Knight and Burns

[2018] FamCA 1055

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KNIGHT & BURNS [2018] FamCA 1055

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Best Interests – Where allegations were made that the father sexually abused the parties’ son – Where the son made disclosures about the father – Where the father denied that he sexually abused the child – Where the father accused the mother of coaching the child – Where judgment was reserved and the trial was re-opened and further evidence was admitted – Where the further hearing was adjourned until the criminal proceedings against the father were finalised – Where the father pleaded guilty to posting child pornographic material onto the dark web and otherwise made child exploitative material available and possessed child exploitation material – Where the Court is satisfied that the father did sexually abuse the child – Where the father would have had no doubts that what he was doing was immoral and illegal and would have grave consequences for him and his son – Where the father has demonstrated no remorse for his behaviour – Where it is in the children’s best interests for their mother to have sole parental responsibility and to prohibit their father from seeing and communicating with them in any way.

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Knight

RESPONDENT: Ms Burns

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Justine Lilley

FILE NUMBER: BRC 8664 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED: 12 December 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Forrest J

HEARING DATE: 15, 16, 17 & 18 December 2014, 15 February 2016 and 8 March 2018

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT:

Self-represented

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Oakley

(on 15, 16, 17 & 18 December 2014)

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: ABA Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Burrows
ABA Lawyers

(on 15 February 2016)

THE RESPONDENT:

Self-represented

(8 March 2018)

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Page QC

(on 15, 16, 17 & 18 December 2014)

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Lilley
Legal Aid Queensland

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Lilley
Legal Aid Queensland

(on 15 February 2016 and 8 March 2018)

Orders

1. That all previous parenting Orders and parenting plans are discharged.

2. That the children, X born … 2006 and Y born … 2008, (“the children”) shall live with the mother.

3. That the mother shall have sole parental responsibility for the children, including in particular to be clear, sole parental responsibility for making decisions about their names.

4. That the children shall not spend any time with the father.

5. That the father shall make no attempt to communicate with the children in any form.

6. That the Independent Children's Lawyer be discharged.

7. That pursuant to s 65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 (as amended), the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders and details of who can assist parties to adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these Orders.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Knight & Burns has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 8664 of 2011

Mr Knight

Applicant

And

Ms Burns

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Four years ago now, I presided over the four day trial in this parenting matter. It was about the parenting of two children who were eight and six years old at the time of the trial. Their parents had been a couple for 10 years, but had separated a few years before in 2011. The mother had ended the marriage, having become completely unsatisfied with the father’s lack of emotional and physical interaction with her, and no longer able to tolerate his alcohol abuse.

2. For several months after their separation, the mother cautiously facilitated contact between the two little children and the father, before they entered into an informal parenting plan that provided for an incremental increase in the time they spent with him, abstinence from alcohol on his part, as well as obligation on his part to participate in urine screening for alcohol at the random request of the mother. It also provided for regular review.

3. The mother said that after that the parenting arrangements progressed as planned. She said that the father appeared sober at handovers and that the children appeared to be enjoying their time with the father. However, she said that she observed the eldest child, their son, to demonstrate behavioural changes into 2012. He commenced Prep that year. He continually came to the attention of his teachers for his significantly sexualized behaviour. He was observed to behave in sexually inappropriate ways with male and female classmates and also with male teachers. He was observed to draw overtly sexual drawings of male persons. He was constantly bed wetting and from time to time complained to his mother of having a sore penis. On one of the occasions the mother checked him, she observed what she said appeared “to be like a broken blood vessel under the head of his penis”.

4. In October 2012, the boy’s teacher told the mother she thought he may have been sexually abused by someone. The mother said that after she was told that she spoke with the father about it and asked him for his views. She said that he was quiet at first and then indicated to her that he did not think it was likely and then changed the subject. The mother said that the father then began regularly criticising the boy’s teacher to her.

5. On 2 January 2013, the mother returned to work that day after holidays. She took their daughter to day care. She took the boy to vacation care as planned and discovered it was not open for another week. She then called the father, who was not working that day, and asked him if he could look after the child. He said he would and she even offered to pick up the little girl from day care and drop the two children to him. He told her that she need not do that, but just to drop their son off.  

6. The mother said that as she was driving the boy to his father’s place, the boy told her he did not want to go to his “dad’s”. She asked the boy if something was wrong and if there was a reason why he did not want to go there. He did not respond to her other than by repeating that he did not want to go. She told him she had to go to work and that she had to drop him there and she did.

7. The mother said that when she finished work she picked up their daughter and went to the father’s place to pick up the boy. He walked towards her car whilst the father remained on the verandah looking towards them. She described the boy’s presentation as “suppressed and withdrawn”. She said he also looked ashamed and confused. When he got to the car, she asked him if he was “okay”. He did not answer her or look at her. She put him into the car and then went and asked the father if he knew why the boy was behaving strangely. She said the father just shrugged his shoulders and said that he did not know.

8. The mother said that when she got in the car to leave, she asked the boy why he did not want to hug her. She said the boy said “I’m not telling you” and “I can’t tell you”. When they got home the mother tried to speak with the boy about what was bothering him. He kept saying to her “I can’t tell you”. The mother said that she then engaged with her four year old daughter who began speaking with her and she observed the boy to cheer up a little. She again turned to him and asked him what he had done with his daddy that day. He said that they had watched some movies, played on his electronic tablet, did some “fighting” outside and played “the penis rubbing game”. On further questioning, she said the boy said that they were sitting on the couch when it happened. They were watching a Spiderman movie and his father stopped the movie so that they could play the game of rubbing their penises together. She said the boy told her that his father’s penis was really big and that he demonstrated to her, by using his index finger, that it was first drooping down and that it was then sticking up. She said the boy told her it was “hard at the bottom” when she asked him what it felt like.

9. The mother said that the boy went on to tell her that he watched a movie on his father’s computer in which there was a man with no pants who had “a really big willy”. She said the boy told her that the man in the movie said “he likes looking at kid’s nuts” before he corrected himself and said “no, I think he said kid’s balls”.

10. The mother said she later discussed these matters with her parents before ringing the “Sexual Abuse Hotline” and was referred to the Queensland Police. She said that a few nights later she was telling the children it was not appropriate to allow anyone to touch their private areas. She said that she said “that means no-one, including Nanna, myself and other relatives that I described, and I went on to say Daddy.” She said that as soon as she said “Daddy”, the boy interjected and said “Daddy? He does it all the time”. She said the boy then immediately pulled down his pyjama pants and started rubbing his penis with an open palm and said “Daddy does that all the time”. She said that she asked the boy what he does when his father does that and he responded “I just join in”.

11. She said that she then approached the Queensland Police Service on 7 January 2013. She did not notify the father of the disclosures as she wanted to get advice from the police before she did that. She said that same morning the father contacted her asking if the boy was in vacation care and she told him that he was at home with her and she did not want the father to collect him. She had taken the rest of the week off work after the disclosures of the boy on the evening of 2 January.

12. On 7 January 2013, the boy was interviewed by Police Officers from the Child Protection and Investigation Unit. The interview was video recorded pursuant to s 93A of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). That was adduced into evidence at the trial. I watched it. I have watched it again very recently. The boy told the police in that interview that when he was at his father’s he and his father had played a game that was “really gross” and it was “inappropriate”. He told the police that they were touching each other’s penis. He referred to it as the “private part game”. He said that they played this game on the couch after watching the Spiderman movie. He told police that he had pulled his undies and his shorts down and that his father had pulled his pants down below his penis. He said that they had rubbed penises together and had shown their “nuts” by lifting them up. He told the police that he had played this game before with his friend at school.

13. The mother said that the Department of Child Safety got involved at this time and she had discussions with Departmental officers. She said she assured them that she would not be letting the children spend unsupervised time with the father again. On 11 January 2013, the mother sent a message to the father informing him that she was no longer going to be working by the existing parenting plan and that he should contact her solicitors if he had any questions.

14. On Saturday, 12 January 2013, the mother received a text message from the father. It read:

    … for [the boy’s] safety, can you please promise me one thing? Can you please make sure that he is never left along with another male – be that your boyfriend, your father or anyone. You and I have been concerned about his obsession with willies for a while now, and have wondered whether he was being interfered with. If it now turns out this is true, I can assure you it’s not me, so it must be another male in his life. Please protect him!

15. On or about the same day, the father turned up uninvited at the mother’s door and handed her a type written note headed “PLEASE READ THIS!” It was three pages long. It was a note in which the father started by saying “you need to know what actually happened the other day”. He went on to tell the mother that the boy had approached him, stood near him and pulled down the front of his pants and said something provocative and invited the father to touch his penis. He said he dealt with it appropriately and then said the boy then grabbed him on his penis. He said he then disciplined the boy by sending him to his room. He said that he told the boy that he was going to have to tell the mother about it and that she was going to be very cross with him, too. He then tried to explain why he had not spoken to the mother about it when she picked the boy up that day – that he was more consumed with his own anger with her for having dropped the boy at his place that day. He then tried to explain why he had not spoken to her about it in the days since. He then went on to speculate that the boy had told her something and asked her to consider whether she should believe the boy or him. I need not detail the entire note.

16. The father was invited to be interviewed by the police later in January 2013 and declined. He was not charged with an offence arising out of the boy’s disclosures.

17. The mother immediately started taking the boy to see a psychologist. He saw the psychologist regularly over a long period of months. The boy made disclosures to the psychologist, reported in a report that was adduced into evidence at the trial. A family report was also prepared for the trial. The boy made disclosures to the family report writer in the course of her preparation of that report.

18. The mother said that in January 2013, the father again turned up on her doorstep unannounced. She believed he was to see the police the next day. The father handed her some items for the children that he had in his possession, including a skateboard. She asked him why he was at her home and he said because he was “going to jail tomorrow”. He said that he was pleading for his life and asked her why she was doing this, as if he went to jail he would not be able to pay child support or health insurance premiums. She told him it was about keeping the children safe. She said she asked the father why he was worried if he had not abused the boy and the boy was lying as he asserted. She said he responded to her by saying “it’s a six year olds (sic) word against mine” and “I know what they do to paedophiles in jail.” He then left her home. She said she was worried about the father’s state of mind and thought he might be suicidal. She contacted him by phone, concerned that he might harm himself. She said she asked him would he agree to only see the children on a supervised basis and he asked her to repeat that and he would write it down. She said she told him that the boy had told her all that had gone on between him and the father and that she had to take those disclosures to the police. The father responded to her that they should work it out in the Family Court, not the criminal courts. She said that she asked him to agree to limiting his time with the children to be supervised by her or at a children’s contact centre.

19. The mother said that early the next morning she received an email from the father attaching a draft revised parenting plan that gave the mother sole parental responsibility and provided for his time with the children to be supervised. By that time, the mother had already filed an application in the Federal Magistrates Court (as it was then called). The mother and the father then entered into some negotiations which resulted in Orders being made in that Court with their consent on 5 February 2013. The father’s time was to be supervised from that time on, either by the mother herself or at a children’s contact centre, for one hour each fortnight.

20. The mother continued to supervise the children’s time with the father, always away from his home. She said that there was one occasion when she allowed a one hour visit to be supervised at a commercial provider of supervision. She said she only allowed one visit because she was not comfortable with the supervisor she met. She said that she asked for an assurance from the person that the children would always be supervised and that the person would not give it. She said the person gave her the impression that the father was the service’s client and the mother was not impressed with her apparent lack of independence.

21. In mid-November 2013, the father filed his own Initiating Application in the Federal Circuit Court seeking equal shared parental responsibility and unsupervised time for blocks of days each fortnight. His application was supported by an affidavit from the Managing Director of the commercial provider who had supervised the one hour the mother had agreed to, who also happens to be a social worker. She deposed to having seen the father for counselling from February 2013 on a total of 14 occasions. That witness said in her affidavit that “there was no impediment to [the father] enjoying unsupervised time with his children”. The short report that was provided referred to issues with the father’s “addiction to alcohol”, his attendance at AA and his conversion to a different Christian faith. It made no reference to allegations of sexual abuse of his son.

22. In his affidavit filed with his Application in November 2013, relevantly, the father deposed as follows:

    36.On 2 January 2013, at [Ms Burns’s] request, I cared for [X] for the day.  [Ms Burns] was at work and [Y] was at daycare. Two incidences occurred on that day.

    37.The first incident occurred in the morning. [X] was playing in his room while I was watching television. [X] came into the lounge room, stood near the lounge and pulled down the front of his pants.

    38.[X] exclaimed, “Look, I’ve got a stiffy! Do you want to touch it?”

    39.    I shouted at [X], “No. I do not. Put that away!”

    40.I regrouped myself and then tried to calmly discuss with [X] how he had to stop flashing his penis and backside, and, how his apparent obsession with these body parts needed to stop.

    41.I reminded [X] of how many times he has been in trouble for this type of behaviour in the past and that this type of behaviour would not be accepted in grade 1.

    42.I thought that I had made myself clear to [X] and that [X] understood.

    43.After lunch, [X] and I were sitting on the couch watching some children’s television.

    44.[X] was sitting beside me, snuggling in under my arm.

    45.Suddenly, [X] reached down and grabbed my penis and said, “I got your willy!”

    46.I immediately pushed [X] away and gave him a hard smack on his arm.

    47.I lost my temper and I became angry with [X]. I expressed to him again that this type of behaviour had to stop. I stood up, taking [X] by his left arm and smacked him across his backside. I then sent him to his room. This is the first time that I had ever smacked [X].

    48.After I had recovered from the incident, I went into [X’s] room to talk to him. I tried to discuss with [X] calmly the issue.

    49.I said to [X] in words to the effect, “Why do you keep wanting to touch other guys’ willies?” [X] responded, “I don’t know”.

    50.I further asked [X], in words to the effect, “Has anyone let you touch their willy?” [X] responded, “No”.

    51.[Ms Burns] and I had discussed prior to this occasion, in consultation with professionals, that the type of behaviour that [X] was exhibiting could be a learned behaviour as a result of someone sexually abusing [X]. I was concerned about [X].

    52.I again attempted to discuss with [X] how this type of behaviour was completely inappropriate. I confiscated his tablet computer, advising him words to the effect, “You have lost your tablet computer until I am satisfied that you have stopped doing this. If I hear of this sort of thing happening again after we’ve had this talk, you will be in serious trouble with me. I am going to have to tell your mum about this.  Your mum is going to be very cross with you too”.

    53.Later that day, when [Ms Burns] came to collect [X], I did not discuss the matter with her. As outlined below, I was suffering from alcoholism at this time and I consider that my alcoholism may have affected my judgment on this occasion in relation to not speaking about the issue immediately with [Ms Burns]. [Ms Burns] and I had previously discussed this issue on several occasions.

    54.After this time, [Ms Burns] ceased allowing me to spend time with [X] and [Y]. […]

    55.In response to the action taken by [Ms Burns], on or about 13 January 2013, I gave to [Ms Burns] either in person or by delivering to her letterbox (I cannot recall) correspondence explaining what had occurred on 2 January 2013. 

    56.As evident from the document referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph, [Ms Burns] never contacted me and explained to me the allegations that [X] purportedly made to her regarding me.  I was never able to respond to the specifics of the purported allegations as I was not aware of them.

    57.After this incident, I was contacted by the Queensland Police and asked to speak with them regarding issues in relation to [X].

    58.I immediately sought legal advice. Without divulging the confidential advices that I was provided, I declined to be involved in an interview with Queensland Police.

    59.I was not again contacted by Queensland Police.

1. The proceedings were transferred by a Federal Circuit Court Judge to this Court and progressed towards the trial in December 2014. In May 2014, the father wrote a letter to the mother’s solicitors and alleged that the maternal grandfather had “been inappropriately dealing with [the boy], speaking inappropriately with [the boy] and showing [the boy] pornographic images on his computer”.

2. In a further affidavit filed by the father on 17 July 2014, he relevantly said this of the mother:

   9.I have already described events in January 2013 in my Earlier Affidavit and I repeat my denial that I have ever touched [X] in an inappropriate manner and I deny all such allegations which have been made against me. The allegations which have been made are reprehensible and I cannot believe that [Ms Burns] can actually believe that I would be capable of things like this.

3. At the trial, the father appeared without legal representation. It is important to point out, though, that his advocacy experience was obvious. Unlike many litigants who have no representation, he did a competent job of representing himself.

4. At the trial, he maintained his denials of having sexually abused his son and maintained his attacks on the mother, submitting that she had coached her son to make the disclosures to the police and others, either out of malice or naïve and negligent misunderstanding of innocent things the boy had said.

5. Queen’s Counsel who appeared for the ICL submitted that I would make a positive finding that the father sexually abused the boy. Counsel for the mother submitted that I should make a positive finding that the father sexually abused the boy.

6. The mother impressed me greatly as a parent truly conscious and desirous of her children needing to have meaningful relationships with their father, whilst maintaining her belief that he had sexually abused her son and that any time the children spent with him should be supervised.

7. The father made impassioned submissions, orally and in writing, inviting me to accept his honesty and credibility and urged me not to make adverse findings against him that would damage his career prospects.

8. At the end of the trial, I reserved my judgment. Due to the responsibilities of hearing and determining so many other similar matters, I had not delivered judgment by the end of 2015.

A Significant Development

1. On 17 November 2015, Queensland Police executed a search warrant at the father’s home. They found the gate to his property locked and he refused to open it to them. They got in anyway. When the police asked him if he had pornographic material on his computer system he denied he did. When the police asked him if he had encryption on his computer system he denied he did. Both of those denials were lies.

2. As police were attempting to access his extremely sophisticated computer system, the father attempted to unplug one of the computers which would have activated encryption. He refused to give police his computer passwords or access to his encrypted computers. Police found that he had very high levels of technological hardware, special software and peer to peer cloud storage under a false name.

3. The father was arrested and subsequently charged with several serious child pornography offences. He was bailed, denying all charges.

4. The proceedings then came back before me on an application by the ICL to reopen the trial, to adduce more evidence, to make some interim orders and to adjourn the matter until after the father’s criminal charges were finalised in the criminal courts in Brisbane.

5. The father had not been seeing the children at all for approximately a year at that time, though the Orders that remained in place whilst my judgment was reserved provided for him to still have supervised time with the children. He had stopped seeing the children as he no longer agreed to being supervised by the mother. He asked for Orders that he start having time with the children again, supervised at a children’s contact centre. That was opposed by the mother and the ICL.

6. I re-opened the trial, admitted the further evidence, suspended the father’s time with the children and adjourned the further hearing of the matter until a date to be determined once the criminal proceedings against the father were finalised. I gave reasons for those decisions at the time.

7. The father appealed against my suspension of the Orders providing for contact. His appeal against those Orders was dismissed by the Full Court of this Court.

8. The matter progressed no further in this Court until earlier this year. It came back before me for further hearing as the criminal proceedings against the father had been finalised. By the time it was before me, the father was in jail. He was serving a prison sentence of a total of seven and a half years. A non-parole period of four years and six months was also fixed, making him eligible to be first released from prison in 2021. The sentencing had occurred on the father’s pleas of guilty to four counts on indictment and two summary offences.

9. The particulars of the charges the father pleaded guilty to included that he posted child pornography material onto the “dark web” on nine occasions, that he otherwise made child exploitation material available and possessed child exploitation material.

10. The sentencing Judge spoke of the father’s offences. She said that police had identified 107 messages which the father had posted to child pornography related boards, a number of which contained links to child pornography material. The material that he uploaded included 724 child pornography images and four child pornography videos. Her Honour pointed out that the first posting occurred at the end of December 2014, that is, after the conclusion of the trial in this Court. The father posted a message asking to be told if his post had any security holes ahead of posting more. He then posted a picture of a child, around eight years of age, which was grossly and obscenely exploitative, before posting 713 similar images of young girls in similar obscenely exploitative circumstances. Some of the images showed adult male penises against the genitals or mouths of these very young children.

11. Between January and February 2015, the father posted a video of a girl of about eight years of age being grossly abused. He posted more such material after that. The father also pleaded guilty to making child exploitation material by having written a two page typewritten story describing his interactions with real people, attaching a folder of photographs of erotic photographs of some of those people. The sentencing remarks do not particularise whether any of these were the two children the subject of these parenting proceedings.

12. The father also pleaded guilty to possessing 8735 images of varying degrees of eroticism and child sexual abuse, as well as 266 videos, many of which showed terrible child sexual abuse. He also pleaded guilty to possessing 2193 written stories of child sexual abuse, many of which had titles depicting themes of violence and incest between men and their children.

13. Her Honour said that the father lacked empathy for the children the subject of the material he possessed. She said that he had provided dishonest instructions to his counsel, denying that he had been a member of the online paedophile community for any length of time. This was subsequently revealed to be false as evidence showed he had been a member of that community for many years, since at least 1998. The Judge found that his instructions to his counsel, put to the Court by counsel, that the father’s conduct was aberrant were false as his activity was not aberrant. The Judge also found that the father had given dishonest version of events to both the psychiatrist and the psychologist who had been involved in the sentencing process. The Judge did not accept that the father was remorseful for his conduct and said that he had taken a cynical attitude to the proceedings and had been dishonest with the Court. Her Honour went on to say “I do not expect you will ever lose your sexual interest in children”. Her Honour pointed out that he would never be able to control this unless he was sincere in his efforts to do so and that her Honour did not consider him to “presently” be sincere about changing his ways.

The Continuation of the Proceedings before this Court

1. When the matter came back before this Court in March this year, the father was heard by telephone from prison. All he sought from the Court was the right to be able to communicate in writing with his children. That was opposed by the mother and by the ICL.

2. The mother also sought an Order that she be given sole parental responsibility for the children specifically so that she could change the children’s family names from the family name of the father to the new family name of the mother (she had remarried and changed her name to that of her new husband). The mother gave evidence that the children wanted to have their name changed and did not want to be reminded of their father by their name. She already had sole parental responsibility for the children from the Orders the father had consented to in early 2013, but those Orders included a specific restriction on changing the children’s names. The mother wanted that restriction lifted.

3. The mother’s evidence was that the father had been sending cards and gifts to the children for their birthdays, Easter and Christmas. She said the children accepted the gifts but showed no interest at all in the cards, nor had they expressed any desire to respond to the father.

4. Though the father was not seeking Orders for the children to spend any time with him whilst in prison or upon his eventual release, the fact that he was asking for Orders that permitted him to still communicate with them in writing caused me to determine that I would have to make findings in respect to the alleged abuse of the boy. The ICL and the mother agreed.

My Findings

1. I am quite satisfied in this case that the father did sexually abuse the boy. In particular, I am satisfied that on 2 January 2013, the father sexually abused his son when he was looking after him at his home in Brisbane for the day. I am satisfied that the father and the boy were in the lounge room of his home on the couch when the abuse occurred. It involved, at least, incitement of his son to show him his genitals and to touch them whilst at the same time showing his own genitals to the boy and touching them.

2. The boy’s disclosures to his mother, the police, the psychologist he saw, and the family report writer were all credible and believable. The history of his overtly sexualised behaviour at school satisfies me that it is indeed also very likely that the father had previously sexually abused his son as well, or at least had exposed him, often, to exploitative pornographic images of children, still and moving.

3. The father would have had no doubts that what he was doing was immoral and illegal and that it would have grave consequences for his son as he matured into adulthood, as well as grave consequences for himself if he was caught, charged with offences, convicted and punished. The father is fortunate never to have been charged with abusing his son.

4. The father ruthlessly set about denying that he had abused his son. In doing so, when denying the alleged conduct to the mother, he blamed the boy and unknown third parties, potentially even the mother’s new partner and father. He cast aspersions on the mother’s judgment for choosing to believe the boy as opposed to him, trying to make the mother feel bad about doing so. He tried to persuade the mother from pursuing the matter with the authorities by telling her that she would not receive financial support from him if he was in prison. When the matter was before the Court, he went as far as actually asserting to the mother’s lawyers that it was the mother’s father who had abused the boy. This was heinous, dishonest conduct on the part of the father.

5. He also went about obtaining a report from a social worker to support his case for unsupervised contact with his children, seeing her as many as 14 times for “counselling” with a view to her supporting his case, without ever telling her the truth that he was a long-time paedophile who had actually abused his own son.

6. When representing himself before this Court, he again falsely accused the mother of coaching the child as part of the emergence and maintenance of the allegations she had made against him. He falsely denied in his sworn/affirmed evidence that he had abused his son. He pleaded to my sense of justice and compassion in urging me not to make adverse findings against him that might impact upon his right to continue practising law. That was reprehensible from a man who knew the truth, but is even more worthy of condemnation given he was an officer of the Court at the time.

7. I am satisfied that at all times the mother acted appropriately and in a child focused manner. Though not wanting to believe that the father of her children was responsible for abusing them, she always acted protectively in a child focused manner. The father demonstrated no remorse for the impact his behaviour would undoubtedly have had on the mother’s well-being as well as the children’s.

8. In all these circumstances, I am quite satisfied that the best interests of the two subject children will be met by Orders that prohibit the father from seeing them at all, and from communicating with them in any way. I am also satisfied that their best interests will be served by permitting their mother to change their family name, if she wants, so that they bear the same family name as their mother, whatever that might be. 

9. Whether these children, or either of them, ever has any form of relationship with their father will be a matter for them to decide when they have reached adulthood and can make all such relevant decisions for themselves. 

10. I make the Orders set out at the commencement of these written reasons.

I certify that the preceding fifty-seven (57) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Forrest delivered on 12 December 2018.

Associate:

Date:  12 December 2018