Kannan & Kannan
[2021] FCCA 1359
•18 June 2021
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Kannan & Kannan [2021] FCCA 1359
File number(s): PAC 2277 of 2020 Judgment of: JUDGE OBRADOVIC Date of judgment: 18 June 2021 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Interim Parenting – allegations of violence – non-compliance with orders – best interest of child – assessment of risk – children to live with father. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 61C Cases cited: Goode v Goode [2006] FamCA 1346
Keats & Keats [2016] FamCAFC 156Number of paragraphs: 133 Date of last submission/s: 11 June 2021 Date of hearing: 9 and 11 June 2021 Place: Parramatta Appearing for the Applicant: Applicant in person and subsequently Ms Al Hashimi as amicus curiae Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Livingstone Solicitor for the Respondents: Taylor & Scott Lawyers Appearing for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Gina and Ms Rutkowska Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ark Lawyers ORDERS
PAC 2277 of 2020 BETWEEN: MS KANNAN
Applicant
AND: MR KANNAN
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE OBRADOVIC
DATE OF ORDER:
18 JUNE 2021
THE COURT ORDERS PENDING FURTHER ORDER THAT:
1.The mother's Applications in a Case filed 24 March 2021 and 8 April 2021 are dismissed.
2.Pursuant to s.65D(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the interim parenting orders made on 27 November 2020 are discharged.
3.The children, X born in 2015 and Y born in 2019, shall live with the father and to facilitate same, the mother shall deliver the children to the father's residence at 6pm on 18 June 2021.
4.Commencing on 14 July 2021, the children shall spend time with the mother as follows:
(a)For a period of 4 weeks:
(i)Each Wednesday from 5.30pm until 7.30pm; and
(ii)Each Sunday from 12.00pm until 6.00pm.
(b)Thereafter:
(i)Each Wednesday from 5.30pm until 7.30pm; and
(ii)Each alternate weekend from 3pm on Friday until 6pm on Sunday;
(c)And at all other such time as agreed to between the parents in writing.
5.The parents shall not hinder, prevent or discourage the children from initiating communication with the other parent at all reasonable times and, for the purposes of same, the parents shall do all acts and things necessary to ensure their mobile telephones (until such time as the children have their own mobile telephone) are able to facilitate communication with the other parent.
6.The parents shall be at liberty of communicating with the children by phone and/or video conferencing (such as FaceTime and other such applications) on the days they do not spend time with the children between 7pm and 7.30pm.
7.Except as otherwise agreed between the parents in writing and where changeover does not occur at the children’s school and/or day care, changeover shall occur at Coles Suburb B.
8.The parents shall keep each other informed of any change to their residential addresses, landline numbers, mobile telephone numbers and personal email addresses within 24 hours of such change taking place.
9.The parents shall communicate and promptly respond to each other by phone, email or text message in a respectful and conciliatory manner as and when reasonably practicable or necessary and limit such communication to issues concerning the children.
10.Each parent shall ensure the other is advised promptly of any medical emergency or significant illness suffered by, or relating to, the children including sufficient details regarding such illness or condition and any treatment.
11.Neither parent shall denigrate the other parent or anyone associated with that parent in the presence or hearing of the children, and shall forthwith remove them from any third party doing so.
12.Neither parent shall harass the other parent about making changes to these Orders.
13.Neither parent shall discuss with the children these proceedings, or changes to these orders, or permit any other person other than the Independent Children's Lawyer to do so.
14.The parents shall be at liberty to provide a copy of these Orders to any third party necessary to ensure compliance with these Orders or as required.
15.The father is restrained by injunction from:
(a)Consuming alcohol to excess while the children are in his care or for 12 hours before the children come into his care;
(b)Using any form of physical discipline on the children or otherwise hitting or assaulting the children or permitting any third party from doing so.
16.Pursuant to s.62G(2) of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) the parties and the children of the relationship attend upon a family consultant nominated by the Dispute Resolution Coordinator of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on a date and at time/s to be advised for the purposes of the preparation of a family report.
17.The Family Report to deal with the following matters:
(a)Any views expressed by the children the subject of parenting orders sought in this case, provided that the children shall not be required to express a view in relation to any matter.
(b)The nature of the relationships of the children with each of the children’s parents and with significant other persons.
(c)The willingness and ability of each of the children’s parents to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the children and the other parent.
(d)The likely effect of any changes in the children’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the children of any separation from:
(i)either of the parents: or
(ii)any other child, or significant person, with whom the children have been living.
(e)The practical difficulty and expense of the children spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the children’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis.
(f)The capacity of each parent, or another person, to provide for the needs of the children, including emotional and intellectual needs.
(g)The maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the children and of either of the children’s parents and any other characteristics of the children that the reporter thinks are relevant.
(h)Each parent’s attitude to the children and to the responsibilities of parenthood.
(i)Any family violence involving the children or a member of the children’s family.
(j)Such other issues as the Family Consultant considers relevant.
18.The parties shall attend all appointments with the Family Consultant and shall ensure the subject children attend all appointments with the Family Consultant, as requested by the Family Consultant.
19.The Family Consultant may inspect the Court file.
20.Upon the report being provided to the Court, the Court will provide a copy to each party (or if represented the party’s lawyer) and to any Independent Children’s Lawyer in the proceedings.
21.Unless a party objects, in writing, within 14 days of the date of releasing the Report, copies of the Report may further be provided to the following, if the Court is requested to do so for a purpose related to the care, welfare or development of the children to whom these proceedings relate:
(a)A Children’s Court;
(b)A child protection authority;
(c)A State or Territory Legal Aid Authority; and
(d)A convener of any legal dispute resolution conference.
22.Unless otherwise ordered, no person shall release the Report, or provide access to the Report to any other person.
23.The matter is to be listed on a date to be advised following release of the Family Report.
24.The Independent Children’s Lawyer has liberty to have the matter restored to the list on 3 days’ notice.
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 under the pseudonym Kannan & Kannan is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE OBRADOVIC:
These parenting proceedings concern 2 year old Y and 5 year old X. The parents are in bitter dispute as to where the children should live and about the risks which the children may be exposed to in each of the parents’ households.
Since the commencement of the proceedings in May 2020, this matter has been before the Court on 9 occasions in just over 12 months. Each of the parties have been recalcitrant in complying with Court orders.
It is important to understand the chronology of the proceedings and the orders which have from time to time been pronounced, particularly in light of the various allegations which have been made. There are now over 50 documents which appear on the Court file, including some 29 affidavits, numerous subpoenas, and 3 applications for interim orders (not including the application for interim orders contained in the Initiating Application, subsequently amended). Not all of the filed affidavits were read at the interim hearing, which was started on 9 June 2021 and was stood over part-heard to 11 June 2021, and which these reasons for judgment relate to.
At the interim hearing on 9 and 11 June 2021, the parties relied on the following affidavits:
a.In the mother’s case:
i.Affidavit of Ms Kannan filed 18 May 2020;
ii.Affidavit of Ms Kannan filed 21 May 2020;
iii.Affidavit of Ms Kannan filed 24 July 2020;
iv.Affidavit of Ms Kannan filed 18 November 2020;
v.Affidavit of Ms Kannan filed 26 February 2021;
vi.Affidavit of Ms Kannan filed 18 March 2021;
vii.Affidavit of Ms Kannan filed 26 March 2021;
viii.Affidavit of Ms Kannan filed 7 April 2021; and
ix.Affidavit of Ms Kannan filed 10 June 2021.
b.In the father’s case:
i. Affidavit of Mr Kannan filed 26 April 2021; and
j. Affidavit of Mr Kannan filed 8 June 2021.
The father relied on his Case Outline document which was filed on 8 June 2021, and Exhibit 1 being an email from the mother’s former solicitor, Ms C, to the father’s solicitor and the Independent Children’s Lawyer, dated 13 May 2021.
At the interim hearing on 9 and 11 June 2021, the Independent Children’s Lawyer relied on a Case Outline document filed 8 June 2021, but no documents were tendered.
Despite numerous subpoenas which were issued, there was no material from the police, the Department of Communities and Justice (“DCJ”), or any other source placed before the Court at the interim hearing, except as noted above.
Agreed Facts
The parties were married in 2014.
The parties moved to Australia in 2014.
There are two children of the relationship, X, who was born in 2015 and Y, who was born in 2019.
The father left the former matrimonial home with X on 21 March 2020. Y remained living with the mother.
X lived with the father from 21 March 2020 until 4 May 2020, after which time he lived with the mother.
Between 4 May 2020 and 13 June 2020, the father did not spend any time with the children.
On 25 May 2020, interim orders were made for the children to live with the mother and spend time with the father.
On 13 June 2020 the father commenced spending supervised time with the children. There were no less than 18 supervised visits between 13 June 2020 and 25 October 2020.
On 27 November 2020, orders were made by consent of the parties for the children to live with the mother and to spend time with the father each Wednesday from 5.30pm to 7.30pm and each Sunday from 12noon to 6pm and at any other time as agreed in writing.
The children spent time with the father pursuant to the interim orders only on one occasion, namely 29 November 2020. Thereafter time was not facilitated by the mother, except as noted below at [20].
On 24 March 2021, the father attended X’s school and collected him. Thereafter the father retained X in his care until 20 April 2021, when he returned to live with the mother. The child did not attend school between 24 March 2021 and the end of the school term on 1 April 2021.
On 20 April 2021, the mother collected X from school and X did not return to school until orders were made on 9 June 2021, directing the mother to re-enrol the child into school.
The children spent time with the father on 10 June 2021 from 6pm to 8pm, pursuant to orders made on 9 June 2021.
Chronology of Proceedings
The substantive proceedings were commenced by the mother filing an Initiating Application on 18 May 2020. An Amended Initiating Application was then filed on 21 May 2020. The mother sought orders both on a final and interim basis that the children live with her, and that they spend time with the father as agreed between the parents, except for the purposes of the interim application the children’s time was to be supervised by an agreed supervisor.
The matter was listed for first return, on an urgent basis, on 25 May 2020. At that time, the father had not filed any material. Both of the parties were represented at the first court event, and the matter was stood down to allow the parties time to have some discussions.
During the course of the day, the docket judge said:
But in the interim period, I don’t want the parties being in a situation where nobody knows where the children are living and the parties being in circumstances where they are frightened that one or the other might take a particular child off the other parent.
(Transcript 25.05.2020, page 4, lines 26-30).
There was ultimately consent to the children’s names being listed on the Airport Watch List (Transcript 25.05.2020, page 4, line 7), and to both children living with the mother until the interim hearing (Transcript 25.05.2020, page 7, line 34). The parties could not reach agreement about the children’s time with the father, and an order was made for the children to spend time with the father as agreed between the parents in writing. The mother’s interim application was given a hearing date of 31 July 2020.
The father filed a Response, his affidavit and a notice of risk on 26 May 2020, and an Amended Response on 29 July 2020. The May response sought both interim and final orders, however, the amended Response only sought orders on a final basis, namely that the children live with him and spend time with the mother. The case outline document filed by the father on 29 July 2020, clearly indicated that the father was seeking orders at the interim hearing on 31 July 2020 inter alia for the children to live with the mother, and spend time with the father from 4pm on Friday to 6pm on Sunday.
On 31 July 2020, the parties were invited to have discussions while the Court dealt with other matters. There was agreement about video calls, but the mother pressed for the children’s time with the father to be supervised. Ultimately when the matter was called on in the late afternoon, it did not proceed to interim hearing as the father’s solicitor had not had the opportunity of inspecting the subpoenaed material, and consequently was not ready. Both parties were legally represented, the mother by counsel. The interim hearing was adjourned to 27 November 2020.
On 27 November 2020, the parties both pressed their interim applications. By that stage, the father had been spending supervised time with the children from June 2020, and the reports of the supervised visits were available to the Court. The mother was represented by counsel and also present during the hearing was her solicitor. The father was self-represented. The matter was stood down ultimately to 2.15pm to commence. Prior to the commencement of the interim hearing, the Court was invited to make interim orders by consent between the parties. The matter was listed for directions on 29 March 2021.
On 7 December 2020, the father filed an Application in a Case, which was given a return date of 8 March 2021. On 8 December 2020, the father filed an Amended Application in a Case asking for orders, “that the mother comply with the consent orders” made on 27 November 2020. The mother filed a response to the interim application seeking a suspension of the orders made on 27 November 2020, and for an order that the children spend supervised time with the father.
On 8 March 2021, the first return date of the father’s application in case, the father, who was self-represented, pressed for an urgent interim hearing. The mother was represented by a solicitor. The Court noted that the mother had now made new and very serious allegations. The matter was listed for interim hearing at 2.15pm on 10 March 2021.
On 10 March 2021, the Court heard the father’s interim application (as contained in his amended application filed on 8 December 2020), and the mother’s response to it. The mother’s solicitor, who had represented the mother on 8 March 2021, withdrew on the afternoon of the hearing. The mother was subsequently assisted by a duty solicitor. The Court delivered short form oral reasons dismissing the mother’s application for the suspension of the orders made on 27 November 2020, and confirmed that the parties had an obligation to comply with orders. The Court in its oral reasons initially erroneously referred to there being no application for a variation or discharge of the orders, which was later clarified. The Court had regard to the mother’s affidavit, as well as the father’s affidavit, and it was not satisfied that there was an immediate risk to the children or an unacceptable risk of harm to the children. The Court noted the allegations had been reported to the relevant authorities and that those authorities were not going to take the matter any further.
On 18 March 2021, the mother filed a new Application in a Case, which was given a return date of 28 April 2021. The document was sealed by the Court on 24 March 2021. The mother sought a suspension of the orders made on 27 November 2020, and that the children spend time with the father in a public place.
The matter had the next listing on 29 March 2021. The mother was on this occasion represented by a new solicitor and the father was self-represented. The mother’s solicitor indicated to the Court that the mother’s position was that there was not full evidence before the Court in relation to the conduct of the mother’s solicitors when she signed the consent orders on 27 November 2020. It was then disclosed that X had been retained by the father and that the father was refusing to return him to the mother’s care. Ultimately, the parties consented to an order that X be returned to the mother’s care on 30 March 2021, and that the orders of 27 November 2020 continue to operate.
On 7 April 2021, the mother filed a further application in a case, seeking a recovery order for X. That application was given a return date of 28 April 2021. On 26 April 2021, the father filed a response to the application in a case, seeking that the children live with him on an interim basis.
On 28 April 2021, the mother’s two interim applications came before the Court. Both parties were represented, the father by counsel on this occasion. Through her solicitor, the mother indicated that she will comply with existing orders of 27 November 2020, subject to the father also undertaking same. The father, through his counsel, indicated that he would comply with Court orders. By that stage, X was back living with the mother, although Y had not spent any time with the father since late November 2020. It was noted by the Court, that the father undertook not to approach either of the children’s school or day care, or the mother’s home or any other place the children might be, except in accordance with orders.
The interim applications were adjourned for mention or possible interim hearing to 9 June 2021.
On 17 May 2021, the mother’s solicitor filed a Notice of Withdrawal as Lawyer.
On 9 June 2021, the father through his counsel, pressed for orders that the children live with him on an interim basis. The mother was self-represented, and sought an adjournment. The matter was subsequently adjourned part-heard and the mother was directed to file further evidence.
There are some erroneous references by the Court, which are evident from the transcript for example on 29 March 2021, of references to previous orders for supervised time and then progressing to unsupervised time. There has never been an order for supervised time, but supervised time did occur for a number of months. There had initially been an order for time as agreed, and then for time on Wednesdays and Sundays and otherwise as agreed.
The mother’s evidence
As noted earlier in these reasons, the mother relies on a number of affidavits in support of the orders she now seeks on an interim basis. The mother’s evidence is summarised below.
Affidavit of 18 May 2020
The affidavit of 18 May 2020 was the first affidavit the mother filed in the proceedings. It was on the basis of the material contained in that affidavit that she sought for a listing at short notice and for interim orders to be made on an urgent basis when the matter commenced, for the children to live with her and spend time with the father as agreed between the parents.
The mother alleged in that first affidavit that the following incidents of physical violence were perpetrated by the father against her:
13. One incident that I remember in particular was on or about 20 September 2014. Mr Kannan strangled me because I would not give him jewellery of mine or money that my father had given to me for living expenses in Australia. This incident took place in the kitchen of my sister in law and brother in laws (sic) place in Suburb D…
15. When I was about six to seven months pregnant with X. I could not do the housework. It was around this time that Mr Kannan strangled me again. He put his hands around my neck very tightly and he said to me “you will keep doing household duties even if you are pregnant”. His hands were around my neck for about three to four minutes. We were standing up and in the bedroom. I was screaming and found it very difficult to breath. Mr Kannan eventually let go of my neck….
19. In 2018, X’s third birthday, I was in the kitchen. Mr Kannan started arguing with me about household duties. Mr Kannan then put his hands around my neck and strangled me. Whilst having his hands around my neck, he pulled me into the living room and pushed me towards the sofa and said, “don’t argue with me”. He kept his hands around my neck for about five minutes. X was watching. Mr Kannan said to me, “I will do like this to you if you argue back.”
33. Around January 2020, I was in the washroom. Mr Kannan was in the bedroom with X and I could hear him hitting him. I came out of the room and said to Mr Kannan, “stop it”. Mr Kannan then grabbed my face with his hand and was squeezing my face tightly. I pushed Mr Kannan off me and said: “today is the last day”. I took my phone and went to leave the property to call the police. Mr Kannan said, “please don’t’ go, please don’t go, I am sorry.”
The mother alleged in that first affidavit that the following incidents of physical violence were perpetrated by the father and/or his mother against X:
18. The first time Mr Kannan was violent towards X that I can recall was when he was about five months old. It was the first week in 2015. Mr Kannan was drunk and yelling at me about uncomfortable housing arrangements. He said, “you are preventing me from being rich and you are both a financial burden on me”. X was crying and Mr Kannan then hit X with an open palm on his face. I tried to intervene, and Mr Kannan pulled my hair. I said, “I will go out of the property of you don’t stop”. He said, “don’t go” and then he fell asleep. I observed Mr Kannan hit X with an open palm on the face with considerable force a number of times”.
22. In about December 2018, Mr Kannan hit X with considerable force across the face. I stepped in front of Mr Kannan to try to stop him and Mr Kannan strangled me. I was about four months pregnant with Y. I said, “if you don’t stop, I will call the police”. Mr Kannan said, “please don’t call the police, I am sorry”.
23. On or about 26 January 2019, X wet his pants. I witnessed Mr Kannan him across the face, very hard. I tried to intervene, and my mother in law said, “Ms Kannan, stay away, let us teach him”. I said, “I am going to report you to police if you do not stop”. It was around this time that I became aware that Mr Kannan and my mother in law were rubbing mustard oil on X’s penis. I remember seeing that X was red around his genital area. X said to me words to the effect, “it hurts” and “I don’t like it”. Mr Kannan and I took X to the doctor. The doctor said to Mr Kannan words to the effect, “don’t do it”. The doctor prescribed some cream.
25. On an evening in the first week of May 2019, my mother in law locked X in the laundry room and was hitting him in the dark with no light on. I heard X screaming and crying “Daadi I am scared, please open the door.”… I was in the kitchen and noticed… what sounded like X trying to open the door. I was heavily pregnant and having contractions and could not intervene… On another occasion during that week I witnessed my mother in law hit X across the face with considerable force in an attempt to make him go to sleep in the afternoon. X was crying and said, “save me Mummy”. My mother in law left the room and went to a neighbour’s place…”
28. On or about 25 May 2019, X was sitting on a mattress in the living room. Mr Kannan and my mother in law were forcing him to eat uncooked Indian lentils. X said “I don’t like this”. Mr Kannan and his mother both said, “you have to eat this”. I came out of the bedroom where I had been with my daughter and I witnessed Mr Kannan grab X around his neck and throw him on the bed. Mr Kannan then hit X on the face a few times with an open palm. X was screaming. X was scared and then got the spoon and tried to eat the food. X vomited. I tried to get X and said, “don’t do this”. They both said, “get away from here”. I said, “I am going to report you”. Mr Kannan and his mother stopped. They knew I had been disclosing violence to Ms E and they were scared this would have an impact on Mr Kannan’s visa.
30. On 28 September 2019, Mr Kannan and his mother locked X in one of the bedrooms and they were physically abusing him in an attempt to teach him how speak. I was in the living room with my daughter. I saw Mr Kannan and his mother take X into one of the bedrooms. Mr Kannan had an aluminium stick. I do not know how this stick came into our home. I heard Mr Kannan hitting X with aluminium stick. I heard Mr Kannan throw X against the door and it sounded like he was slapping him. X was screaming. Mr Kannan and his mother would not let me in the room. I was so distressed. I yelled out to Mr Kannan and his mother and said, “I am calling the police”. I contacted the 000, and by this time they had let X out of the room. I told police that it was a test call and that if I needed further assistance I would call again. Mr Kannan said, “please don’t call police, we will stop”.
33. Around January 2020, I was in the washroom. Mr Kannan was in the bedroom with X and I could hear him hitting him. I came out of the room and said to Mr Kannan, “stop it”. Mr Kannan then grabbed my face with his hand and was squeezing my face tightly. I pushed Mr Kannan off me and said: “today is the last day”.
34. On or about 1 March 2020, I had to leave for work in the morning. Mr Kannan, his mother and X were in the living room. I witnessed Mr Kannan and his mother trying to force X to eat food he did not like for breakfast. Mr Kannan hit X on the face with an open palm. X was crying and kept on vomiting and said to me, “please save me mumma”. X had a red mark on his face from being hit. I said, “stop it”. I tried to get to X but Mr Kannan stood in front of me. Mr Kannan screamed at me and said, “just get out and get money from work”. I said, “I am going to call the police if you keep doing this”. Mr Kannan said, “please don’t call the police”.
The mother alleged in that first affidavit that the following incidents of violence were perpetrated by the father and/or his mother against Y:
31. Once my daughter was born, I would always comfort her in my lap when she was distressed. In the first week of October 2019, Y was crying and in her baby bouncer, Mr Kannan and my mother in law prevented me from taking Y out of the bouncer…. He screamed at me and said “don’t’ take the baby.” He then shouted at Y and said “no one will take you in their lap. Be quiet.”
The mother said that she disclosed the family violence to a social worker at F Hospital where she was receiving care during her pregnancy with Y. The mother says that she was advised to call the police, but that she did not do so as she was too scared that the father would become even more violent. The mother said in her evidence that the father and her mother in law knew that she was making disclosures to the social worker.
The mother says, in what appears to be contradictory evidence, that during the parties’ relationship she felt the need to contact the police multiple times but did not follow through with it (paragraph 35). She then goes on to say, when referring to the parties’ physical separation in March 2020 that she believed “Mr Kannan no longer wanted to be with me because he was afraid I would continue to contact NSW Police and report his violent behaviour towards my children and me” (paragraph 37). The mother says further, at paragraph 57, that she attended Suburb B Police, it appears in early May 2020, to report her concerns. The mother deposes that “The office looked up my details in the system and it appeared to me she could see that there were previous police reports.” It is therefore unclear whether the mother reported any of the alleged incidents of violence to the police prior to the parties’ separation.
Affidavit of 21 May 2020
The mother’s second affidavit, filed on 21 May 2020, contains evidence going to the risk of the children being removed from Australia. The mother deposed that she held X’s passport and that Y did not have a passport. She had concerns however, that the father would somehow be able to obtain a new Indian passport for X. Those concerns do not appear to be based on any objective facts. The mother also sought to correct her evidence in paragraph 25 of the first affidavit, saying that the paternal grandmother was not hitting X on this occasion.
Affidavit of 24 July 2020
The mother’s third affidavit, filed 24 July 2020, relates to events which occurred after the orders of the Court were made on 25 May 2020. In her third affidavit, the mother is critical of the father, for what appear to be minor infractions of the service agreement with the supervision centre. Annexed to her affidavit are not only correspondence from her solicitors to the father raising these complaints, but also the supervision reports from 13 June 2020 to 19 July 2020.
Correspondence was sent from the mother’s solicitor on 28 May 2020, about the video calls which the father had been having with the children, suggesting that the father was using this time to negotiate with the mother about parenting arrangements for the children and that the mother was not to be contacted directly about this, but that rather it was to go through the solicitor. The father was advised that the mother is agreeable to the children having supervised time with him but that she could not afford to pay for a private contact service, and that as he was unwilling to pay for a private contact service the mother would do the intake process for the Region H Children’s Contact Service.
The supervised visit contact reports (through a private supervision service which the father paid for) speak of a warm and loving relationship between the children and the father, and their attachment to him. For example, on 13 June 2020 “X was very happy to see his Dad and grandmother. He gave his Dad a bit hug… Y started to cry, appearing a little unsure of the situation. She cried as Dad walked from the street up to the playground, Dad reassured her and she settled quickly and was then content.” There were many other examples of the father’s capacity to provide for the needs of the children and positive interactions between the father and the children contained in those reports.
After the first supervised contact on 13 June 2020, the mother’s solicitors wrote to the father in respect of the paternal grandmother being present, and that the paternal grandmother attempted to approach the mother in an “intimidating manner…[the mother] is not agreeable to your mother having any contact with the children.” The letter also raised concerns about the father giving the children toys.
The mother raises in her third affidavit many concerns about the father continuing to emotionally manipulate X by promising him toys and attempting to give him toys. These concerns are not necessarily borne out from the father’s behaviours as recorded in the reports.
The mother also gives evidence that since X had come into her care on 4 May 2020, that he had said to her on several occasions “Pappa hit me at J’s house” and “K scratchted my face at Papa’s house”. J and K are the children of the father’s de facto partner.
Affidavit of 2 November 2020
The mother’s fourth affidavit, filed 2 November 2020, repeats the allegations of family violence made by the mother in her first affidavit and it also speaks to the further supervised visits the children have had with the father.
The mother explains in her fourth affidavit about an allegation which X made during the supervised visit about the mother hitting him on 5 July 2020. On that occasion the police attended the mother’s home in respect of the complaint. According to the mother, the police named the father’s de-facto partner by her first name as the person making the complaint.
Annexed to the fourth affidavit are further supervised contact visit reports, which again speak of a warm and loving relationship between the children and the father, his capacity to meet their needs, and it also appears from the face of those documents a capacity to put the children’s needs above his own in circumstances which were from time to time immensely frustrating for him.
The reports also indicate that Y, while appearing to be very comfortable with the father, did not appear to be comfortable with the supervisor. For example on 22 July 2020, the supervisor noted (as the father needed to take the children’s cousin to the bathroom) that “Y was very upset. I held her and reassured her as much as I could but she didn’t settle until Dad returned. He was gone for no more than 2 minutes. She then snuggled into dad and was immediately settled by Dad.” On 13 September 2020, the supervisor noted “Y’s legs were flapping about with excitement trying to get out of the pram to get to Dad…” On 20 September 2020, the supervisor noted:
X was very excited to go to the play centre. He had a great time and loved it however given that Y won’t go to me it was difficult at times for dad to have one on one time with X. Dad did his best to engage X as well as manage Y.
Y was unsure of the environment. She spent a lot of time looking at the equipment and other children around her… She was very content being held and interacting with dad. I attempted once to hold her while her dad went on a ride with X but she cried instantly and wouldn’t settle.
On 23 August 2020, during the supervised time between the children and the father, Y had a little fall, which was described by the supervisor as follows: “Y was standing independently on the footpath and lost her balance. She fell forward, scratching her nose. Dad was right beside her and picked her up straight away and checked her over. He reassured her as she was crying… She cried for approximately 2 mins and then settled once she got the bottle. She didn’t cry after this. I checked her over and noticed that she had taken some skin off her nose. There was small amount of blood consistent with a grazed nose. She was settled and in my opinion did not warrant medical treatment.” X also had a fall during the same visit. At handover back to the mother, X told mum that he had fallen before the supervisor had the chance to say anything to the mother. She then explained that Y had also had a fall, explaining that she had just lost her balance. The mother’s reaction is noted as follows:
Mum became very concerned. She instantly took her phone out of her pocket and she took a photo of Y’s nose. She asked “when did this happen?” in a very concerned voice. “Did you try to call me?” … [the supervisor then explained what had happened]
Mum physically started deep breathing and appeared to start hyper ventilating. I asked her if she was ok. She said that Y needed to stay in her pram for the entire time while at contact… She took her phone and dialled a number saying she wondered if the medical centre was still open. She started making an attempt to leave… she … left in a rush.
That same evening, the service manager received an email from the mother complaining about the incident and attached photos of the injury. The mother stated that Y had been returned in a “medically unfit condition”. The mother described the injury as “severe bleeding” and asked why no one had attempted to take the child to hospital.
The mother alleged in her fourth affidavit the following emotional and psychological abuse directly involving the children, said by the father during video calls occurring prior to July 2020 and during supervised time:
·Comments by the father to X such as “Do you miss me, can you give me kisses, can I come and see you? …. Mumma will call the police if I come to your house.”
·Inappropriate questioning of X by the father such as “who told you I hit you?” and “I just wanted you to see she is brainwashing him.”
The mother also relies on X saying to the supervisor the following words “do you know my Papa’s name, he lives at Papa’s house. He hit me at Papa’s house. He called Police when I hit him” as evidence of violence perpetrated by the father against X. The child’s words are difficult to understand, and are on their face confusing. On one reading of them, the words suggest that the child is not only alleging that someone hit him at the father’s home, but that someone called the police when the child hit him. The mother’s interpretation of these words as evidence of violence by the father against X is concerning.
Affidavit of 26 February 2021
The fifth affidavit relied upon by the mother was filed on 26 February 2021.
The mother deposes in that affidavit that the only reason why she signed the consent orders of 27 November 2020, was because her solicitor had told her that orders which were by consent would be changed if anything went wrong. She says that she signed the orders for that reason, notwithstanding that she continued to have concerns for the children in the father’s care.
On Sunday, 29 November 2020 the children spent unsupervised time with the father for the first and only time after the making of the orders on 27 November 2020.
The mother says that after the children’s time with the father, Y was not behaving like she usually did and that X had told her “Papa was changing Y’s clothes and her nappy and Y was crying a lot”. Apparently, that night Y did not sleep well which was unusual for her. She then saw a photograph of the children with the father and the paternal grandmother on WhatsApp, in which Y was wearing different clothing to that which the mother had dressed her in that morning. The mother said that the picture caused her concern, “Given the way that I had dressed her for the visit, there was no reason or the father to take Y’s clothes off”.
The following day the mother noticed Y to continue to act strangely. She noticed redness around her vagina, and Y attempting to put toys down the back of her pants, something she had not done before. Y was also apparently making “unusual circular movement with her hip”, and was unable to pass her stool, grabbing her stomach and making strange noises.
On 30 November 2020, the mother observed Y, while Y was in the shower, put her finger into her vagina, jabbing her finger in. This she had not observed the child to do before. The mother then goes on to say that she tried to put a toy in her bottom, something which she had also never done before.
The mother called the Child Protection Helpline and was apparently told “this is sexual abuse” and to stop contact between the children and the father until further notice. She called the Child Protection Line on two other occasions over the following two days, and was apparently told not to make the children available to spend time with the father.
On 2 December 2020, the mother made a report to the police. She says she was told that if she had concerns to take the child to a doctor.
The mother did not make the children available to spend time with the father on 2 December 2020.
On 4 December 2020, the mother called the DCJ. She says that she was told on that occasion that the DCJ was not running an investigation into the matter. That same day, the DCJ emailed the mother’s solicitor and advised as follows:
I am aware that today the father has been provided a (sic) email that indicates that DCJ are completing an assessment and that we have advised the mother that the children are not to have contact with him during the assessment.
I confirm that this is not true…
The mother asked for a letter stating that the children could not have contact and that she did not agree with the father have any contact in the first place.
I confirm that I told the mother that we could not provide the letter and that she should seek legal advice…
At no time was the mother told that we would be completing the investigation. I also told her that we would not tell her that the children could or could not have contact with the father and she needed to seek legal advice regarding this.
I have spoken to the father and his partner today… I confirm that I told them that the DCJ are not completing an investigation and that DCJ also did not advise that the children should not have contact.
Also annexed to the mother’s affidavit is a referral to Dr L from the Suburb B Medical Centre indicating that Y has “signs and symptoms of vulvo-vaginitis. However the mother is worried about possible abuse by the father.” While there is no explanation as to what vulvo-vaginitis is in the doctor’s referral, there is no indication of any concern of sexual or other abuse of the child, by the medical practitioner who appears to have examined the child. It is inferred that it is likely that the medical practitioner explained the nature of the inflammation to the mother and that such mild inflammation was a common occurrence in young children. The paediatrician that the child was referred to was not able to examine the child due to the child’s distress. The paediatrician indicated to the mother “I don’t see any redness or bleeding. I think she is fine now”.
The mother in her fifth affidavit, disclosed for the first time the following allegation concerning X and the father:
On or about 14 March 2020… The father was intoxicated. I saw that the father was playing with X’s penis. X was screaming. I said to the father “What are you doing to him? Just leave him alone and go to sleep.”... I was very worried about X and constantly monitored the father’s behaviour until he fell asleep sometime later.
The mother continued to facilitate video calls between the father and the children, but then says that she heard during such calls “the father have arguments with people in his household… I have heard the father argue with his partner…Hearing these arguments has caused X to become scared.” The mother deposes:
I am very concerned about the safety of the children in the care of the father. The thought of the children being harmed, including sexually harmed, by the father causes me great anxiety. I am particularly concerned about Y. She does not have the capacity to tell anyone about anything that the father might have done to her. I seek to have the children’s time with the father supervised until such time that it can be determined that the children are not at risk of sexual harm from the father.
Despite the DCJ clearly indicating to the mother that they would not be investigating the matter, and despite the medical practitioner not raising any concerns, the mother refused to allow the children to spend time with the father.
The mother was also referred to a psychologist on 11 December 2020, however, there is no evidence of the treatment she received.
Affidavit of 18 March 2021
The sixth affidavit relied upon by the mother was filed on 18 March 2021.
That affidavit attempts to explain in further detail why the mother has not complied with the orders, and alleges that she did not agree to the orders at all. The mother says:
9. On the morning of the interim hearing, I attended the Offices of Women’s Legal Services.
10. I had a new lawyer represent me on the day, who did not have full carriage of my matter.
11. That morning I was advised by my lawyers that an adjournment would be sought so that I could have time to respond to the father’s Affidavit.
12. I then signed the orders putting full trust in my solicitor at the time.
14. I was under the impression that my solicitor wanted me to sign whatever she wants me to do. I felt forced into signing the orders on that day.
This evidence is different, and at first glance appears to be contradictory, to the evidence in her fourth affidavit. The mother says in her sixth affidavit that she “did not agree to the father spending unsupervised contact with the children for 6 hours on each Sunday”. She does not say anything about the time on the Wednesdays.
The mother deposes to fears that the father will consume alcohol whilst the children are in his care, and when intoxicated that he may hit the children or inappropriately touch them.
The sixth affidavit speaks of an incident in May 2019, when the father allegedly attempted to put a toothpick dipped in mustard oil boiled with garlic to “undergo penis surgery on X”. It appears that the mother was not present during this alleged incident, but that after the father told her that she can put mustard oil on his penis, that she “got so scared” so she “immediately booked an appointment with the doctors, after realising what the father had done to X”. There is no evidence of the visit to the doctor or what the doctor may have said.
According to the mother, X also said to her on 16 March 2021, that he did not want to go to the father’s home as the father hit him and put chilli in his mouth.
Affidavit of 26 March 2021
The mother’s affidavit filed 26 March 2021, is the seventh affidavit the mother relies upon. That affidavit goes to the circumstances of the father collecting X from school on 24 March 2021 and not returning him to the mother’s care.
In an email to the mother’s solicitor, annexed to the affidavit, the father says that he will be at the changeover point to pick up Y and spend time with her in accordance with the consent orders of 27 November 2020, but that “until the resolution of the matter regarding X’s well being and safety” the mother can video call the child daily at any time.
Affidavit of 7 April 2021
The mother’s eighth affidavit was filed on 7 April 2021. It speaks to the orders made on 29 March 2021, and the father refusing to return X into her care despite the orders.
The mother deposes that she is extremely concerned about neglect of X as the child had a skin infection which she believed was not being treated appropriately.
Affidavit of 10 June 2021
The mother’s affidavit filed 10 June 2021, is the ninth affidavit she relied upon. It was filed pursuant to orders made on 8 June 2021, but did little to address relevant matters. The affidavit repeated verbatim the earlier allegations (while also seeking to rely on the previous 8 affidavits), and then summarised those allegations and added a few new ones.
The new allegations and “concerns” are as follows (from paragraph 68 of the mother’s affidavit):
a) The father has on many occasions hit the children in my presence with an open palm and has on one occasion strangled X. .. I had observed the father to lock himself in a room with X and beat him. The father’s mother would be present and she would not intervene. ..
g) … I am concerned that the father may be inappropriately touching the children. I have observed him to touch X inappropriately in the past. In the past, I had observed the father to be massaging X on his private parts. X was crying a lot. There was also another occasion where he applied yogurt to X’s genitals and body area. I thought this was not appropriate. The father would engage in this kind of inappropriate behaviour usually drunk…
m) I have concerns that there is family violence between the father and his new de facto parter just like there was family violence when I lived with the father.
n) I have concerns that the father will not adequately spend on the children and provide their needs…
o)… I have observed on more than one occasion, the father to watch pornographic vidoes and he was overt when doing this. I worry the children will be seeing this and enacting what they see…
p) I have seen the children behave in a sexual manner… I have observed the father to keep X naked walking in the house…
q) The father has previously strangled me and I worry he will assault me at the changeovers. I feel really unsafe doing changeovers at Coles.
r) I have no doubt that if he is allowed to have the children, he will completely deprive me of a relationship with both of them.
s)… I worry he just wants to take the children from me.
t) Except for yesterday, I do not recall an incident where the father has returned the children to my care at Coles. He always tries to find a reason to retain them. Each time I send them, my heart sinks. I worry I will not see them again.
The mother does not explain in her evidence what illness the child suffered from on or about 20 April 2021 when she took him out of school and obtained a medical certificate which apparently did not require him to return to school for some time. The medical certificate itself is not attached to her affidavit. She explained to the Court that she was concerned the father would again take the child and that is why she did not take him back to school.
The father’s evidence
The father relies on two affidavits, filed 8 June 2021 and 26 April 2021.
Annexed to the father’s affidavit of 26 April 2021, are WhatsApp messages between the parents, where the father is attempting to make arrangements to spend time with Y, as at the time X was living with him. When the father said he was going to pick Y up to spend time with him for the day, the mother replied with “So X will stay with you Also And me alone Why?” and then later on “I m Sorry I can’t live without them while at home”.
The father sets out the attempts he has made to spend time with the children in accordance with the orders of 27 November 2020. He also sets out his concerns for X’s well-being and what he believes to be undermining of the child’s relationship with him by the mother.
The father gives evidence of his observations of the mother’s reaction with X during video calls, including the mother punishing X for accidentally pushing Y by locking him in a room and turning off the lights. The father also gives evidence of X saying to him that the mother hits him.
The father admits that contrary to the orders of 27 November 2020, and subsequently of 29 March 2021, he picked X up from school on 24 March 2021 and retained him in his care until the end of the April school holidays. It appears that the child did not attend school for the remainder of the first term. When he was returned to school after the school holidays on 20 April 2021, the mother attended the school and picked the child up early. She then retained the child in her care. X did not attend school thereafter, and the mother apparently applied to home school him.
The father raises concerns about the mother’s household being an environment where the children ‘s physical and social wellbeing are compromised. The father says that X appears to be losing weight due to lack of proper nutrition, that there is no television in the mother’s household and no other form of entertainment, and that the children are kept at home and the mother does not take them out anywhere except school and supervised visits.
The father also gives evidence of the mother applying for a private Apprehended Domestic Violence Order not only against him, but also against his de-facto partner, those applications having been made on 18 May 2021.
The application against the father, names the mother, Y and X as the persons in need of protection and raises allegations of verbal abuse during video calls, the father not disclosing a criminal history prior to their marriage, the father sexually abusing the mother and that she has concerns the father will not return the children.
The application against Ms M, also naming the mother, Y and X as persons in need of protection, alleges that Ms M stalked the mother intimidating her while at the son’s school on 2 February 2021, and that Ms M aggressively approached her while Y was with the mother. The mother alleges that Ms M has stalked her for over 2 years.
The mother’s evidence is entirely silent about these applications.
The father denies any violence against the mother and the children. The father denies any suggestion and/or allegation of sexual abuse of the children.
THE COURT’S DETERMINATION
The principles in respect of interim hearings are well known, including that the legislative pathway must at all times be followed (Goode v Goode [2006] FamCA 1346). Interim hearings are curtailed by the absence of cross-examination and testing of evidence in general, and the Court is often in a position where it is unable to make findings of fact.
Even in such constrained circumstances, the Court is still required to determine the applications before it.
In terms of a risk assessment, the Court is to determine that issue by weighing the probabilities of competing claims and the likely impact on the child in the event that a controversial assertion is acted upon or rejected (Keats & Keats [2016] FamCAFC 156).
The mother appears to be hyper-vigilant in relation to the children and particularly while the children are in the father’s care. The evidence contained in the supervision reports, such as the reaction of the mother to a minor scratch on Y, is cause for a careful consideration of the risks she alleges which the children might be subjected to while in the father’s care.
The mother has failed to comply with Court orders time and time again, and it was not until being faced with the prospect of an order that the children live with the father, that she finally decided to comply with the orders, despite many earlier assurances to the Court made by her and/or on her behalf that she would do so.
The time which the children spent with the father between June 2020 and November 2020 was supervised, at the mother’s insistence. She would not agree to any other time between the children and the father, and the only way which the father could spend time with the children was to agree to the mother’s proposal. The reports of the supervisors indicate that the children enjoyed their time with the father and that the father is a capable parent.
After the making of the orders on 27 November 2020, there was one instance when the children spent time with the father in accordance with the orders, until the matter was before the Court on 9 June 2021. The mother says she did not agree to the making of the orders and/or that she did not understand the obligations she had once the orders were made. It is difficult to accept her evidence at face value about these matters, noting that she was represented by experienced solicitors and counsel. However, until such time as she is cross-examined, the Court is not able to make findings about her evidence in respect of these matters.
It is clear that the mother was notified by the DCJ that they would not be investigating the matter as at 4 December 2020. This did not appear to be enough for her, despite not only making a report to the DCJ but also to the police. The mother took the child to a medical practitioner and later to a paediatrician, and there was no indication from either of those professionals that the child had been sexually abused. Indeed, the evidence is that the child had an inflammation which the medical practitioners did not appear to be concerned about.
The mother is clearly a woman who appears to hold many concerns about the safety of her children. Whether those concerns are well founded or not is not a matter which can be determined at this interim stage of the proceedings.
If the mother’s evidence about the father being physically violent towards her during the parties’ relationship, including strangling her, is true, then her fears about her own safety might well be justified. If the mother’s evidence about the father hitting X is true, then her fears for the child’s safety might well be justified. However, some of the allegations are quite extraordinary, for example, the allegation that the father hit X with an open hand multiple times with force when X was but 5 months old, without there apparently being any injury to the child or the child requiring medical attention.
Furthermore, some of the mother’s concerns, do not appear to be have any sound objective basis. Her allegations and concerns have increased over time, despite the father having very limited time with X and no time with Y since 29 November 2020, a period of over 6 months.
In her most recent affidavit (the ninth affidavit) there is now an unspecified allegation that the father tried to strangle X, that he hit both children with an open hand, that he has “massaged” X’s private parts, that he has acted in a sexually perverse way by applying yogurt to the child’s body and genitals and by having X walk around naked.
The allegation that the father will not adequately spend on the children is also a little strange and appears to be clutching at straws to justify the mother’s position as to why the children should not be spending time with the father except supervised time.
The mother says that she has concerns about the father’s alcohol abuse and that when he was intoxicated, it is at these times that he tended to be violent and act in a sexually inappropriate manner towards X.
Both parents have concerns that the other uses physical discipline on the children or inappropriate physical punishment for minor and what appear to be normal childhood behaviours.
The father has concerns about the children’s well-being in the mother’s household due to their isolation and lack of engagement in usual and everyday activities.
The single biggest risk the father identifies though, is that the mother is not permitting the children to have a relationship with him and that this will have long term and significant negative impacts on their well-being.
The parents have both toyed with X. The behaviour of each of the parents in respect to the retention of the child and the child’s non-attendance at school borders on the abhorrent. It is simply not acceptable, despite each of the parents being told by this Court numerous times that they each had an obligation to comply with Court orders made on 27 November 2020 and that until such time as the orders were discharged, varied or suspended those orders remained in force.
The mother’s reluctance at complying with Court orders to date, may be understood although certainly not excused, by her insistence that her allegations have never properly been aired. It is clear however, that the Court has at all times been alive to the mother’s allegations as made from time to time.
The evidence is that the children at least as at the second half of 2020 had a strong, loving and secure attachment to their father. This attachment is at risk of being severed if they are not permitted to have a relationship with him.
The risks of physical violence to the children at the father’s hands may be ameliorated by an order restraining the father from using any form of physical discipline on the children. These same risks are also ameliorated by a restraining on the father from consuming any alcohol to excess while the children are in his care.
The concerns of sexual harm to the children raised in the mother’s material, are not based on any objective facts and in respect of Y it appears that the mother refused to accept advice from professionals. The DCJ had already addressed these concerns when they spoke to the father and his partner on 4 December 2020. The father’s partner indicated that she would ensure that the children are supervised at all times. However, the evidence does not support such an order, that is, any order for the father’s time with the children to be supervised. The mother identified the risk of sexual abuse as arising from the father’s intoxication. Once again, any such risk may be ameliorated by an order restraining the father from consuming alcohol to excess whilst the children are in his care.
The father asks the Court for an order that the children live with him and spend time with the mother after a period of approximately one month, acting as a circuit breaker for them. The father, by way of his application, accepts that an order for the children to live with him would see perhaps a significant degree of upset for the children and that they would need some time to get used to the arrangements. It also identifies that the risks of the mother undermining the children’s relationship with the father will be minimised through the order the father proposes.
The Court is alive to the fact that the father has re-partnered and that the children of his partner live in his household. This will mean further adjustments for the children.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer supports the application of the father.
There is a real possibility that the mother will continue to make further allegations about the father and his de-facto partner. Until those allegations are tested, the Court is not able to make findings about them. It may be that if the allegations are ultimately held to be unfounded that this will reflect poorly on the mother’s capacity to meet the children’s needs. It may be that the allegations are ultimately held to be proven, which would mean that the father has perpetrated significant violence towards the mother and X.
The mother presents to the Court as a person who is very opposed to the children spending any time with the father. If the children are to remain living with the mother, the Court has little confidence that she will comply with orders for the children to spend time with the father.
The Court recognises that an order for the children to live with the father will likely have a significantly negative impact on the mother, including her psychological well-being. Similarly, an order for the children to spend significant and substantial time with the father will have a similar if not identical impact, if history is anything to go by given the mother’s almost blanket refusal to comply with orders. The lack of compliance with Court orders over the past 7 months is likely a strong indicator of the lack of capacity of the mother to foster and encourage any sort of relationship between the father and the children and her lack of capacity or ability to accept that the children’s relationship with the father is a valuable one to them. This is particularly so noting what occurred at the interim hearing on 10 March 2021, when the Court dismissed the mother’s application for the suspension of the interim orders.
Indeed, there appears to be evidence that the reason why the mother is so reluctant to allow the children to spend time with the father is that she does not want to be left alone.
In all of the circumstances, and weighing up the possible risks and the likelihood of those risks coming to fruition, the Court is persuaded that the best interest of the children are met with an order that they live with the father pending final determination of these proceedings.
The orders which the father asks the Court to make propose fairly limited time between the children and the mother, after an initial period of no time. The reason why these orders are appropriate is that they will not only give the children some stability and time to adjust once they start living with the father, but also provide for limited opportunities for the mother to place any pressure on the children. After a period of 4 weeks of daytime only, the children’s time will then progress to include overnight time with the mother. Such an order will see the children retain their attachments to the mother, while ensuring that their relationship with the father is also able to flourish.
The father seeks an order for sole parental responsibility. It is important that the mother is not cut out of the children’s lives, and that she continues to have a say in respect of their long term needs. No order for parental responsibility will be made, which will mean that s.61C Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) will prevail as it is not displaced by any order.
The next issue then is what happens to the proceedings thereafter? There have been suggestions by the ICL and the mother that there should be an order for a family report. In the circumstances, particularly noting the interim orders which are herein made, an order for a family report is appropriate.
For all of those reason, orders as set out at the forefront of these Reasons for Judgment will be made.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and thirty-three (133) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Obradovic. Associate:
Dated: 18 June 2021
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Evidence
Legal Concepts
-
Injunction
-
Procedural Fairness
2
1