Kavran & Vinko (No 4) - [2024] FedCFamC2F 184

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Kavran & Vinko (No 4) [2024] FedCFamC2F 184

File number(s): PAC 616 of 2022

Judgment of: JUDGE STREET

Date of judgment: 16 February 2024

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW - PARENTING – child 11 – parenting capacity of father - live with mother- mother sole parental responsibility - spend time with and communicate with father in accordance with child’s wishes

Legislation:
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Cases cited:
A v A (1998) FLC 92-800

Cotton & Cotton (1983) FLC 91-330

Deiter & Deiter [2011] FamCAFC 82

Director General, Department of Family and Community Services (NSW) and the Colt Children [2013] NSWChC 5

Fitzwater & Fitzwater (2019) 60 Fam LR 212

Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-092

Johnson & Page (2007) FLC 93-344

Jurchenko & Foster (2014) FLC 93-598

Loddington & Derringford (No 2) [2008] FamCA 925

M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69

Masson v Parsons (2019) 266 CLR 554

McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93-405

N v S (1996) FLC 92-655

Napier & Hepburn (2006) FLC 93-303

Nikolakis & Nikolakis [2010] FamCAFC 52

Stott & Holgar [2017] FamCAFC 152

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 142

Date of hearing: 1 & 2 August 2023
4 October 2023
5, 6 & 9 February 2024

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr L Teoh

Solicitor for the Applicant: G & L Law Group

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr D Blackah

Solicitor for the Respondent: Marsdens Law Group

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Mr K Francis

Independent Children’s Lawyer: Laura K Law
ORDERS

PAC 616 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS KAVRAN

Applicant

AND:
MR VINKO

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE STREET

DATE OF ORDER:

16 FEBRUARY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.All earlier parenting orders are vacated.
2.The mother shall have sole parental responsibility for the child, X (born 2012) (“the Child”).
3.The Child shall live with the mother.
4.The Child shall communicate and spend time with the father in accordance with her wishes.
5.The father is not to initiate calls, text or other communication on the Child’s phone or any other communication device or digital application unless expressly requested by the Child on a specific occasion to do so.
6.All communications between the mother and the father in relation to the Child is to be through the MyMob application and the parties are to take all necessary steps to download that application within 7 days.
7.That the mother do all reasonable things to provide the following information through the MyMob application to ensure that the Father is informed of:
(a)The address at which the Child resides;
(b)The School that the Child attends, and
(c)Any important medical information, hospitalisation or significant developmental treatments or therapy in respect of the Child.

8.The mother and father are both restrained from:
(a)Denigrating each other or any member of the other’s respective family within the presence or hearing of the Child;
(b)Making critical comments about the other or any member of the other’s respective family within the presence or hearing of the Child;
(c)Speaking with the Child about these Court proceedings;
(d)Discussing with the Child family law matters including matters relating to child support; and
(e)Shall make their best efforts to ensure that no other party makes any denigrating, critical or derogatory remarks about the other party or their respective family, discusses these proceedings, or speaks about family law matters within the presence or hearing of the Child.

9.The mother and father are not to engage in any physical or corporal punishment of the Child or to permit anyone else to do so.
10.That the mother authorise any school, at which the Child is enrolled by the mother to provide to the father:
(a)Copies of all half year or yearly reports of the Child to both the mother and the father; and
(b)Copies of all order forms for school photographs to both the mother and the father;

provided that should the provision of such reports or photographs to the father entail any cost, the father shall be responsible for all such payments to the school and providing a copy of these orders shall be deemed to be such authorisation to the school.
11.That the mother advise the father in writing through the MyMob application within 7 days of the Child being enrolled in any new school including the details and address of such school.
12.The ICL is discharged from these proceedings after these orders have been explained to the Child by the ICL.
13.The costs between parties are reserved.
14.No order as to costs in respect of the ICL.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE STREET
INTRODUCTION

This is a final parenting hearing in relation to X (“the child”), born 2012. The proceedings were commenced on 10 February 2022 by the applicant mother (“the mother”) relevantly seeking a recovery order in relation to the child against the respondent father (“the father”). The parties commenced their relationship in 2010 and separated in about 2013. Thereafter the child lived with the mother but spent time with the father supervised by the paternal parents with whom the father lives. The child went to the father and his parents on 1 January 2022 and was not returned to the mother until after commencement of these proceedings. On 17 January 2022 the father notified Child Support that he had 100% care of the child and on that day the mother unsuccessfully attempted to recover the child.
BACKGROUND
The recovery application in a proceedings was listed for hearing on 17 February 2022. On that date the child was returned from school to the mother and interim parenting orders were made for the mother to have sole parental responsibility, for the child to live with the mother and requiring the father to undertake a particular course and to file an affidavit as to his insight as to the best interests of the child from that course. The father was also required to file an affidavit by his treating doctor. Orders were made for twice weekly contact by telephone and video access by the father with the child and appointing an ICL. The reasons for the orders were reserved and published on 28 April 2022.
On 28 April 2022 by consent parenting orders were made for supervised time of 4 hours each alternate Saturday. Order 5 required the father to attend upon a treated psychiatrist as referred by his doctor within 14 days and Ms Q, Clinical Psychologist, was appointed as a Court expert and provided a report dated 12 August 2022. There were supervised visit reports for 7 May 2022, 21 May 2022, 4 June 2022, 2 July 2022, 16 July 2022 and 30 July 2022. There were supervised visits at R Contact Centre on 7 May 2023, 21 May 2023 and 4 June 2023. At that last visit there are conversations records as to the child being upset that the father was angry with her.
On 7 October 2022 parenting orders for supervised time were made by consent. On 16 December 2022 orders were made fixing the matter for a final parenting hearing on 1 and 2 August 2023. On 2 August 2023 the matter was stood over part heard for final hearing on 4, 5 and 6 October 2023 and further interim parenting orders were made. On 4 October 2023 the intended further part heard hearing dates in October were vacated and the matter was stood over part heard for final hearing on 5,6 and 7 February 2024. The part heard hearing resumed on 5 February and on 6 February 2024 the part heard hearing was stood over to 9 February 2024, the Court having received a certificate that the father was unfit for Court until 8 February 2024.The final parenting hearing concluded on the 6^thday being 9 February 2024.
CHRONOLOGY

Date Event

1971 Respondent Father is born

1971 Applicant Mother is born

2005 An incident occurred where the respondent father was taken by Police to the mental ward of a hospital after reporting to police that he was being followed. He was admitted under the Mental Health Act.

2010 The parties commence a relationship.

Early 2012 Incident where the applicant mother alleged the respondent father was acting delusional

Early 2012 The respondent father voluntarily seeks admission to a hospital mental health ward, and is admitted for one night

2012 The child is born

April 2013 X commences spending overnight time with the respondent father at the paternal grandparent’s house, supervised by the paternal grandparents, only a weekly basis.

2013 The applicant mother claims that she is told that the respondent father has been diagnosed with a mental health condition and is on prescribed medication.

December 2013 The parties end their relationship.

17 November 2013 The respondent father refuses to return the child to the applicant mother after an argument over child support.

18 November 2013 The respondent father returns the child to the applicant mother

April 2014 The parties attend dispute resolution without success

2014 The applicant mother withholds the child from the respondent father

Mid-2014 The respondent father suffers a medical episode. Following the episode, his time with the child increases to 2-3 nights a week.

2016-2017 The applicant mother travels to the United Kingdom for work and the child stays in the full time care of the respondent father for the duration of the 2 weeks.

February 2017 The child commences school

February 2017 The child spends 2 evening a week with the respondent father

2017 The child begins to spend weekly time with the respondent father during school holiday periods.

2020 The applicant mother marries Mr P and commences to cohabitate with him

25 December 2020 The respondent father claims that the applicant mother failed to deliver the child to him as agreed

June- September 2021 It is alleged that the respondent father slapped the child

1 January 2022 The respondent father withholds the child from the applicant mother

4 January 2022 The applicant mother calls the respondent father seeking information about the whereabouts of the child. The respondent father refuses to tell her and claims that they were near Town F and had tested positive for COVID-19.

13 January 2022 The applicant mother receives a call from the respondent father who placed the child on the phone. The applicant mother hears the child crying.

14 January 2022 The applicant mother calls the police for the welfare check on the child.

15 January 2022 The police inform the applicant mother that they had assessment X’s welfare and confirmed that she was safe and wishes to stay with the respondent father.

17 January 2022 The applicant mother unsuccessfully attempts to recover the child form the paternal grandparents

Early 2022 The applicant mother was arrested and charged with assault upon the respondent father and served with an interim ADVO.

Early 2022 The respondent father and the child receive messages from the applicant mother stating that in order to avoid the respondent father, she intended to leave the child to live with the respondent father.

February 2022 The respondent father changes the child’s school.

17 February 2022 The Court orders the return of the child to the applicant mother and the recommencement of her schooling at Suburb C School.

Early 2023 The applicant mother accepts without admission an ADVO

Early 2023 The charge against the applicant mother was heard and dismissed at Local Court

24 August 2023 Family Report of Ms Q is released.

2 July 2023 The arrangements for time spent with the child and the respondent father at terminated.

Early 2024 The respondent father posts a video of the child on social media from the child’s old account with permission.
EVIDENCE

The Court received into evidence the following affidavits:
(1)Affidavit of Ms Kavran dated 14 July 2023;
(2)Affidavit of Mr Vinko dated 14 July 2023;
(3)Affidavit of Mr Vinko dated 22 January 2024;
(4)Affidavit of X dated 21 July 2023;
(5)Affidavit of Dr D dated 5 April 2022;
(6)Affidavit of Dr S dated 6 July 2023;
(7)Affidavit of Dr S dated 5 February 2024.
The Court admitted into evidence the following exhibits:
·Exhibit A: Respondent Father’s Notice of Risk dated 15 February 2022;
·Exhibit B: Respondent Father’s Parenting Questionnaire dated 15 February 2022;
·Exhibit C: Single Expert Report of Ms Q dated 12 August 2022;
·Exhibit D: Tender Bundle of the ICL dated 1 August 2023;
·Exhibit E: Tender Bundle of the Respondent Father dated 31 July 2023;
·Exhibit F: Tender Bundle of the Applicant Mother dated 1 August 2023;
·Exhibit G: Applicant Mother’s Notice of Risk dated 10 February 2022;
·Exhibit H: COPS Record dated 15 March 2023;
·Exhibit I: Screenshot of the Child’s social media account
·Exhibit J: Screenshot of social media video of Child
·Exhibit K: Screenshot of social media comment thread
·Exhibit L: Screenshot of message exchange between the child and the respondent father
·Exhibit M: Mental Health Medical Report of Respondent Father dated 24 December 2005;
·Exhibit N: Medical Certificate of Respondent Father dated 6 February 2024;
·Exhibit O: Proposed Minute of Order of the ICL dated 6 February 2024.
THE SINGLE EXPERT REPORT
The Court made orders on 28 April 2022 pursuant to Chapter 7.1.2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021, to appoint Ms Q, a Clinical Psychologist (“the Expert”), to produce a Single Expert Report to enquire into and report upon matters relating to the welfare of the child, X, born 2012 (“the child”). The Single Expert Report was completed on 12 August 2022 and involved interviews of the mother, the father, the paternal grandparents, and the child.
At the time of conducting the report, the child was residing with the mother and spent supervised time with the father for three hours every second Saturday. The father withheld the child from seeing the mother from 1 January 2022 until orders were made on 17 February 2022, that the child should return to the mother’s care and have phone contact with the father at least twice per week.
The expert identified that reports from the supervised visits indicated the child was hesitant to see the father at the first visit on 7 May 2022. The child settled into the time with the father and the child appeared to enjoy themselves. The reports from the supervised visits also further identified that despite the contact seeming positive to the supervisor, the child told the mother that she wanted to leave the visit sooner. The child also attended the second visit with the paternal grandparents and appeared to enjoy themselves.
Mr Vinko (Respondent Father)
The father attended the interview with his parents. The expert identified that the father was malodorous of cigarette smoke, and possible poor hygiene. The expert identified that the father’s presentation was unusual. The expert asked the father about his hospitalisations in psychiatric wards, to which the father appeared to have made a joke about his own home. The expert explained to the father the seriousness of the assessment interview, particularly in relation to the mental health issues, to which the expert identified that the father appeared to be frustrated with the expert.
The father was required to complete psychometric measures that the expert had prepared for him. However, the father identified that his reading and writing was not the best but indicated that he felt confident to complete the psychometric measures. The expert and the father arranged for him to take a break after the observations and return at 2:30pm, however, he did not return. The father thought that he could go home and agreed to come in either the following day or day after to complete the testing but did not.
The expert identified that the father’s presentation overall raised questions about his cognitive functioning. However, there were no signs of psychopathology that would impact his capacity to participate in the assessment. The expert identified that the father’s speech and thought processes appeared normative.
The father advised the expert that he has no concerns about the mother’s parenting, but asserted concerned about the mother's partner. The father was unspecific in his exact concerns other than the child was never happy once the mother commenced her new relationship.
The expert identified that the father could not respond to the question of what it means for him to be a parent. However, the expert identified that is understandable given the context of his cognitive assessment results. The father described the role as a parent is to meet the child’s practical needs, to play with the child, and instil values and morals in the child. The father identified that the child brings him joy.
The father identified that the child does not speak to him about issues. The expert’s impression of the father’s description of the child was that he perceives her as important in his life, but that he is focused on what she brings to him rather than him meeting her needs as an individual.
The father denied any involvement with Child Support. The father identified that he made his best efforts in co-parenting with the mother to cooperate with her, then the father shifted his focus to his complaints about the mother’s new partner.
The expert writes that the father’s primary parenting stressor is that he is not seeing the child. The father also spoke angrily about his sense that he is being punished by having to have supervised time with the child. The father suggested that his strengths as a parent are that he teaches the child morals that are founded in his Country T heritage, and that the child has exposure to cultural experiences. The father also identified that he is skilled at assisting the child with her homework. In relation to parenting weakness, the expert writes the father said he cannot say no the child when they ask for things.
The father also identified that he rarely disciplines the child and denied that the allegations of slapping the child.
The expert writes that it was apparent that it was the father’s mother who was doing most of the child-caring tasks. However, the father identified that he is capable of doing these tasks, but given that his mother is home, his mother does most of the tasks.
The father identified that his medical episode has not impacted his parenting in any meaningful way and given that he does not believe his diagnosis of a mental health condition is accurate, the father does not see any impact of this condition on his parenting.

As a result of conducting the psychometric assessment and the father’s documented metal health history, the expert writes that the father is of low cognitive functioning, particularly in relation to his verbal skills. The expert further writes that the father will likely have difficulty in articulating his experiences and has limited reflective functioning in his parenting of the child.
Ms Kavran (Applicant Mother)
The mother did not attend her scheduled interview because she states had no knowledge of the assessment. However, the mother agreed to participate in an interview by telehealth at a later date. The expert writes that the mother was well-dressed and well-groomed, she engaged easily and was articulate. The expert identified that the mother did not demonstrate signs of psychopathology that could impact her capacity to participate in the assessment.
The expert identified that the mother started to see some “hostile” behaviours by the father. The mother described the child as a cute and confident girl. The mother described being a parent as a rewarding experience and spoke about the pleasures that she gains from watching her child grow, being able to give them love and support, and guiding them through life. The mother described her role as a parent to be positive, happy, and to help her child be happy, present and thankful.
The mother stated to the expert that she observed that the child is hesitant to express her opinions and that people do not like the child and that she is dumb. The mother told the child that this was not true and that the father would say negative comments about the child’s body. The mother told the expert that she told the father to stop saying that to the child.
The report outlines that the mother believed that she was in a good relationship with the child. The mother told the expert that she is focusing on encouraging the child to be assertive and worry less about upsetting others.
The mother denied any involvement with child protection services and significant parenting stressors. The mother identified to the expert that her primary approach to discipline is to remove privileges, such as technology or to stop sport attendance, as the child reportedly loves sport. The mother denied ever hitting the child.
The mother also described to the expert an appropriate routine for the child. The child does sport training on Tuesday and Thursday nights, she does another sport on Wednesday, then on Sundays has a sport match. The mother and the child visit extended family regularly, and the mother identified to the expert that she had arranged more social contact for the child over the school holidays.
The mother told the expert that the father is important in the child’s life because “every child needs a father” as they provide a different outlook. The mother believes that the father is a good father and loves the child and is committed to spending time with the child. However, since the father had a medical episode, the mother told the expert he has become more self-focused.
During the interview, it was identified that the child is being impacted by the Court proceedings and that the child gets anxious every time there is a Court proceeding.
The expert writes that the during the interview, the mother described herself as a pragmatic person who with stress or distress by talking to with friends or family, problem-solving, or distracting herself with enjoyable activities. The mother did not report a history of suicidal ideation or self-harming behaviour and has never been hospitalised for mental illness.
X (the child)
The child attended both appointments with the mother. The expert writes that the child’s presentation at both interviews were consistent, she was dressed casually but neatly, in clothing that was appropriate.
The child spoke to the expert about the father shouting at home, noting that he becomes frustrated when talking in Country T language to the paternal grandparents. The child’s impression was that the father was generally frustrated if people did not agree with him.
The child identified that the father was jealous that the mother was in a new relationship.
The child is aware of that the father has had a medical episode and suggested that the father’s episode calmed him down a bit but described that the father’s subsequent physical impairments as challenging. The child believes that the father tried to take her away from the mother as revenge.
During the interview, the child spoke about positive aspects of the father including that he is very nice, caring, and takes the child to lots of places. The child identified to the expert that there are no rules when they stay at the house of the father and the grandparents. The child also identified that the grandmother does all the housework at home and the father helps occasionally on school holidays.
The expert writes that he child and the grandmother care for the father and assist the father in giving his medication.
The child said to the expert that she was slapped on the face by the father when she was eight or nine years old.
During the interview, the child spoke positively of the mother to the expert. The child said that the mother is very soft and does not take advantage of this. The mother alleges that the father makes the child watch mafia movies, which the child finds distressing due to the violence depicted in them.
The child described to the expert that both parents denigrate each other and to which the child believes that the father hates the mother.
The child told the expert that the mother knows them better because they spend more time together, and the child finds it hard to talk to the father because he does not listen. The child enjoys spending time with the father, except for when the father yells. The child also told the expert that she likes seeing the paternal grandparents, but they do not intervene when the father shouts. In the report, it was identified that the child misses seeing the father but does not want to see him right now. The child is currently enjoying living with the mother and is fine seeing the father every fortnight.
At the second interview with the expert, the child reiterated that she is now happy living with the mother and spending supervised time with the father. The child was clear that she wants an ongoing relationship with the father, but with emotional safety.
Paternal Grandparents
The expert interviewed the paternal grandparents together. They attended the interview with the father. The paternal grandparents presented as an elderly couple with a Country T heritage. The expert writer identified that the paternal grandfather had limited English language and participated minimally in the interview. The expert identified that the paternal grandmother had reasonable English language skills, although she indicated that her English reading skills were poor.
The paternal grandmother told the expert that she had no concerns for the father’s functioning throughout his life. The paternal grandmother advised the expert that the father’s medical episode significantly impacted him. However, the paternal grandmother identified that the father is functioning well now and is able to care himself since the episode.
The expert wrote that the paternal grandmother did not identify any concerns about the father’s mental health for and did not believe that the father was being paranoid.
Prior to the father’s medical episode, the paternal grandmother identified that he was capable of caring for the child independently. However, since the episode, it was identified in the report that the paternal grandmother assumed all child-related caring responsibilities. The child also assists in helping the father given his physical impairments.
During the interview, the expert identified that the paternal grandfather did not make any meaningful contributions given his limited English. However, he appeared to agree with what the paternal grandmother was sharing. It was the expert’s impression that the paternal grandmother was motivated to portray the father in a positive light, and the paternal grandmother may not have an insight into the father’s difficulties.
Evaluations and Recommendations
The expert identified that the child has a loving relationship with both parents, although the child’s relationship with the father is negatively impacted by his cognitive and psychological functioning. The child has a loving relationship with the paternal grandparents, but the paternal grandparents do not seem to have a sense of the child’s needs and the expert identified that the paternal grandparents will prioritise the needs of the father over the child.
The expert identified that the child has a close and supportive relationship with the mother. Although, the expert holds concerns regarding the mother sharing information about the Court proceedings to the child and that the mother does not understand the impact that has on the child.
From the interviews conducted, the expert identified that the child would experience a separation from the mother as highly distressing, given the child’s prior experience of the father withholding the child.
It is the view of the expert that the mother has demonstrated capacity to provide for the child’s needs. The expert still holds concerns about the mother's insight into the child’s psychological needs given that it relates to the relationship with the father. The expert also identified that the father has limited capacity to meet the child’s physical, emotional and intellectual needs based on the father’s cognitive capacity and psychological functioning.
In the view of the expert that the father caused psychological harm to the child by withholding her from the mother. The expert expressed some concern that the father may do this again if his psychological condition remains untreated/unsupportive. The expert expressed a further concern of the allegations of the father physically assaulting the child, regardless of whether it occurred or not. The father has caused fear in the child by the father’s dysregulated behaviour. The information given to the expert suggests that the father is prone to dysregulation particularly when in a state of psychological deterioration. The expert is also of the view that the father does not connect with the child as an individual with her hopes and dreams and it negatively impacts their relationship.
In the view of the expert, the way that both the mother and father talk about each other to the child, constitutes ill treatment of the child. The father has allegedly engaged in physical aggressive behaviour towards the child in the past.
The expert writes that the mother has appeared to have greater insight into the responsibilities and duties of parenthood than the father. It was apparent to the expert that the paternal grandparents were the primary caregiver when the child was spending time with the father. The father placed pressure on the child by requiring that she met some of his practical needs.
The expert has identified that the child has a history of the suicidal ideation in the context of distress about the relationship between the child’s parents, and the father’s conduct towards the child. The expert has recommended that the child continue with her counselling and that the counselling includes a focus on supporting the child to manage the discord in the child’s parents’ relationship.
As the expert has already identified, the father has a low cognitive capacity and either a mental health disorder or another mental illness. The expert outlined that the father’s cognitive capacity may impact his ability to engage with the child in a way that the child finds meaningful if he is not able to engage in higher levels of conversation about the child’s life, relationships, and psychological experiences as the child ages. However, the expert identified that this does not mean that the father cannot have a meaningful relationship with the child.
The expert expressed a greater concern in relation to parenting, that being, the father’s poorly managed mental illness. When experiencing a mental health episode, the father presents with paranoia and persecutory delusions, withdrawal/isolation, increased irritability and outbreaks, amotivation and other symptoms. The expert writes that these symptoms will directly impact the child through reducing the father’s capacity to prioritise and meet the child’s needs. The expert also expresses a concern that if the father experiences further mental health episodes that he might withhold the child again from the mother.
The expert report writer provided the following recommendations:
(1)The child should reside with the mother;
(2)The child should continue spending supervised time with the father and paternal family, as per the current schedule for at least one year, with steps to progression;
(3)The child should be at liberty to contact the paternal family as per her wishes;
(4)The father should engage with a treating psychiatrist for diagnostic clarification and medication review. The father’s psychiatrist would benefit from access to the medical records provided in the current assessment to inform her assessment and treatment planning;
(5)The father should engage in psychological treatment aimed at increasing his capacity to meet the child’s psychological needs given his parenting vulnerabilities of mental illness and low cognitive capacity. This should be provided by a clinician with experience in the field of family law, as the father would benefit from individualised review of the post-separation parenting courses he has already completed, and the Triple P program as recommended below.
(6)The father’s time with the child could progress to unsupervised (day only) time if the following conditions are met:
(a)He has demonstrated a 12-month period of consistent engagement with his psychiatrist (which would likely include a period of monthly appointments initially, reducing to three- or six-monthly as per the psychiatrist’s recommendation) and medication compliance;
(b)He is not demonstrating symptoms of active mental health episodes;
(c)He is demonstrating positive engagement with the child in the supervised contacts;
(d)He has participated in psychological treatment as per (5) above.
(7)The child should be able to refuse to spend time with the father if he demonstrates a deterioration in psychological or behavioural functioning;
(8)The child could have overnight time with the father as per her wishes, after one year of unsupervised time. The expert writes that they recommend that the child expressed wishes be assessed by the child’s psychologist to establish the independence of her stated position. The expert expressed a concern about the child being pressured by both her maternal and paternal family in relation to this issue. If the child’s psychologist forms a view that either family is placing pressure on the child, that party should be referred for further therapeutic input;
(9)The child should continue in her current counselling and sessions should progress to supporting them to manage the conflict that has occurred between her parents and supporting them to rebuild her relationship with the father and understanding his mental illness;
(10)All treating clinicians (including psychologists, psychiatrists, other counsellors) involved with the family should have access with to this report to support her clinical work;
(11)The mother should participate in a Parenting After Separation program as per the earlier Orders; and
(12)The mother and father should complete Triple P for Teens to support their boundary-setting and disciplinary practices. The expert writer also suggests that the mother’s partner would benefit from participating in this program as well. They would benefit from psychoeducation about the impact of inappropriate media on the child and the child’s school can likely offer guidance and support in this regard.
In oral evidence the expert Ms Q expressed the opinion that the child was now at an age where her wishes should prevail as to spend time and communication with the father. Ms Q expressed a similar opinion as to counselling or support being only in accordance with the child’s wishes. Ms Q maintained that position even if the assumption as to the mother not advancing the relationship with the father was accepted. Ms Q said the child is quite attuned to her father’s needs and his functioning.
Ms Q expressed concern as to the ability of the father to attune to his daughter and to meet her emotional needs and potential adverse impact on her psychological wellbeing and her ability to operate with some agency in terms of her relationships. Ms Q identified the feelings expressed by the father in the most recent treating psychologist report as behaviour that is not attuned to meeting the child’s needs and inappropriately frame the relationship as equals rather than parent and child. Ms Q said the recent response by the father in Exhibit L would lead to a further distance in the relationship and reflects disregarding the child’s needs and that he is going to have increased difficulty meeting her emotional needs because of his own lack of insight and psychological functioning. Ms Q said the father’s parenting capacity is on a very poor trajectory and that the current prognosis is not good. Ms Q said that orders requiring time with her father would risk damaging her relationship with both her father and mother and would be damaging psychologically.
Report of Dr D
Dr D, as the treating doctor of the father, provided an affidavit on 5 April 2022, read by the father, which annexed a report identifying the current medications of the father that included a daily medication. The doctor explained that the medication prevents the father suffering a further medical episode, that he needs to take his medicine and that may need psychiatric referral and regular counselling.
The doctor described the medications as mental health-related and the father had been on them for some time and may require new psychiatric assessment by a psychiatrist. The report identified the father reducing his medication when he feels he does not need them and that his medications keep him stable for most of the time. The doctor records that the father has occasional episodes of abnormal behaviour as a response to external situations and pressure.
The doctor repeated the father may benefit from psychiatric opinion and referred to the father’s assertion of having looked after his daughter 2-3 days a week since she was 2 years old, sometimes has help from his parents and looked after her for 45 days straight. The doctor opined that the father will be capable to look after his daughter. The report annexed a psychiatrist report from Dr U dated 20 October 2009 that identified a complicated history from a marriage and subsequent separation and that he is better on medication. The report said the father has a severe adjustment disorder, did not keep his follow up appointment and that diagnosis may have to be deferred pending further assessment.
A report by Dr V, psychiatrist dated 30 October 2014 identifies a referral to a hospital COHMET team following his discharge from another hospital in mid-2014 having had a medical episode. The father was suffering mood instability and reference was made to his admission to hospital in 2005 with a brief mental health episode and being prescribed medication since that time. It was said the father had only suffered intermittent anxiety and when first seen presented as hypomanic-emotionally labile. Reference was made to his fears of further medical episodes and that he was on a wait list to see another psychologist.
In addition to the affidavit evidence identified above the Court also received oral evidence from the mother, the father, the paternal grandmother, a treating psychologist Dr S.
PARENTING PROCEEDINGS – THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) sets out the relevant statutory provisions applicable to proceedings in relation to children including the principles to be applied by Courts in s43 and the principles for conducting child related proceedings in s69ZN. Section 60B of the Act sets out the objects and principles of Pt VII. These are to ensure that the best interests of children are met by:
·ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child; and
·protecting children from physical or psychological harm arising from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and
·ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and
·ensuring that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.
In Masson v Parsons (2019) 266 CLR 554 at [8], in their joint judgment, their Honours Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, and Gordon JJ noted that the focus of the objects was on “ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child”.
The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility
Section 61DA of the Act relevantly provides that, when making a parenting order in relation to a child, the Court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.
The presumption does not apply if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent of the child (or a person who lives with a parent of the child) has engaged in abuse of the child or another child who, at the time, was a member of the parent’s family (or that other person’s family); or family violence.
Further, the presumption may be rebutted by evidence that satisfies the Court that it would not be in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child. For reasons which I subsequently explain, I have determined that it is not in the interests of the child for the presumption to apply, in the context of the lack of cooperation between the parents.
Best interests of the child
Section 60CA of the Act provides that, in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to the children, the Court must regard the best interests of the children as the paramount consideration. This is also confirmed in s 65DAA of the Act.
Section 60CC of the Act sets out the list of matters that the Court must consider in determining what is in the children’s best interests. The primary considerations set out in s 60CC(2) of the Act are, as follows:
·the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents; and
·the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
In balancing these considerations, s 60CC(2A) of the Act requires the Court to give greater weight to the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence: ss 60CC(2)(b) of the Act.
In considering that first matter, I note that, in McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93-405 (“McCall & Clark”) at 83,476, [122], the Full Court said:
…No doubt in the majority of cases, there will be a positive benefit for the child having a significant relationship with both parents, but there will also be some cases where there will be no positive benefit to be derived by a child by a Court attempting to craft orders to foster a relationship with one parent, if this would not be in the child’s best interests.
In McCall and Clark at [117], the Full Court referred to the comments made by Bennett J in G & C [2006] FamCA 994, where it was said that “the enquiry was a “prospective” one which requires a Court to evaluate the extent to which a meaningful or significant relationship with both parents is going to be of advantage to a child”. In other words, the focus is upon whether the child having a meaningful relationship with a particular parent will be of advantage to the child in the future.
In Jurchenko & Foster (2014) FLC 93-598 at 79,420, the Court noted at [123] that:
… having a “meaningful relationship” with both parents is but one part of a set of arrangements that makes up a care arrangement. All parts of the arrangement must be considered before deciding what outcome is in the child’s best interests.
In Loddington & Derringford (No 2) [2008] FamCA 925 Cronin J held at [169] that:
There is no legislative definition of “meaningful relationship” but for there to be a meaningful relationship, it must be healthy, worthwhile and advantageous to the child.
(emphasis added)
In Loddington Cronin J further added that an assessment of the benefit to the child must be made according to ‘the peculiar facts of what the parents are offering.’ [At 173]
In Cotton & Cotton (1983) FLC 91-330, Nygh J noted that it was desirable for a child to maintain a meaningful relationship with both parents, however, his Honour stated at 78,252:
And that desirability only operates when there is a chance of a meaningful relationship, which is beneficial to the child. It is not, in other words, a question of contact for contact sake. If there is a situation where contact with a parent is, on balance, likely to cause more harm to the child than good, or even is not likely to confer any benefit, then little purpose is served by this Court making orders for such contact. That does not detract from the desirability of the child having a meaningful relationship, but the possibility of a meaningful relationship must first exist.
(emphasis added)
Issue of risk
The second primary consideration in determining the child’s best interests, as set out in s 60CC(2)(b) of the Act, is the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected or exposed to abuse or violence. The question that may be asked is whether there is an unacceptable risk of physical and/or psychological harm in the child spending time with either parent.
In Stott & Holgar [2017] FamCAFC 152 at [38], the Full Court confirmed that, where unacceptable risk is alleged, the Court must give consideration to the facts of the case and decide whether or not those facts could reasonably be said to raise an unacceptable risk of harm. If a determination is made that such a risk exists, the Court is then required to consider whether that unacceptable risk could be ameliorated by safeguards.
The relevant principles in assessing whether a child would be exposed to an unacceptable risk of psychological and/or physical harm were recently considered by the Full Court in Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-092, who agreed with and adopted Austin J’s dissenting judgment in Fitzwater & Fitzwater (2019) 60 Fam LR 212 as being the correct statement of the law. Justice Austin’s judgment includes the following:
138.The assessment of risk is a predictive exercise and while it is, naturally enough, liable to be influenced by factual findings about past events, the contemplation of risk entails the foresight of possible harm. It is an oddity to expect that the mere possibility of future harm can or should be proven as a probability, as has been implied before (Potter and Potter (2007) FLC 93-326 at [110], [129]). Risks of harm must be heeded even if they are improbable eventualities.
139.Speaking of the risk of some future occurrence is just another way of expressing the chance of it happening. The concept of chance lies along a continuum, encompassing all outcomes which lie in the range between highly probable and remotely possible, assuming the polar extremes of certainty are ignored. In the current context, the higher the chance of the children’s sexual abuse, the greater the risk of their physical or psychological harm. At some point on the continuum the risk of such harm becomes so potent it cannot be tolerated: it is unacceptable.
…
142.As was recognised by Hale LJ (as her Ladyship then was) in Re C and B (Children) (Care Order: Future Harm) [2001] 1 F.L.R 611 at [28], in child-related proceedings, a comparatively small risk of really serious harm can justify action, while even the virtual certainty of slight harm might not. It could hardly be otherwise, because no prudent adult would willingly expose a child to the risk of sexual abuse when there is an unacceptably high chance of its occurrence, even though the chance is not proven by the evidence to be probable. Requiring the proof of any possible future child abuse as a probability would pervert the law as settled by the High Court in M v M and Malec.
(Emphasis in the original)
Thus, it can be seen that determining the issue of risk essentially involves applying a risk matrix, whereby it is necessary to assess the potential seriousness of the harm in the context of the probability of its occurrence. That is, there is an obligation on a trial judge to evaluate not only the extent, magnitude and nature of the harm that might befall the child if there is a future act of abuse or harmful conduct, but also to evaluate the prospect or probability of such an act or conduct occurring that would cause such harm to the child: see N v S (1996) FLC 92-655 at 82,713 (Fogarty J) cited with approval in Napier & Hepburn (2006) FLC 93-303, Nikolakis & Nikolakis [2010] FamCAFC 52 at [95]–[96] and Deiter & Deiter [2011] FamCAFC 82 at [54].
Additionally the following guidance emerges from authorities:
(1)It is now well established that “unacceptable risk” includes not merely physical harm but also includes an assessment of the risk of emotional harm: see A v A (1998) FLC 92-800 at 84,996; M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 at 77.
(2)Such an unacceptable risk can include any or all matters that compromise the safety, welfare and well-being of a child, and is examined in light of an accumulation of factors proved: see Director General, Department of Family and Community Services (NSW) and the Colt Children [2013] NSWChC 5 at [146]–[148].
(3)The components which lead to a conclusion that an unacceptable risk exists need not each be established on the balance of probabilities. The Court may reach a conclusion of “unacceptable risk” from the accumulation of factors, none or only some of which are proved to that standard: see Johnson & Page (2007) FLC 93-344 at [68], endorsing and applying the principles set out in a paper prepared by the Hon John Fogarty AM, “Unacceptable Risk: A Return to Basics” (2006) 20 Australian Journal of Family Law 249.
(4)While each factor establishing risk need not be proved to the standard of s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), insofar as determining whether an unacceptable risk exists involves a prediction of the future, based on findings of fact: “the confidence one will have in the prediction will be, in part, a reflection of the confidence one has in the factual findings that base the prediction”.
The Court must have regard to the primary considerations and the additional considerations in s60CC(3) of the Act. The Court has also taken into account the definition of abuse is s4(1) and definition of family violence in s4AB.
SUBMISSIONS
The Court has taken into account the Case Outlines filed by the mother, the father and the ICL.
Mr Teo of counsel, on behalf of the applicant submitted that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted by reason of family violence and was also on the evidence in this case not in the best interests of the child. Mr Teo submitted the mother should have sole parental responsibility and that the child live with the mother. It was submitted that the child should spend time and communicate with the father in accordance with her wishes. It was submitted that great weight should be give to the child’s views and that those views were supported by the expert Ms Q. Mr Teo submitted that the withholding to the child was family violence and that it was this conduct that explained the child not wanting to spend time with or to see the father, as well as explaining the child’s refusal to participate in counselling or family therapy and the child’s decision not to continue with the supervised visits.
Mr Blackah submitted that the mother had sabotaged the child’s relationship with the father and orchestrated the refusal to undergo counselling or family therapy and also caused the child not to continue with the supervised visits. Mr Blackah submitted that the mother had been evasive about the relationship with Mr P and had prioritised that relationship over the best interests of the child.
The ICL was permitted to put submissions on 6 February 2024 in case unable to appear on 9 February 2024. The ICL recommended that the mother have sole parental responsibility and the child communicate and spend time with the father in accordance with her wishes. The Court was informed by the ICL that this was consistent with the views of the child obtained through the ICL at the most recent hearing and reflected the same views of the child as at the commencement of the final hearing. The ICL embraced the expert Ms Q’s evidence that this was a case were great weight should be given to the views of the child.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Court finds that little or no weight can be place on the view of Dr D as to the father’s parenting capacity due to the want of reasoning in his report. Disregarding this opinion is also supported given the failure by the father to put on any further evidence as to his compliance with order 16 made of 2 August 2023 requiring attendance on his treating doctor or evidence from his treating doctor as to that attendance.
The Court found the mother to be an impressive witness. The oversharing with the child by the mother of information in the present case is not of a kind that reflects adversely on her credit or in the assessment of her evidence. This is because in this case the father clearly has significant mental health issues and limited ability to meet the emotional, physical and intellectual needs of his daughter. Whilst ordinarily there is force in the criticism of oversharing about the supervised centre reports in Ms Q’s report, given the context in which the mother was placed through the conduct of the father the Court finds Court finds the mother was trying to maintain the relationship between father and daughter. Further given the significant diminished parenting ability of the father, the steps taken by the mother were reasonable and the Court finds were steps to advance the relationship with the father, in communicating about the supervised time regime and reports as well as about the dates of further Cout hearings with the child.
The Court finds that the mother was not engaged in undermining the relationship with the father and was in fact trying to advance the same. The Court accepts that the child overheard a derogatory remark by the mother, but in the context of the withholding of the child by the father, this was not a determined undermining of the father by derogatory remarks. The Court finds that the mother did not seek to or in fact undermine the relationship between the father and the child. The Court finds it is the conduct of the father that had adversely impacted upon his relationship with the child, including his lack of insight as to his own limitations and his failure to prioritise the needs of the child.
The Court found the paternal grandmother to be an unreliable witness who advocated the cause of her son and who expressed no insight as to her son’s mental impairment and limitations in his ability to meet the needs of the child. The Court finds the paternal grandmother did not act in the best interests of the child at the time that the mother was seeking to recover her and took no steps to cease the withholding of the child in January 2022, an inappropriately told her son, the father, that if he did so he would never see the child again.
The Court found Dr S, having a postgraduate qualification in psychology, as the treating psychologist to be of limited utility given an apparent loss of independence and over identification with the father. The first report dated 16 June 2023 referred to steps to alleviate the psychic tension of the father and trying to avoid the neurotic defence (coping) mechanisms of the father and that he needs long term counselling. There was a repeated strong recommendation for consulting and engaging regularly with a psychiatrist and that the father has borderline intellectual functioning. The report opined that the father will come to accept that his daughter has her own needs and that her needs are to be considered before his own. The second report dated 26 January 2024 referred to sessions to increase the capacity of the father to meet his daughter’s psychological needs and that another 18 to 24 months of sessions are possibly required to make further significant impact on his emotional and affective maturity and to provide more effective parenting skills. The second report by Dr S maintained that the absence of communication by the child was inexplicable in circumstances where he was aware there were interim parenting orders that permitted communication in accordance with the wishes of the child. Those Court orders were an obvious and patent explanation for the that want of communication reflecting the child’s wishes. Dr S endeavoured to maintain that the failure to communicate was inexplicable after having confirmed that he was aware of the Court orders. The Court finds that Dr S was subjectively identifying with his client and his reasoning about his views as a father further support this finding of want of independence in the opinions expressed. The Court does not accept the views of Dr S suggesting a want of basis for diagnosis of a mental health disorder and does not accept the views of Dr S as to the father’s parenting capacity having improved.
The Court found Ms Q, as the Court expert, to be a very impressive witness. The criticism of the mother as to oversharing in general circumstances would be quite right, but here the mother’s explanation given the father’s impairments were compelling and a reasonable explanation. The Court accepts the credibility of the mother and the impairment of the father’s parenting capacity provides a proper and reasonable explanation for the sharing of information steps taken by the mother in the present case. The Court finds the sharing of information steps taken by the mother in communicating with the child about the supervised visits and engagement with the father were intended to and probably did help to try and advance the relationship between the father and the child. Given the diminished capacity of the father to meet the emotional needs of the child the sharing of information steps taken by the mother were reasonable in this case and the Court accepts that those steps by the mother were not taken to undermine the relationship. Indeed the Court finds that the alleged oversharing did not in this case undermine the relationship between the father and child, but rather that the relationship was undermined by the father’s conduct and impairment.
Ms Q gave compelling evidence as to why there was a greater risk of emotional harm to the child if orders were made to compel her to communicate with the father against her wishes, spend time with the father against her wishes or requiring consultation or therapy support. The Court finds that orders to compel time with the father, to communicate with the father or requiring consultation pose an unacceptable risk of emotional harm to the child. The risk of emotional harm includes the risk of reduced likelihood of seeking support in the future. The Court finds that the nature and degree of the emotional harm to the child from such risk is serious and of sufficient likelihood to outweigh any alleged benefit from the relationship with the father. The lack of attunement by the father to the needs of the child increase that risk of emotional harm and the most recent communication in Exhibit L reveals that ongoing lack of being attuned to the needs of the child.

There were a number of assumptions put to the expert by Mr Blackah of counsel, on behalf of the father. The Court does not accept the assumption put to the expert that that there was no satisfactory explanation for the withdrawal of the child from the relationship with the father. The Court finds that the child withdrew from the relationship due to the father’s conduct in withholding the child from the mother the child in January 2022. The Court finds that withholding of the child from the mother in January 2022 was deliberate by the father, with input from the paternal grandmother, and prevented the return of the child to the mother to the real emotional detriment of the child. The Court does not accept the assumption that the child was quite happy to continue supervised contact visits. The Court does not accept the assumption put to the expert that the father’s past conduct was not the subject of a significant and detrimental change given the change effected by his withholding of the child in January 2022. The Court does not accept that the child was happy about being withheld from her mother and finds that she was too scared to tell the father or the police that she wanted to return to her mother and did not want to remain with her father. The police agreed facts are consistent with the mother’s evidence that the child was being withheld and the Court places little weight on the police record as to what was stated by the child as to being happy and safe. There was little or no content around that conclusion and how the information was obtained and in front of whom or any identified basis of assessing the veracity. The Court prefers the applicant’s evidence as to withholding of the child, which is supported by the views of the child expressed to the expert and it is corroborated by the father’s conduct in seeking to have 100% control in the Child Support communication of the same day as the withholding from the mother in her attempt to recover the child.
The Court does not accept that there any inappropriate influence by the mother of the child that caused her not to want to spend time with the father after being withheld. The Court does not accept the assumption put to the expert that the mother was evasive as to Mr P or that the mother prioritised that relationship over the best interests of the child. The Court does not accept the assumption put to the expert that there was a high level of denigration of the father by the mother and does not accept that the mother coached the child in relation to her relationship or interaction with the father. The Court does not accept the assumption that the child was coached by the mother out of wanting to see her father at supervised contact visits and does not accept the assumption that she was quite happy to do so. The Court finds that the child ceased attending supervised visits because she did not want to see the father and that this was due to the father’s conduct in withholding the child. The Court does not accept the assumption that the mother does not want the child to have a relationship with the father. Further the mother’s evidence which the Court accepts is inconsistent with those assumptions.
The father was not a reliable or credible witness. The father was evasive, unresponsive and engaged in advocating his cause. The answer by the father that he did not have any mental health issues was untrue. The evidence that he was not diagnosed with a mental health disorder was untrue and contrary to his own affidavit sworn 15 February 2022 paragraph 54, which was put to him in cross examination. The Court finds that the father made up, in giving oral evidence, a conversation, which was not in his affidavit, that the mother of the child told him he would never see his daughter again at the time of preventing the child being returned to the mother on 17 January 2022. The paternal grandmother at the time of the attempted recovery by the mother told the father he would not see the child again if she was returned to the mother, and the Court rejects the father’s evidence to the contrary. The Court finds that the father told the child she was not going home. The father showed little insight as to his mental health issues, his anger management issues, his diminished parenting capacity, and inability to understand the emotional, physical and intellectual needs of his child and prioritised his own needs. The father’s denial of withholding the child was not credible and further was contradicted by the views expressed by the child to the expert Ms Q, was contradicted by the evidence of the mother, which the Court accepts, and was contradicted by the steps he took contacting Child Support on 17 January 2022 to claim that the child would live with him full time. The Court prefers the child’s views expressed to the expert as to her feelings at that time and, that she wanted to return to her mother on 17 January 2022. The Court accepts that the child was, when younger, slapped by the father, notwithstanding the father’s denial.
Further the Court finds that whilst in the father’s care the child needs were primarily met by the paternal grandparents, to the best of their ability. The Court finds that the paternal grandparents prioritised the needs of the father over that of the child when the father was angry or anxious. The Court finds that the father recently posted videos of his daughter and rejects as untruthful the father’s assertions that it must have been posted by nieces or nephews. The Court finds that the posting by the father and communications were in spirit in contravention of order 10 made on 2 August 2023, reflect a very recent failure to be attuned to the emotional needs of the child and were detrimental to the emotional well-being of the child as well as the relationship with the father. The failure, prior to the consent order made on day 6 to take steps to try and remove the same, to take any steps remove the same after the child’s request for removal is again a failure by the father to prioritise the needs of the child. The adverse remark about the child in the last post Ex L reveals a harmful failure to listen to and understand the child and a failure to attune to her needs.
The Court finds that the father lacks parenting capacity in that he has inadequate insight as to his own mental health and is unable to prioritise his child’s emotional and developmental needs over his own. The Court finds that the father lacks capacity to meet the emotional, physical and intellectual needs of the child. The Court finds that seeking to compel a relationship with the child at this age, given her apparent maturity and the persistence of her views would pose an unacceptable risk of emotional harm to the child that outweighs the benefit of a meaningful relationship with the father. The Court finds that the nature of that risk is significant emotional harm and that the degree of that risk is high. Further the Court places significant weight on the views of the child that she wanted time and that the best prospects of restoration of a relationship with the father are not ordering the child, at this age in the circumstances of this case, to act contrary to her wishes. The Court finds that validating the feelings and agency of the child by empowering her to decide when she wishes to spend time and communicate with her father is in the best interests of the child taking into account the all the circumstances explained in these reasons.
The Court has taken into account the statutory considerations to determine the best interests of the child, and the law referred to above. The two primary considerations, as explained above, in s60CC(2) are the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being exposed to neglect or family violence. Further as explained above the Court must give greater weight to the consideration in s60CC(2) (b) pursuant to s60CC(2A).
The father seeks orders to compel the child to spend time with him and to communicate with him in order to maintain his relationship. In relation to the two primary considerations, the Court accepts that the child had a meaningful relationship with her father up until the time that he withheld her from being returned to the mother in January of 2022. The Court accepts that the child, up until that time, had a close relationship with the paternal grandparents. The Court accepts that the father and paternal grandparents love the child. The Court appreciates that, in the absence of an order compelling the child to spend time and communicate with the father, there is a real risk that the child will not resume a meaningful relationship with her father or with the paternal grandparents.
The Court finds that relationship was materially damaged by the father’s own conduct in withholding the child in January 2022. The Court accepts the expert’s evidence that to compel the child to spend time with, communicate with or to undergo counselling/therapy would be highly likely to cause the child further emotional harm. The child has had nightmares from the withholding by the father and stopped supervised visits. The Court finds that the nature of that risk of emotional harm is significant and detrimental to the agency of the child and her future emotional development and that the degree of the risk is high given the father’s lack of insight and lack of attunement to the needs of the child. The Court does not accept that the mother has sabotaged the relationship and finds that the mother has been supportive of that relationship.
To use the father’s submissions’ language, it is the father who sabotaged his relationship with the child by withholding from her mother in January 2022. The risk of emotional harm in compelling time and communication with the father is real and high. The nature of the risk is serious emotional harm given the nightmares and further is likely to undermine the agency of the child which will impair her emotional development. That emotional harm the Court finds includes not validating the child’s feelings given her age and maturity. The Court finds that there is a real and significant risk of emotional harm to the child from compulsory orders that could have long-term adverse emotional and intellectual effects on the child including upon her relationship with her mother. The Court finds that the nature and extent of that risk of emotional harm in the present case is elevated by the ongoing failure of the father to have insight as to the nature and extent of his own mental issues, his own anger issues and his own impairments in relation to his parental capacity. The Court finds that the father lacks the ability to prioritise the child’s emotional needs over his own and that the degree of serious emotional harm is high.
The Court finds that spending time with the father and communicating with the father contrary to the wishes of the child is sufficiently likely to expose the child to psychological and emotional harm, from the family violence that occurred by the father withholding the child, and is in all the circumstances an unacceptable risk that outweighs the benefit of orders to compel the child seeing or spending time with the father. These circumstances include the father’s mental issues, diminished parenting capacity, lack of attunement to the increasing needs and agency of his daughter and failure to seek current expert psychiatric assistance. The Court finds the father’s explanations as to his recent failed steps to see a psychiatrist entirely unsatisfactory and does not accept that genuine steps were taken by the father to obtain current psychiatric assessment. The Court finds that in these circumstances, where the father has not sought appropriate psychiatric treatment and infers that the father has been resistant to seeking the same, despite recommendations by psychiatrists, there is an increased unacceptable risk of significant emotional harm to the child in seeking to compel time and communication with the father, contrary to the child’s wishes. The Court accepts the evidence of the expert Ms Q as to the potential emotional harm that the child would suffer if compelled by the Court to do so and that this would likely include emotional harm to the relationship between the mother and the child.
Communication or time with the father who cannot validate the feelings and agency of the child or be attuned to the changing needs of the child presents an unacceptable risk of emotional harm. The child is now at an age and level of maturity, even though she is 11, and is attuned to the father’s needs and functioning according to the expert Ms Q. Further the child has expressed consistent views about not wanting to spend time with the father since this hearing commenced in August 2023. Further, the child’s views as to not wanting to spend time with her father are consistent with what the Court finds was the child’s decision not to participate in counselling or family therapy and the child’s decision, to cease ongoing supervised visits with the father.
The same unacceptable risk arises in relation to Court compelled counselling or therapy. The Court accepts the expert evidence that it would be likely to prevent the seeking of the same if and when needed in the future to emotional detriment of the child.
In relation to s 60CC(3)(a) the child does have a relationship with the father and has wanted since August 2023 to control the same by communicating with the father and spending time with the father in accordance with her wishes. The child is at an age and has a maturity, including an understanding of the mental issues her father faces, that means greater weight can be place on her views and the Expert supported that weight being taken into account. In this case the Court does give the continued consistent expressed views of the child, since August 2023, considerable weight.
In relation to s 60CC(3)(b) the Court accepts that the child does have a relationship with the father and the paternal grandparents up until the time of the withholding of the child in January 2022 by the father, which withholding the Court finds, was encouraged by the paternal grandmother. The Court finds that permitting the child to spend time and to communicate in accordance with her wishes is more likely to help that relationship with both the father and the grandparents than attempted Court ordered compulsion. The Court accepts that the father loves the child, but does not accept that the father has been able to meet the child’s parenting needs since his medical episode and finds that the child was to an unacceptable degree, including the giving of medicine, caring for the father rather than the other way round. The Court also accepts that the child had the benefit of interacting with her other relatives while spending time with the father. The Court rejects the father’s evidence that he did not withhold the child in January 2022. The Court, however, finds that that relationship with the father and the grandparents has also been damaged by the conduct of the father in withholding the child in January 2017.
The Court does not accept the submission that the child, in fact, wished to remain with the father notwithstanding what was communicated at the time that police attended. The Court finds that the true position is that as identified in Ms Q’s report that the child felt unable to express her desire to return to her mother. The conduct of the father in requiring the child to participate in giving him his medication was not appropriate, and the Court finds, from the Child Support communication by the father in January 2022, that his intention was not to return the child and that is also consistent with what the child told the Family Court expert. This conduct by the father in withholding the child and intending not to return her was family violence that has caused the child emotional harm.
Whilst the Court accepts that the child still loves the father and the paternal grandparents, the Court finds that that relationship has been impaired and damaged by the conduct of the father. The Court finds that the paternal grandmother encouraged that refusal to return the child to the mother. The Court accepts the submission of Mr Teoh that the child will have reflected upon the conduct and accepts the reference to the nightmares as being consistent with the evidence of the expert that those reflections can give rise to further emotional distress and harm to the relationship between the father and the child.
The Court rejects the submission that was advanced by Mr Blackah that the relationship of the child with the father was sabotaged by the mother. The Court finds that the mother did, in fact, and has continued, to try and support the child having a meaningful relationship with the father. The Court finds that the best prospects of that meaningful relationship are orders of the kind to be made by the Court which permit the child to spend time and communicate with the father in accordance with her wishes.
The Court finds that relationship with the father has been damaged by the father’s own conduct. The father also has diminished parenting capability due to his mental issues that has damaged the relationship by the father prioritising his own needs over that of his child. The Court finds that the child has a close, loving and beneficial relationship with her mother who is able to meet the child’s emotional, physical and intellectual needs and has been responsibly and properly discharging her parenting obligations.
In relation to s 60CC(3)(c), the Court finds that when the child was spending time with the father, it was the paternal grandmother who was the primary carer of the child, and the Court finds that it is the mother who has principally made the major long-term decisions in relation to the child. The Court accepts that, until the withholding of the child in January 2017, the child was spending overnight of ultimately two days a fortnight with the father. The Court accepts that the father has been and remains willing to spend time and communicate with the child.
In relation to s 60CC(3)(ca), the Court finds that the father has not fulfilled his parental obligations to maintain the child by the conduct in which he engaged in withholding the child, trying to retain the child with him full time and communicating that to Child Support in relation to Child support payments. That was not conduct by the father fulfilling his obligations to maintain the child, but, rather, conduct consistent with obtaining a financial benefit from withholding the child deliberately. The Court finds that the mother has fulfilled her parenting obligations and rejects the submissions advanced as to the mother seeking to sabotage the relationship with the father.
In relation to s 60CC(3)(d), the Court accepts that the proposed orders will continue, at least in the short-term, the likely effect of the child not spending time with her father until her wishes otherwise changes. The Court also accepts that it means the child is unlikely to spend time with her grandparents until her wishes change in relation to spending time with her father.
The Court accepts that the child benefitted from the relationship with the father, the paternal grandparents and wider relatives. The Court, however, finds that that benefit is outweighed by the risk of emotional harm to the child when being forced, through Court orders, to spend time with and communicate with the father.
In relation to s 60CC(3)(e), there is the practical difficulty in relation to the child spending time and communicating with the father given her wishes not to do so. The child has effectively not communicated with the father since the end of supervised time in July 2023. The child did communicate with the father in January of this year as a result of the post by the father, which the Court finds were made by the father in breach of the spirit of order 10 made on 2 August 2023 by this Court.

In relation to s 60CC(3)(f), the Court finds that the mother has capacity to meet the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs. The Court finds that the father lacks capacity to meet the emotional, physical and intellectual needs of the child. The Court does not accept that the father was able to meet those needs for the 10 years prior to the withholding of the child. For reasons already given, the Court finds that the primary carer when the child was with the father was, in fact, the paternal grandmother meeting the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs. The Court does find, in relation to the want of that capacity by the father, that he suffers from serious mental issues, anger issues, and is unable to prioritise the child’s needs over his own needs.
In relation to s 60CC(3)(g), the Court finds that the child has a sufficient maturity, approaching the age of 12, and understanding of her father’s needs and functioning to give significant weight to her views. The child has been consistent in those views since August 2023 and those views are also consistent with the child deciding to cease attending supervised visits and the child’s decision not to participate in counselling and family therapy. The Court accepts the view of the Family Court expert, Ms Q, that it would cause emotional harm to seek to compel the child, contrary to her wishes, to spend time or communicate with the father and would cause emotional harm to the child to compel her to engage in counselling and family therapy. Ms Q pointed out that seeking to compel the child to do so is also likely to cause the additional harm that she will be reluctant to seek such counselling or therapy in the future to her detriment if the Court endeavoured to compel her to do so.
In relation to s 60CC(3)(h), this has no application in the present case. In relation to s 60CC(3)(i) for the reasons already given, the father has identified an attitude and lack of parental responsibility by endeavouring to meet his own needs over that of the child’s needs. The father’s reaction to the child’s request for removal was the post that he placed on the social media text in exhibit L where he said:
“Is your mum teaching you how to change your name like her now do you no it’s a crime.”
That post showed the most recent example of the father prioritising his feelings over the feelings of the child in the context of the apparent distress of the child and the failure of the father to take down the video posts. On the seventh day of the hearing of the trial, there was an order made by consent that the father would take steps to endeavour to remove those posts. The consent to those orders do reflect a level of insight by the father as to trying to prioritise the best interests of the child. Nonetheless, this came at the end of the seven-day hearing in circumstances where the child had already made patent her distress at the videos and the father had not earlier taken steps to seek to remove the same using his iPad.
It was suggested that the father needed codes to remove the posts but it was also apparent from the evidence of the father that he had not taken any steps endeavouring to remove those posts or videos. The failure to do so reflected an ongoing failure by the father to prioritise his needs over his child’s needs.
The observations also by the father as to alleged financial purpose behind the child’s conduct is a further example of the failure of the father to be able to meet the emotional needs of the child and the limited parenting capacity of the father. The attitude of the father by withholding the child in January 2022 showed a complete disregard of his own parenting obligations and the importance of a relationship by the child with her mother. The intention of the father at that time to obtain 100 per cent of the time with the child was not in the child’s best interests and demonstrated a lack of parenting capacity by the father.
The father gave evidence that he had discussed at that time with the child that perhaps she might see the mother for two days out of every seven with five days being spent with him. The discussion of those arrangements with the child were inappropriate conduct by the father and demonstrated an attitude in relation to the child by the father of prioritising his own needs over that of the child with a persistent assertion by the father that the views of the child have been tainted and are the subject of adverse influence from the mother further demonstrate a lack of ability by the father to accept and validate the feelings of the child. The Court does not accept that the mother did other than endeavour to maintain a relationship between the father and the child. The Court does not accept the submission that the mother was endeavouring to undermine the relationship between the father and the child in going through the supervised visit reports with the child given the mental issues faced by the father and what the Court accepts was the mother’s expressed desire to try and maintain that relationship.
In relation to s 60CC(3)(j), the Court finds that the father engaged in family violence by the withholding of the child in January of 2022. There was also an assertion by the child that the father had slapped the child when she was about eight or nine in Ms Q’s report. Given the father’s anger issues and lack of credibility, the Court finds on balance of probabilities that there was such an encounter between the father and the child.
In relation to s 60CC(3)(k), there is no current family violence order. The Court accepts that there was a family violence order that was made and obtained by the father against the mother following her endeavour to obtain the return of the child. The Court does not accept the father’s explanation that this was due to his concerns about the household of the mother. The Court finds that the father withheld the child to meet his own needs, rather than those needs of the child. The Court notes that the AVO was dismissed in early 2023 and finds that the mother acted reasonably in trying to obtain the return of the child and that the father sort the AVO to try and keep the child and not because he was in any fear of the mother.
The Court notes that there was evidence referring to the father taking the step of withholding the child for reasons of revenge. However, it is sufficient to find that the steps of withholding were taken by the father not for the reasons he propounded but rather to meet his own needs in relation to the child and amounted to family violence by the father.
In relation to s 60CC(3)(l), the Court is of the view that the proposed orders are least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings.
In relation to s 60CC(3)(m), the Court is of the view that the protraction of the proceedings would be most unfortunate and added to the stress not only on the parties but to the stress imposed on the child. The Court finds that the father’s inability to engage with the substance of these proceedings in relation to parenting orders and his repeated assertions that he was defending himself and seeking to prove that he did not suffer from a mental health disorder reflected a continuing prioritising by the father of his own needs rather than the emotional needs of his daughter.
The Court finds that it is more likely that the child will reconnect with the father when she is ready with the orders propounded by the Court and that the best chance of a future meaningful relationship between the father and the child are the orders now made by the Court.
The Court finds that the presumption for shared parental responsibility under s61DA is rebutted by the family violence that occurred in the withholding of the child by the father in January 2022. The Court finds that the father lacks the ability to co-parent with the mother. The Court finds that it is in the best interests of the child for the mother to have sole parental responsibility and for the child to live with the mother.
The Court has substantially adopted the proposed orders by the ICL which were marked Exhibit O. The father declined to agree orders proposed by the ICL. The Court has taken into account the competing versions of orders and the above findings. The Court has not adopted the ICL’s proposal specifying categories in relation to sole parental responsibility as it is unnecessary. The Court has not adopted the ICL’s proposed notification of major decisions as the Court finds that this notification is more likely to re-agitate disputes and is not in the best interests of the child. Further the Court has taken into account the findings made as to the lack of parenting capacity of the father in concluding that the ICL’s proposed notification is not in the best interests of the child.
The Court has not embraced the ICL’s proposed control of the child’s wishes as the order is clear and the Court does not accept that engrafting a role of regard and respect by the mother is necessary as the Court’s order as to the child’s wishes is binding and prescriptive. Nor is a return regime appropriate as the wishes of the child bind both parties.
The Court has not made an order concerning spending time with the parental grandparents as suggested by the ICL and the family report writer at [134](d). The paternal grandparents were involved in the refusal to return the child to the mother T174.36, T176.35 the lack of insight as to the father’s mental health issues T161.24, Ex C [125], lack of concrete sense of the child as an individual Ex C [117], [133](a), that they do not intervene[109] and prioritising of the father’s interests over that of the child Ex C [133] (a) mean that such an order concerning the grandparents is not appropriate or in the best interests of the child. There were also concerns expressed by the child to the Family expert about the paternal grandparents not being able to provide a buffer Ex C [133](e) at the father being involved in those communications Ex C [109]. The Court is mindful of the principles in s60B(2)(b) which includes grandparents. There is nothing restraining the child reaching out as and when she sees fit to engage with the parental grandparents. The Court has also taken into account that whilst the paternal grandmother alleged assumed all child caring responsibilities of the child after the father has his medical episode Ex C [128], according to the notes referred to in Ex C at [111](b) and [112] child felt like she was looking after the father and gave the father his medication. In all the circumstances the Court regards the making of an order about communication with the grandparents, who are not parties to these proceedings, to be contrary to the child’s best interests.
The Court does not accept that it is necessary to impose additional prescriptive obligations on the applicant as sought by the ICL as the applicant is by bound the order as to the child’s wishes. For the above reasons the proposed reference to the paternal family is also not appropriate and is not in the best interests of the child.
The ICL’s proposed orders 7 and 8 were not pressed by the ICL as the Court’s order as to the wishes of the child are clear and binding. The proposed orders on one view would detract from those wishes. This is a case where restraint upon the father communicating with the child is necessary given what the Court has found occurred by the father posting the information in Ex I to L, and proposed order 8 would be inconsistent with that restraint and is not in the best interests of the child.
In proposed order 9 the ICL accepted that the telephone number of the child should be removed and the Court has taken into account the making of a communication order between the parents using the MyMob application a sought by the mother. The School reports are the subject of a separate authority and the notification obligation has been narrowed to important medical information and significant developmental treatments and therapy, otherwise the obligation imposed on the mother for all medications and visits is too broad and not in the best interests of the child. Confining the notification to important and significant information is also less likely to lead to disputes.
The Court is not persuaded that any restraint should be imposed in relation to leaving the child in the care of Mr P and has taken into account specifically the views of the child in the expert report Exhibit C at [ 27,104,105]. The Court gives greater weight to the views in the Exhibit C than in the Case Notes of 2022 in Exhibit E including the note dated 16 February 2022 as to being scared about seeing Mr P as well as an alleged threat and does not accept that the child is now scared of Mr P. The case notes in Exhibit E record that the child denied that the step father has ever physically hurt her. The Court has taken into account the references to suicidal thoughts and not wanting the father to know. The Court places little weight on of February 2022 school interview notes in Exhibit E beyond the child not wanting to upset the father. Those case notes and school notes were not the subject of the authors being called. The cross examination of the mother on those records does not persuade the Court to place any significant weight upon the same. The Court also places no real weight on the child being left alone at home for a brief period, Exhibit C [103]. The Court does not accept that the father’s concern in his affidavit identifies any proper basis for an injunction, and the father recanted from his concerns during his cross examination at T259.15 and 249.21. Further the Court does not accept that the mother was not candid about her relationship or the mother’s view as to the veracity of a particular allegation was prioritising her relationship over the best interests of the child. The Court does not accept that there is a real risk that requires any injunction concerning Mr P, even if his relationship with the mother resumed. The Court does not regard the mother’s views about extricating herself from the relationship as supporting a fining of an unacceptable risk warranting injunctive restraint. No such restrain as to Mr P is in the best interest of the child.
As identified above the Court does find that the parents communicating in accordance with the final orders through the MyMob application, as sought by the mother, is in the best interests of the child and it is more likely to advance the primary consideration in s 60CC(2)(b) given the third party recording process and consequential reduced prospect of communication conflict as well as reducing the prospect of future disputes.
The Court has included an order to prevent physical or corporal punishment. Relevantly the Court accepts the evidence that there was an occasion of physical punishment by the father as identified by the child in the expert report Ex C at [100] and the order is necessary to protect the child.
The Court was not satisfied that there are circumstances that justify the Court in making an order under s117 in respect of the ICL’s costs as sought against the respondent. The Court has taken into account the considerations in s 117(2A) and in particular the lack of liquid resources by the father, his impairments and that he is not working.
It is for these reasons the Court has made the above orders.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and forty-two (142) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Street.
Associate:
Dated: 16 February 2024

File number(s):	PAC 616 of 2022
Judgment of:	JUDGE STREET
Date of judgment:	16 February 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW - PARENTING – child 11 – parenting capacity of father - live with mother- mother sole parental responsibility - spend time with and communicate with father in accordance with child’s wishes
Legislation:	Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Cases cited:	A v A (1998) FLC 92-800 Cotton & Cotton (1983) FLC 91-330 Deiter & Deiter [2011] FamCAFC 82 Director General, Department of Family and Community Services (NSW) and the Colt Children [2013] NSWChC 5 Fitzwater & Fitzwater (2019) 60 Fam LR 212 Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-092 Johnson & Page (2007) FLC 93-344 Jurchenko & Foster (2014) FLC 93-598 Loddington & Derringford (No 2) [2008] FamCA 925 M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 Masson v Parsons (2019) 266 CLR 554 McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93-405 N v S (1996) FLC 92-655 Napier & Hepburn (2006) FLC 93-303 Nikolakis & Nikolakis [2010] FamCAFC 52 Stott & Holgar [2017] FamCAFC 152
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	142
Date of hearing:	1 & 2 August 2023 4 October 2023 5, 6 & 9 February 2024
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr L Teoh
Solicitor for the Applicant:	G & L Law Group
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr D Blackah
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Marsdens Law Group
Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer:	Mr K Francis
Independent Children’s Lawyer:	Laura K Law

PAC 616 of 2022
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MS KAVRAN Applicant
AND:	MR VINKO Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE STREET
DATE OF ORDER:	16 FEBRUARY 2024

Date	Event
1971	Respondent Father is born
1971	Applicant Mother is born
2005	An incident occurred where the respondent father was taken by Police to the mental ward of a hospital after reporting to police that he was being followed. He was admitted under the Mental Health Act.
2010	The parties commence a relationship.
Early 2012	Incident where the applicant mother alleged the respondent father was acting delusional
Early 2012	The respondent father voluntarily seeks admission to a hospital mental health ward, and is admitted for one night
2012	The child is born
April 2013	X commences spending overnight time with the respondent father at the paternal grandparent’s house, supervised by the paternal grandparents, only a weekly basis.
2013	The applicant mother claims that she is told that the respondent father has been diagnosed with a mental health condition and is on prescribed medication.
December 2013	The parties end their relationship.
17 November 2013	The respondent father refuses to return the child to the applicant mother after an argument over child support.
18 November 2013	The respondent father returns the child to the applicant mother
April 2014	The parties attend dispute resolution without success
2014	The applicant mother withholds the child from the respondent father
Mid-2014	The respondent father suffers a medical episode. Following the episode, his time with the child increases to 2-3 nights a week.
2016-2017	The applicant mother travels to the United Kingdom for work and the child stays in the full time care of the respondent father for the duration of the 2 weeks.
February 2017	The child commences school
February 2017	The child spends 2 evening a week with the respondent father
2017	The child begins to spend weekly time with the respondent father during school holiday periods.
2020	The applicant mother marries Mr P and commences to cohabitate with him
25 December 2020	The respondent father claims that the applicant mother failed to deliver the child to him as agreed
June- September 2021	It is alleged that the respondent father slapped the child
1 January 2022	The respondent father withholds the child from the applicant mother
4 January 2022	The applicant mother calls the respondent father seeking information about the whereabouts of the child. The respondent father refuses to tell her and claims that they were near Town F and had tested positive for COVID-19.
13 January 2022	The applicant mother receives a call from the respondent father who placed the child on the phone. The applicant mother hears the child crying.
14 January 2022	The applicant mother calls the police for the welfare check on the child.
15 January 2022	The police inform the applicant mother that they had assessment X’s welfare and confirmed that she was safe and wishes to stay with the respondent father.
17 January 2022	The applicant mother unsuccessfully attempts to recover the child form the paternal grandparents
Early 2022	The applicant mother was arrested and charged with assault upon the respondent father and served with an interim ADVO.
Early 2022	The respondent father and the child receive messages from the applicant mother stating that in order to avoid the respondent father, she intended to leave the child to live with the respondent father.
February 2022	The respondent father changes the child’s school.
17 February 2022	The Court orders the return of the child to the applicant mother and the recommencement of her schooling at Suburb C School.
Early 2023	The applicant mother accepts without admission an ADVO
Early 2023	The charge against the applicant mother was heard and dismissed at Local Court
24 August 2023	Family Report of Ms Q is released.
2 July 2023	The arrangements for time spent with the child and the respondent father at terminated.
Early 2024	The respondent father posts a video of the child on social media from the child’s old account with permission.