that stage the Wife did not even know why the 22 January visit had been cancelled.)
In March 2022, the competing interim applications of the parties were dismissed by a Senior Judicial Registrar.
As noted earlier, the Husband saw X for the Family Report interviews on 14 March 2022. In September 2022 the Husband himself relocated to Town R to live with his current partner, Ms P, and to be closer to his workplace.
I accept the Wife’s evidence that in late 2022, the Husband put up a Facebook post stating that: “So many months since I have seen my son now. It’s no surprise women get bashed, and no, I don’t give a fuck if this offends you.” Within twenty-four (24) hours he had removed it.
PARENTING PROCEEDINGS: THE LAW
Parenting proceedings fall for determination in accordance with the provisions of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”).
Pursuant to s 60CA, the Court must arrive at parenting orders which are in the “best interests” of the child concerned. In arriving at that determination, s 60CC of the Act prescribes the mandatory primary and additional considerations to which the Court must have regard:
Primary considerations
(2)       The primary considerations are:
(a)the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents; and
(b)the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
(2A)In applying the considerations set out in subsection (2), the court is to give greater weight to the consideration set out in paragraph (2)(b).
Additional considerations
(3)       Additional considerations are:
(a)any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child’s maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views;
(b)       the nature of the relationship of the child with:
(i)        each of the child’s parents; and
(ii)other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
(c)the extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity:
(i)to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and
(ii)       to spend time with the child; and
(iii)      to communicate with the child;
(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;
(d)the likely effect of any changes in the child's circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:
(i)        either of his or her parents; or
(ii)any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living;
(e)the practical difficulty and expense of a 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 relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis;
(f)       the capacity of:
(i)        each of the child’s parents; and
(ii)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;
(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;
(h)if the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child:
(i)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
(ii)the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right;
(i)the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents;
(j)any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family;
(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:
(i)        the nature of the order;
(ii)       the circumstances in which the order was made;
(iii)      any evidence admitted in proceedings for the order;
(iv)any findings made by the court in, or in proceedings for, the order;
(v)       any other relevant matter;
(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;
(m)      any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant.
The primary consideration in s 60CC(2)(b), as further explained by s 60CC(2A), requires the Court to consider potential risks to children that may arise from the making of a parenting order. In M & M (1988) FLC 91-979, the High Court held that a parenting order ought not be made if such order exposes the child to an “unacceptable risk” of harm.
Section 68B of the Act also empowers the Court to grant injunctions that it considers “appropriate” for the welfare of the child. These may include injunctions to protect the child, the child’s parent or caregiver. The injunctions may require that a person stay away from a particular place where a child, parent or caregiver lives, works or attends school.
Section 61B of the Act defines parental responsibility in relation to a child as meaning “all the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which, by law, parents have in relation to children.”
Pursuant to s 61C of the Act, each of the child’s parents has parental responsibility subject to Court orders. Section 61DA(1) provides that, when making a parenting order in relation to a child, the Court is to apply a presumption that it would be in the best interests of the child for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility. That presumption does not however apply if the Court has reasonable grounds to believe that a parent has, amongst other things, engaged in “family violence” as defined in s 4AB of the Act: s 61DA(2).
If an order is made for equal shared parental responsibility, then s 65DAA of the Act is engaged and the Court must follow the specific statutory pathway set out therein when considering the allocation of a child’s time with each parent. Specifically, the Court is directed to consider making an order for equal time as the first option. The Court must also consider the “reasonable practicability” of any proposed parenting orders: see s 65DAA(5) and the High Court’s decision in MRR & GR (2010) FLC 93-424.
BEST INTERESTS FINDINGS:
I have already made detailed factual findings which engage the various best interests considerations set out in s 60CC of the Act. In what follows I will proceed by way of summary as much as possible.
Section 60CC(2)(a) – meaningful relationships
X has a meaningful relationship with the Wife. If X remains living with her, that meaningful relationship will continue.
X does not yet have a meaningful relationship with the Husband. Moving X into his care will enable them to develop a meaningful relationship – but at the cost of putting X at serious risk of harm as discussed below.
Section 60CC(2)(b) – protecting against risks of harm
I accept the Wife’s risk case, as broadly summarised in paragraph [5] of these Reasons.
Despite long-term treatment from Dr AE, and the various other coping strategies and medication the Husband has utilised throughout his life, he remains highly reactive and prone to sudden and intense emotional dysregulation, most notably when under stress in his intimate or family relationships.
In an elevated state, I do not know what the Husband would be capable of. While there may be a low probability of him physically harming X (for instance, to get at the Wife), the potential harm that may arise is nonetheless unacceptable. The greater probability is that the Husband will harm himself while X is in his care, and which may put X at physical and emotional danger. His own comments about suicidality and homicidality, made at different times and to different people, is of enormous concern. So too is his commentary that he understood why women are sometimes physically harmed; his comments about the violent Queensland father are also chilling. He has perpetrated coercive and controlling family violence against the Wife; he has breached an AVO put in place to protect her.
When the Husband is heightened, he has little or no capacity to see anyone’s view but his own; he is devoid of empathy. He says things that frighten and unsettle people – seemingly without realising or appreciating it. These findings are consistent with the concerns expressed by Mr AL in the Family Report. [40] I add that although Mr AL thought it essential for the Husband to consult a therapist and to complete the standard AM Course if he was to maintain contact with X, the Husband rejected those recommendations in the witness box. He reasoned that: “I don’t believe I’m the problem in this relationship.” When taken to it later, Mr AL was dismayed; he pointed out that M Course specifically invites consideration of repeating negative patterns in a parent’s life.
The Husband cannot adequately manage strong negative emotions and, to be clear, he feels extremely strong negative emotions about the Wife. He has relentlessly denigrated her and shows no sign of changing that in the foreseeable future. His Affidavit speaks for itself. His statements about the Wife in the witness box were in much the same vein. He also denigrated the maternal grandmother. [41] In addition to all of the other risks the Husband poses to X, there is the near certainty that, given the opportunity, he will denigrate X’s mother to him at a very high level which would likely be quite damaging to him. This would be difficult, if not impossible, for X to manage. The situation would be even more damaging for X if the Husband became his primary carer as he seeks.

The Husband (who had a postgraduate degree in allied health care) was working in Town E as an allied health care worker. His income was around $120,000 per annum. Immediately prior to cohabitation, he had purchased the home at D Street, Town E for $500,000, taking out a mortgage of $450,000 to fund the purchase. He had used his savings of $70,000 to cover the balance of the purchase price, meet stamp duty and other related expenses and still had $5,000 in savings left over. He owned a Motor Vehicle 2. He suggests that his vehicle and associated furniture items were worth $40,000 in total but in my view these estimates do not constitute admissible evidence of value. All that I can safely find is that he owned substantially more furniture and chattels than the Wife did. The Husband’s superannuation balance is unclear but inferentially its balance was modest and certainly much less than the Wife’s. Notably, the Husband also had a substantial HECS debt of around $96,000.
On any analysis, the initial financial contributions substantially favour the Wife.
Contributions during the relationship
Upon moving into the Husband’s home at Town E, the Wife commenced paying $150 per week towards the mortgage. She was not yet employed; these contributions came from her cash savings. The Husband paid the greater share of the mortgage as well as covering the parties’ day-to-day living expenses. His doing so enabled the Wife to preserve the bulk of her savings, although it seems to have been a source of resentment for him. [46]
As a general statement, the Wife did nearly all of the cooking. She also did the washing and most of household cleaning; I accept her evidence that the Husband could not dust and vacuum as he was highly allergic to dust. To be fair to him, the Husband also worked consistently long hours, including on weekends where he assisted as an allied health worker at other locations so he had less spare time available. The parties shared the washing and the Husband took responsibility for the gardening and yard work.
Both parties worked, the Husband being a particularly hard worker as noted above.
In 2017 the Wife obtained work at Employer AV, earning an income of $45,000 per annum. Soon after, she discharged her modest HECS debt, and the Husband reduced his own HECS debt to $89,400.
In 2018 the Wife started studying externally for a further qualifications. The parties became engaged in 2018; the Wife’s engagement ring cost the Husband some $5,000.
In 2018 the Wife used her cash savings to purchase a Motor Vehicle 1 for $25,000. This is the car she still drives.
By mid 2018 the Husband was experiencing “burnout” at work. This was characterised by high levels of anxiety & depression and led to conflict with his employers. As a result the Husband took some stress leave and claimed workers’ compensation. His workers’ compensation income was equivalent to around eighty percent (80%) of his usual salary.
Shortly afterwards, the Wife increased her mortgage contributions from $150 to $200 per week. The Husband was still meeting the majority of the mortgage repayments and the day-to-day expenses.
By late 2018 the Husband had graduated back to full-time work.
Wedding & honeymoon
The parties married in 2019.
The Wife, who still had the bulk of her cash savings, paid around $10,700 for the wedding and associated honeymoon expenses, the Husband paid around $5,000 and each set of parents paid around $8,000.
Business, Town R”
Within a month or two of getting married, the Wife began contributing $250 per week to the mortgage, which was equivalent to half of the mortgage repayment.
By then the Husband was weary of his employers, who he considered were treating him unfairly. He left their employ, taking up subcontract work as an allied health worker for around three (3) months.
By then the Husband was actively pressing the Wife to go ahead with his dream purchase of a business in Town R. I have already addressed the background circumstances surrounding the purchase in paragraphs [47], [49], [50] and [51] of these Reasons and will not repeat myself.
The purchase of the business settled in 2019. The purchase price was $250,000 of which the Wife contributed $200,000 from her savings. The parties funded the difference by way of a business loan (for $148,000 in total) and they also took out an equipment loan for just under $130,000. At around the same time, the Wife withdrew the last $30,000 of her savings, placing them into a mortgage offset account.
The parties conducted both “the business Town R” and “Company O” from the same premises and, on accounting advice, both were conducted by the parties as an equal partnership. Each business had its own bank account, each was successful and the parties used the income from both businesses to meet their living and related expenses.
Once established, the Husband was very much the driving force behind the success of both businesses. He had the “vision” as it were, and the work ethic to make things happen. But the Wife also made substantial contributions that cannot be undervalued.
The business required a full-time manager and so in 2019 the Wife resigned from her employment to take up that role. She also put her University studies on hold for a time.
Life was hectic for both parties. It should also be remembered that the business was based in Town R, whereas the parties lived in Town E around an hour’s drive away. The parties were regularly leaving home at 7.45am and not getting home until after 7pm.
Both parties had difficulties with stress and anxiety, as noted earlier in these Reasons. Things would not have been helped by the fact that the Husband was rather a hard “taskmaster”; he regularly chastised the Wife for perceived mistakes on her part. And to be clear, I have no doubt that from time to time the Wife did make mistakes which the Husband (and seemingly other business employees at times) found frustrating. She was however doing her best in what were difficult circumstances. When it came to making business decisions, she deferred to the Husband.
In 2019 the Wife fell pregnant with X. For the first three (3) months of the pregnancy she suffered from morning sickness.
In the meantime, business was “booming”. The two (2) businesses complemented each other nicely. The business was able to cover the overheads for both businesses. They cross-referred clients. Moreover, the Husband also received referrals from his brother, a health care worker based in Town R.
In February 2020, the parties paid out the balance of the business loan (by then $99,000). To do so, they applied the Wife’s $30,000 which had been sitting in the mortgage offset a/c, the Husband’s 2019 tax refund of $24,000 and $45,000 in savings out of the Husband’s allied health business – which included an indeterminate amount of undeclared “cash” income.
Around February/March 2020, the Wife dropped back to around two (2) days per week at the business. She recommenced her University studies. The Wife’s role was primarily taken over by Ms AD (referred to earlier in these Reasons).
COVID-19
In late March 2020, as a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated public health orders, the parties were forced to abruptly close the business.
The parties did not know how long the business would be closed for; they were in a state of financial uncertainty and no doubt under enormous stress.
To their credit, they both did what was necessary in order to stay afloat financially.
The parties paused a number of their bill repayments. They negotiated with the landlord to pay half of the normal commercial lease payments for the business. Wife claimed Job Keeper payments; the Husband put considerable energy into his health care business. As he was not allowed to see patients at the business, he initially made arrangements to see them at a private residence in Town R (as well as at the parties’ own home in Town E). He later started seeing patients at a medical centre and at their own homes. In doing so, the Husband was both resourceful and hardworking. He also ran some training sessions on the weekends.
The Wife supported him by running errands, managing bookings and making him meals to take with him.
After about three (3) months, the business re-opened in June 2020 with harsh restrictions. Each parent’s family helped with the re-opening. Equipment had to be cleaned thoroughly and spaced out to meet social distancing requirements.
There was an influx of new clients after the re-opening. Although heavily pregnant, the Wife briefly returned to a managerial role, working three (3) days per week. Ms Q was then hired to take on the role of full-time manager.
The parties also hired a number of staff, including allied health workers. As always, the Husband worked long hours. When ‘Covid Marshall’ rules came into effect in August 2020, the Husband took on that role as well. Essentially this involved policing the relevant public health orders applicable to businesses. The parties also hired some additional staff for this purpose. Fortunately for the parties, the Covid Marshall rules were relaxed after a couple of months.
Around the same timeframe, the Husband picked up some four (4) weeks’ casual work as an allied health educator for AT School.
X
As noted earlier, X was born in 2020.
I have set out the relevant parenting history earlier in these Reasons and will not repeat myself. By way of summary, the Wife was X’s primary carer although the Husband did assist her. X’s medical issues and associated crying and sleep difficulties were extremely challenging for the parties and they both struggled to cope to some extent. They both benefitted from the paternal grandmother’s assistance and support.
Equipment loan paid out
In November 2020 the Husband paid out the balance of the equipment loan ($91,000). Some $56,000 of this came from savings he had accumulated in the business (including undeclared “cash” income of an indeterminate amount) and the rest came from savings from the business. The businesses were now debt-free.
During the relationship the Wife’s superannuation balance increased by around $16,500. Inferentially the Husband’s superannuation balance would also have increased although the evidence does not enable the increase to be quantified.
Post-separation contributions
Post-separation, the Wife stayed in the Town E home. She lived off $500 per week from the business (when it had sufficient money available), supplemented by modest Government benefits of $300 per week. At the same time, she also undertook some work in the local area as part of her qualifications.
The Wife had practically sole care of X as referred to earlier in these Reasons.
The Husband promptly changed his business to a ‘sole trader’ structure; the Wife was thereafter excluded from accessing the business bank account. But his work ethic could only get the Husband so far; it is clear that his mental health was spiralling downhill. After his suicide attempt in 2021 the Husband had to “step back” from the business for a while to focus on his own mental health.
In a practical sense the Wife had to take over the running of the business as best she could. She was bound to the franchise agreement. In running the business, she clearly required the assistance and support of Ms Q.
The Husband later wanted to take over the business but the parties were unable to reach an agreement about it.
There was obviously little or no effective communication between the parties at this stage. Each was doing what they felt they had to do to stay afloat financially. In February the Wife withdrew $7,650 from the business. The Husband withdrew $13,300, and a further $2,000 from the mortgage offset account. At the same time, the Husband removed the Wife’s access to the offset and mortgage accounts.
In April 2021, the Husband disconnected the home internet and tried to shut off the electricity as well. The Wife arranged to restore the internet and transferred the electricity account into her sole name.
Later that month, the Husband withdrew $10,430 from the business, applying $6,500 of that money towards his HECS debt. He advised the employees that the business was failing and that they should contact the Wife to talk about payment of their wages.
I accept the evidence of Ms Q that throughout this period the business floundered to some extent. (I otherwise place little weight on Ms Q’s Affidavit, given its plainly partisan nature and its denigrating commentary about the Wife.)
Cashflow had become problematic; there were ongoing wages, tax obligations and other bills to pay. The Wife had to stop paying the mortgage. When she tried to arrange a business overdraft, the Husband refused to agree to it.
In the end the parties agreed upon a “two-way authorisation” with the bank such that each party had to approve withdrawals. This seems to have worked adequately.
Interim payment to Wife
As referred to earlier, in May 2021 the Husband borrowed $80,000 from his parents to pay to the Wife. She then moved back to Sydney with X, living with the maternal grandparents. The Husband moved back into the home at Town E and has paid the Wife fairly nominal child support.
The Wife promptly purchased a property in Sydney, which is included in the Balance Sheet (together with the associated mortgage). She could not afford to live in it herself, instead renting it out for $400 per week, generating an income slightly less than the fortnightly mortgage repayments of $870. The Wife met the difference, in addition to the other property outgoings. By the time of the hearing the Wife, now working as an educator, had reduced the mortgage balance from $465,000 to $451,417.
In around late 2021, the parties agreed that the business would be sold to the Husband in exchange for a cash payment of $150,000 to be placed into a solicitor’s trust account. Of those funds $127,208 remains, the balance having been spent on single expert / valuation reports.
To fund the $150,000 payment, the Husband took out the business loan referred to in the Balance Sheet. By the time of the hearing he had reduced its balance down to $140,784.
In 2022, the Husband hired his partner, Ms P, as a casual employee of the business. He later moved with her into a rental home at Town R, while renting out the Town E home for $590 per week. The mortgage repayments are $1,063 per fortnight so he therefore has a modest income surplus although from this amount he pays the rates and other holding costs.
Weighing up the respective contributions
Although I have descended into significant financial particularity, the assessment of contributions is fundamentally a holistic rather than an accounting exercise. After all, how can a Court place a dollar value on homemaking and parenting contributions?
In my view, both parties made substantial contributions in their own spheres. The Wife had the seed capital; she earned an income; she made most of the homemaking contributions and, as a result of post-separation events she has made practically all of the parenting contributions. The Husband paid nominal child support but the Wife did have the benefit of the home from November 2020 until May 2021.
The Husband was a very hard worker; his drive and enthusiasm powered the business to a large extent.
Post-separation each party had to survive financially by making withdrawals from the business.
This was only a relatively short relationship. For the Wife, Mr Willoughby submitted that a 65% - 35% assessment of contributions in the Wife’s favour was “generous” to the Husband particularly given the Wife’s initial financial contributions, including not only her cash assets but also her higher superannuation balance. Mr Flanigan for the Husband contended for a 50/50 assessment.
I broadly accept Mr Willoughby’s submission and assess contributions as 65% to the Wife and 35% to the Husband – but limited to the non-superannuation property only. In relation to the superannuation interests of the parties, I consider that their current balances properly reflect their respective contributions to same, ie. no further adjustment is warranted on a contributions basis.
STEP 4 – ADJUSTMENTS FOR FUTURE FACTORS:
The Wife is 38 years old and employed as an educator. She earns $1,413 per week as an educator, $400 per week in rent, and receives $31 per week in child support and $84 per week by way of Family Tax Benefits. While she lives with the maternal grandparents, her living expenses are subsidised by them to some extent. Each week her income exceeds her expenses by just under $400 per week, or $3000 if Family Tax Benefits are disregarded.
The Wife has been able to accumulate savings; she is making extra mortgage repayments.
Apart from her longstanding history of anxiety, the Wife is in generally good health.
The Husband is 34 years old. He is a qualified allied health worker. He has a proven capacity for hard work (albeit with some vulnerabilities in terms of his mental health). He deposes that he earns $5,000 net per month as an allied health worker and $5,000 net per month through the business. [47] I broadly accept this evidence, noting that those income figures are different to, and higher than, the income figures he provided in his Financial Statement. Put shortly, he has a comfortable surplus of income over expenses in the order of $700 per week. Like the Wife, he has been able to pay down his debt. Despite his ongoing business modernisation requirements he has still been able to accumulate moneys in the bank. He has also been able to obtain finance for a new Motor Vehicle 3.
The Husband has a loyal client base and I am satisfied that he will continue to receive undeclared cash income as he always has. I reject his evidence that he stopped receiving any cash income after separation. It is impossible to put a figure on his undeclared income.
The Husband now cohabits with his partner, Ms P. She is now employed by the business on a full-time basis. She is presently undertaking an allied health course to increase her skills and become an allied health worker.
Ms P is paid $42 per hour, equating to $82,992 per annum (plus compulsory superannuation contributions). This is relatively generous; Mr AS’s single expert report considered the applicable payscale for a “health care manager” to be in the range of $48,000 - $72,000, ultimately adopting $60,000 as the mid-point.
The previous business manager Ms Q was paid $30 per hour.
Mr Willoughby submitted that Ms P’s “generous” terms of employment were relevant to the s.75(2) exercise. I do however accept the Husband’s evidence that Town R is a somewhat remote location and that the Husband had to match the income Ms P was previously earning elsewhere. Ultimately, I am satisfied that the Husband is diverting a little “cream” from the business to Ms P.
Going forward, the Husband will pay the minimum amount of child support that he reasonably can. He is motivated to take such an approach; in this respect as a business owner he has many advantages over an arms-length employee.
Both parties have a reasonable standard of living; the Wife does however live with her parents which is not likely to be a tenable long-term proposition. She will presumably want to obtain her own home with X at some point in the foreseeable future (or perhaps move into the rental home she bought once the mortgage has been paid down).
I accept that in the course of the marriage the Wife was able to re-train herself and to obtain another University degree which makes her more employable going forward.
Mr Willoughby contended that given the quantum of the assets in this case, an allowance of “at least 15%” to the Wife was appropriate. That is to say, he contended for an 80% - 20% division overall.
Mr Flanigan contended that, if the Wife was to have X on a full-time basis, then perhaps a 5% adjustment to the Wife would be appropriate.
Taking all of these matters into consideration, and looked at against the backdrop of the modest assets involved in this case, I accept Mr Willoughby’s submission and consider that a further adjustment of 15% in the Wife’s favour is appropriate – but with such adjustment limited to the value of the non-superannuation property only.
STEP 5 – CONSIDERING THE EFFECT OF MY FINDINGS / ENSURING A JUST & EQUITABLE OUTCOME:

On the basis of the above analysis, I have concluded that the net non-superannuation property should be divided as to 80% to the Wife and 20% to the Husband. Essentially the Wife will receive net non-superannuation assets of $497,518 and the Husband $124,380. Their respective superannuation balances will remain “as is”.
The Husband presently holds net assets of $328,460; the Wife holds net assets of $166,230. There is $127,208 presently held in trust.
To summarise, there needs to be an overall adjustment to the Wife of $331,288. In practical terms, this equates to her receiving the $127,208 held in trust, together with an additional $204,080. Given the equity in the Town E home he would have some prospects of being able to refinance so as to pay out the Wife; if not then the home may regrettably have to be sold.
I will give him a reasonable timeframe to arrange refinancing as required. Given my findings about the Husband’s attitudes and behaviours, I propose to put some protective restraints in place pending payment of the full settlement sum to the Wife.
The Wife seeks specific orders for sale of the Town E home in the event of the Husband’s default. It is appropriate to make those orders given the difficult nature of the matter and my other findings.
CONCLUSION & ORDERS:
For these reasons, I make the property orders set out at the commencement of the judgment.

I certify that the preceding three hundred and six (306) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Betts.
Associate:
Dated: 27 March 2023

[1] The relevant subpoenaed records form part of exhibit 7
[2] The relevant subpoenaed records form part of exhibit 6
[3] Husband’s affidavit, paragraph 25
[4] Husband’s affidavit, paragraph 31
[5] Husband’s affidavit, paragraph 32
[6] Husband’s intake form with AF Contact Centre, which forms part of exhibit 6
[7] Her report forms part of exhibit 6
[8] Her report forms part of exhibit 6
[9] Wife’s affidavit, paragraph 39
[10] See the GP’s note of 14/02/19 which forms part of exhibit 6
[11] Husband’s affidavit, paragraph 51.
[12] Wife’s affidavit, paragraph 101
[13] The Affidavit of the paternal grandmother also “whitewashes” her son’s behaviours
[14] The community health notes form part of exhibit 7
[15] Exhibit 8
[16] Wife’s affidavit, paragraph 106
[17] See the GP’s note of 17/11/20 which forms part of exhibit 6
[18] The parents went to the same medical centre and on 17/11/20 both contacted the same GP (Dr AU)
[19] Husband’s affidavit, paragraph 106
[20] Husband’s Affidavit, paragraph 107
[21] Husband’s Affidavit, paragraphs 109 & 110
[22] The Police note forms part of exhibit 7. It suggests that the visit was on 3/12/20 but the Wife deposes that the event occurred on 1/12/20. Whatever the true date, it seems to be one and the same event.
[23] The texts are annexure “C” to the Wife’s Affidavit
[24] The medical notes form part of exhibit 6
[25] See for instance his GP’s note of 12/01/21 which forms part of exhibit 6
[26] The GP note of 18/01/21 forms part of exhibit 6
[27] See the Police note of 19/01/23 which forms part of exhibit 7
[28] See the Hospital notes which form part of exhibit 7
[29] See the Hospital notes which form part of exhibit 7. I cannot discern the date of the entry, but it appears at pages 271 and 272 of the “Subpoena Bundle”
[30] See annexure “F” to the Wife’s Affidavit
[31] See Dr AE’s report to the Husband’s GP dated 27/07/21 which forms part of exhibit 7
[32] See annexure “F” to the Wife’s Affidavit
[33] Exhibit 5
[34] See annexure “J” to the Wife’s Affidavit
[35] See annexure “F” to the Wife’s Affidavit
[36] In the witness box he maintained that his comment was “fair” given his frustration at the time
[37] See annexure “F” to the Wife’s Affidavit
[38] Exhibit 6. Also see the last paragraph of [39] of these Reasons which is a direct quote from the same form
[39] See exhibit 7
[40] See particularly paragraphs 77-79, 82, 84 & 87
[41] Describing the maternal grandmother’s evidence in the Local Court proceedings, the Husband said: “It appears the apple does not fall far from the tree – Ms Jurak’s mother is where Ms Jurak gets her “acting skills” and lying from.
[42] Husband’s Affidavit, paragraph 62
[43] PEBITDA = “Proprietors’ Earnings Before Income Tax, Depreciation & Amortisation”. This methodology does not allow for deduction of a salary for the business owner
[44] EBITDA = “Earnings Before Income Tax, Depreciation & Amortisation”. This methodology assumes that the business owners are being fully paid.
[45] Paragraph 9.2.1(ii) of the report (page 32)
[46] See for instance paragraph 28 of the Husband’s Affidavit
[47] Husband’s Affidavit, paragraphs 159 & 160

File number(s):	NCC 1609 of 2021
Judgment of:	JUDGE BETTS
Date of judgment:	27 March 2023
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – Parenting – one child, aged two – where the child has lived with the mother and spent very limited time with the father since separation – where the father has a history of family violence stemming from his volatile, aggressive and dysregulated behaviour – where the father has a long history of mental health issues – where the father chose to cease his supervised visits with the child in January 2022 – where the mother and ICL seek a “no time and no communication” order – where the father seeks that the child live with him and spend regular time with the mother – where the father would rather spend no time with the child than accept any order for supervision – where the Court must determine whether or not the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm for the child – best interests. FAMILY LAW – Property – where the parties agree that the combined net assets come in at under $1M – where the Court must consider the contributions and the allowance (if any) for future needs – where the wife seeks an 80% - 20% division – where the husband seeks an approximately equal division – just and equitable.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), Pt VII and Pt VIII NSW Mental Health Act
Cases cited:	Hickey & Hickey and Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia (Intervener) (2003) FLC 93-143 M & M (1988) FLC 91-979 MRR & GR (2010) FLC 93-424 Stanford & Stanford (2012) FLC 93-518
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	306
Date of last submission/s:	1 February 2023
Date of hearing:	30, 31 January and 1 February 2023
Place:	City AJ
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Willoughby
Solicitors for the Applicant:	AH Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Flanigan
Solicitors for the Respondent:	AP Lawyers
Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer:	Legal Aid NSW City AJ Family Law

NCC 1609 of 2021
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MS JURAK Applicant
AND:	MR JURAK Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE BETTS
DATE OF ORDER:	27 MARCH 2023