LAWSON & HILL

[2016] FamCA 1147

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LAWSON & HILL [2016] FamCA 1147

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where the father seeks an order for equal shared parental responsibility but for the child to live with the mother – Where the father seeks orders in relation to time with child beginning with supervised time and progressing to unsupervised time – Where the mother seeks an order for sole parental responsibility – Where the mother seeks an order for the father to spend time with the child once per month at a supervision agency – Where the father suffers from at least one serious mental disorder – Where the father’s mental status problem is unlikely to be significant improved by future treatment – Where a history of complaints and withdrawal of services have been made by the those agencies providing supervision of the father’s time with the child due to the father’s inappropriate behaviour – Where there is an unacceptable risk of the child’s time with his father being harmful to him unless that time is properly supervised – Where there is a high level of conflict between the parties and the father has engaged in family violence – Where the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility does not apply – Where it is in the child’s best interests for the mother to have sole parental responsibility for making decisions about major long term issues but she is to notify the father about the implementation of any decision that she makes – Where the father’s application for the child’s name to be changed is dismissed – Where the father’s application for the child’s school to be changed is dismissed – Where the father seeks orders that the child attend a program where he will learn about Judaism – Where orders are made for the mother to take the child to this program at a Synagogue closer to her place of residence – Where orders are made for the father to spend supervised time with the child for four hours per month.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Reynolds & Sherman (2015) FLC 93-659

Rice v Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725

APPLICANT: Mr Lawson

RESPONDENT: Ms Hill

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Christaki

FILE NUMBER: SYC 1626 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 23 December 2016

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Watts J

HEARING DATE: 4 - 7 April 2016

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Hodgson

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Aston Legal

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Giacomo

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Hamish Cumming Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Berry

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid NSW

Orders

1. All previous parenting orders are discharged.

2. The mother have sole parental responsibility for C, born … 2010 (“the child”).

3. The mother shall from time to time notify the father of her intention to make any decision about any major long term issue in relation to the child and notify the father from time to time about her implementation of any decision that she has made in relation to any major long term issue concerning the child and the father is not to interfere in any way with the mother making or implementing any such decision.

4. The father’s application for the child’s name to be changed is dismissed.

5. The father’s application for the parties to do what is necessary to change the child’s schooling is dismissed.

6. The child live with the mother.

7. The child spend time with the father each school term as follows:

   7.1.For four hours on Saturday on the weekend at the conclusion of the first week of school term, on the fifth weekend of school term and on the ninth weekend of school term (if applicable);

   7.2.Such times are to be supervised by X Contact Centre or such other supervising organisation or agency (“the supervisor”) as agreed between the parties in writing from time to time;

   7.3.In the event of the parties failing to agree on the times, then the time the child spends with his father shall be from 11.30am to 3.30pm;

   7.4.Father’s Day between 11.30am and 3.30pm which time is not additional but in lieu of time on the regular weekend that the father would spend time with the child (the closest weekend when the father would otherwise have the child will be suspended and in lieu the father will have time with the child on Father’s Day);

   7.5.The time in accordance with this order be suspended during all school holidays;

   7.6.The mother pay for the first $200 of the costs of the supervisor on any occasion during school term and subject to order 15, the father pay all other costs of the supervisor (including costs in the school holidays).

8. The child spend time with the father during school holidays as follows:

   8.1.For four hours on two days during the second half of the first, second and third term school holidays;

   8.2.For four days in the second half of the fourth term school holidays such days to be nominated by the father to the mother on 28 days’ notice;

   8.3.The father pay for all costs of the supervisor during school holidays.

9. In the event that Mother’s Day falls during any period the child is to spend time with the father then that time shall be suspended and will take place the following weekend.

10. The father and mother shall comply with all rules, regulations, requirements and directions of X Contact Centre or the supervisor as communicated by X Contact Centre or the supervisor to the parties. The father is not to interrogate X Contact Centre or the supervisor in relation to their requirements or directions.

11. The four hours referred to in order 7 that the child spends with the father shall commence at the time the supervisor and the child meet the father and end at the time the supervisor and the child leave the father.

12. For the purpose of changeover the mother or her nominee shall deliver the child to a location at a time as agreed between the mother and X Contact Centre or the supervisor and shall collect the child from the same location at the conclusion of the child’s time with the father. 

13. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties in writing, the location for changeover shall be McDonalds at Suburb U.

14. In the event that:

    14.1.the child is ill and cannot attend to spend time with the father in accordance with these orders then the mother shall do all things necessary to provide sufficient notice, 24 hours if possible, to the father and shall provide a medical certificate to evidence such illness;

    14.2.the supervisor is ill and cannot attend to supervise the child’s time with the father in accordance with these orders then the time shall not occur and the father shall provide adequate notice of such illness to the mother;

    14.3.the child’s time with the father is unable to occur as a result of either of the reasons referred to in order 11.1 or 11.2 then the mother shall arrange for make-up time to occur on the following weekend but if that is not possible, as soon as it can practicably be arranged, but unless the parties agree in writing, not added to the time the child is already to spend to the father.

15. Each party is to pay 50 per cent of any or all late fees associated with the cancellation of a scheduled supervised occasion.

16. During the periods the child is due to spend time with the father, the paternal grandparents and extended paternal family shall be permitted to attend such time.

17. There be no electronic or telephone communication between the child and the father.

18. The Independent Children's Lawyer and the parties have leave to make available to X Contact Centre or the supervisor a copy of these Orders and Reasons together with copies of the reports and letter prepared by Dr E.

19. The parties have leave to provide to their respective treating medical and mental health professionals and the child’s treating medical and mental health professionals, copies of these Orders and Dr E’s reports.

20. The mother is to:

    20.1.sign all documents and do all things necessary to:

    20.1.1.authorise the school, pre-school or day care at which the child may from time to time attend:

    20.1.1.1.to furnish the father with copies of all school reports, notices and advices concerning:

    20.1.1.1.1.the child; and

    20.1.1.1.2.any activity involving the child;

    and

    20.1.1.2.to make available to the father copies of any school photographs of the child at his expense

    20.2.notify the father immediately of:

    20.2.1.any major illness suffered by the child;

    20.2.2.any hospitalisation of the child;      

    and

    20.3.make available to the father copies of any medical report or reports that may be sent to the mother in connection with such illness or hospitalisation;      

    and

    20.4.authorise:

    20.4.1.any hospital in which the child may be admitted; and

    20.4.2.any medical practitioner under whose care the child may be;

    to provide to the father in writing information about diagnoses, treatment and prognosis of the child.

21. The father shall be restrained from communicating with the child’s treating medical or mental health professionals and schools other than to request the specified documentation be forwarded to him in relation to the child and for no other purpose.

22. The father be restrained from attending the child’s extra-curricular activities and school for all school related events including parent/teacher interviews, parent days, assemblies, concerts and the like events to which parents are invited.

23. The father shall continue to attend all appointments with and follow all advice of:

    23.1.his psychologist, Ms Z; and

    23.2.his psychiatrist, Dr F (or any psychiatrist to whom Dr F refers the father), including following all recommendations as to medication and treatment and including the filling of all prescriptions for prescribed medications at his own expense.

24. Each party is restrained from denigrating the other to the child or in the presence or hearing of the child and shall not cause or permit any other person so to do.

25. For the purposes of communication between the parties, the father is restrained from communicating with or attempting to communicate with the mother other than by short email for the sole purpose of indicating to the mother any difficulty that he might have from time to time in being available to spend time with the child or to very briefly respond to or acknowledge any email sent by the mother to the father relating to any difficulty the mother has in making the child available on any particular occasion.

26. Each party is to provide the other with an email address to which emails can be sent by one to the other from time to time in accordance with these orders.

27. The father shall, as soon as is practicable, obtain from Bupa or any medical health insurer of which the father is a member from time to time, a second card for the child and provide that card by forwarding it to the mother’s lawyers as soon as is practicable.

28. The mother is to do all things and sign all documents necessary to ensure the child is enrolled in or is able to participate in Y Program at the T Synagogue or similar program. 

29. The mother take the child to the T Synagogue for the Y Program or similar program for two hours on a Sunday every second week during school term, unless the child is ill, attending a special family event or is away on holidays.

30. The mother be permitted to travel with the child outside the Commonwealth of Australia upon giving the father 21 days’ notice in writing of her intention to do so. That notice shall include travel destination and dates of travel.

31. The mother always refer to the father as the father of the child and the father always refer to the mother as the mother of the child and neither party encourage the child to refer to any other person as his mother or father by any name or other term.

32. The mother be restrained from smoking cigarettes in the vicinity of the child and is to ensure no other person does so and in particular, in the same room the child is in or in any motor vehicle in which he is travelling.

33. All other outstanding applications and cross applications are otherwise dismissed.

34. If it is initiated by the mother in writing, the parties may confer in writing and agree in writing to vary the terms of any of these orders at any time.

35. Pursuant to s 65DA(2) and s 62B Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), 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 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 Lawson & Hill 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 SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 1626 of 2012

Mr Lawson

Applicant

And

Ms Hill

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. This case involves competing parenting applications.

2. The father suffers from at least one serious mental disorder and the mother would argue he suffers from two.

3. Whilst the diagnosis of the father’s disorder(s) was the subject of evidence from four experts, the focus during the hearing was on the behaviour of each of the parents (particularly the father) and the nature of the parental relationship.

4. The central questions were whether decision making about major long term issues might be possible between the parents and whether it was in the child’s best interests to move to a circumstance where the child’s time with the father was no longer supervised.

APPLICATIONS

1. The father seeks an order for equal shared parental responsibility but for the child to live with the mother. The father sought additional orders in relation to the time the child spends with him beginning with supervised time and progressing to unsupervised time. In final submissions the father submitted that rather than supervision ceasing after a certain period of time, there should be a means of testing when supervision is no longer necessary. The orders he seeks are set out in Schedule 1.

2. The mother seeks an order for sole parental responsibility and for the child to live with her. She further sought:

   6.1.That the mother have authority to speak with the father’s treating medical practitioner regarding his continuing compliance with his treatment and medication regime.

   6.2.Subject to the father’s compliance with his treatment plan, that the father spend time with the child once per month at a Contact Centre or through a registered supervision agency for a period of no less than two hours.

3. The minute of order sought by the Independent Children’s Lawyer is set out in Schedule 2.

BRIEF HISTORY

1. The father was born in 1968 and is currently 48 years of age.

2. The mother was born in 1971 and is currently 45 years of age.

3. There is a dispute as to when the parties commenced cohabitation. The father says it was on 1 December 2009. The mother says it was in June 2010. I accept the mother’s version.

4. In 2010, the parties’ child, C (“the child”), was born.

5. The mother says that on 6 February 2012 the parties finally separated. The father says they separated on 12 February 2012. I accept the mother’s version.

CREDIT

Mother 

1. The mother in contrast to the father was a very impressive witness. She answered most questions yes or no without further embellishment. Some of the answers she gave were not to her advantage. The mother gave some second hand evidence about what she had been told happened during supervised time that did not accurately correspond with what was in the contact centre notes.

Father

1. In comparison with the mother, the father was an unimpressive witness. He continually had to be redirected to the question that was asked, questions were often asked two to three times, his answers often had little to do with the question, often long non-responsive answers required interruption, he spoke rapidly, he was often argumentative and irritated. 

2. The father gave evidence about his intake session with SS Contact Service. Firstly the father denied that he had actually done an intake with them. He then said he had actually started to do an intake with them but they fairly quickly terminated the process. This was against a background of the centre having had a number of telephone contacts with the father prior to the actual face to face intake. The father asserted to me that the contact centre harassed him to participate at their centre and that the intake interview was a result of them putting pressure on him to attend to do it. I do not accept that evidence at all. It is not consistent with the contemporaneous note that was made by the contact centre at the time.

3. On 24 March 2015 the father attended upon his GP, Dr G. On this date Dr G records:

   …States he has ceased his antidepressant (lexapro 20mg daily), advised to inform psychiatrist 

   It was put to the father that he had told his GP on this day that he had ceased to take his antidepressants and that his GP had advised him that he should tell his psychiatrist, Dr F, that he had done so. The father asserted that his GP had incorrectly recorded their conversation. He asserted that he had had a consultation with Dr F prior to 24 March 2015 and he had gone off his medication as a result of Dr F’s agreement that he should do so. He said that he told Dr G that that was so. Dr G was asked about the entry in his consultation notes. Having reviewed his note, Dr G confirmed that the note was made contemporaneously with a statement made to him by the father. Dr G was told what the father had said about the recording of this note. Dr G maintained that the father did not tell him that he had discontinued his antidepressant medication after consultation with his psychiatrist. I accept Dr G’s version about that. The father embellished his evidence. I find it inherently unlikely that Dr G would record that he had advised the father to inform his psychiatrist when he had ceased taking medication if the father had told Dr G that he had already done so.

4. The father was asked about whether or not he received an email from the mother enclosing two specialists reports, one from a paediatrician and one from an ear nose and throat specialist, indicating that the child needed grommets, adenoids and tonsils out. The father initially gave a rambling response to the effect that he hadn’t seen those documents and they “eventually” made their way to his attention.  The father accepted that the email which was sent on 24 July 2015 would have been opened by him within no more than a couple of days, that is by 27 July. The father in fact filed an application on 28 July 2015 in the following terms (Exhibit 12):

   17.1.No surgery is to occur on the child without the father’s express knowledge and permission, unless emergency.

   17.2.The father is allowed to visit the child during any pre or post surgery and/or during visiting times, and the mother is to facilitate this by all means necessary or any means necessary.

   17.3.The mother is to notify the father immediately of any elective or emergency surgery and provide all details immediately forthwith without delay by using all contact methods necessary, phone, SMS and email.

5. It is clear from that application that the father had received and had reacted to the contents of the mother’s email and the attachments to that email. The impression the father sought to give (namely that the mother’s provision of documents was not timely) was unreliable.

1. The father asserted the mother had forged certain medical certificates and gave as an example (without providing a copy of it) a medical certificate provided in December 2013. I am unable to find the mother forged the medical certificates.

2. The father denied that the mother’s assertion that the child had eczema was accurate. He did that on the basis that he himself had eczema and the extensive rashes that he observed on the child in his view were not eczema and some of them were actually in his view bite marks. The father did however concede that on the occasion when the child came with this complaint, the mother had provided in the child’s bag QV cream. The father was asked if he knew what the cream was for. His initial response did not acknowledge that he knew QV cream was a treatment for eczema.  When tested it became clear the father was well aware that QV cream was an ointment used (although in his view a very ineffective one) for the treatment of eczema.

Conclusion as to Credit

1. Looked at overall, there are multiple examples of the father’s assertions not corresponding with objective contemporaneous notes made by professionals. It is not clear as to whether the father was being deliberately untruthful or the inaccuracies in his evidence arose from difficulties with his mental status. When there is a conflict between the evidence of the mother and father, I accept that of the mother unless I indicate otherwise.

BACKGROUND

1. The father was born in 1968 and is currently 48 years of age.

2. The mother was born in 1971 and is currently 45 years of age.

3. In October 2009, the parties commenced a relationship.

4. In 2009 the mother commenced attending upon Mr H, Psychologist. She attended counselling for approximately one year. Mr H diagnosed the mother with post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”).

5. In March 2010 the father informed the mother that he was previously diagnosed with bipolar disorder but told her that the diagnosis was incorrect and that he had stopped taking medication.

6. On 15 May 2010 the father started to attend upon Ms M, Psychologist in relation to a WorkCover claim and stress. He continued to attend upon her until February 2011.

7. The parties commenced living together in June 2010.

8. During the mother’s pregnancy with the child the father was excluded from birthing classes at the Hospital because of threatening and aggressive behaviour he directed towards the hospital staff when enrolling in the classes.

9. In late 2010, the child was born.

10. The parties had arguments following the child’s birth in which the father would direct derogatory comments towards the mother. The mother became frustrated with the father’s lack of insight into their change in circumstances and that his behaviour became uncontrollable when he received any correspondence in relation to his WorkCover matter.

11. After the child’s birth, the mother refused to see the father’s sister due to the volatile relationship between the father and his sister.

12. In January 2011 the mother returned to full time work. At this time the child attended day care four times per week. The mother at this time became concerned about the father’s mental health and the child’s safety in his care. She says there were two incidents where the child was left on a changing table unattended by the father. The mother says that she did not allow the father to collect the child from day care and would not leave him alone with the child.

13. On 21 January 2011 an incident occurred which alarmed the mother which is discussed in more detail below. The father left the home.  

14. On 22 January 2011 the mother sent an email to the paternal grandmother expressing her concerns about the father’s mental health and her concerns about the child being in the father’s care. The mother cites for example, an occasion when the father, while changing the child’s nappy, threw a bottle of baby lotion at a wall above the child’s head which bounced off the wall and hit the child in the head. She also says that the father told her that he becomes frustrated when the child cries and “will hold [the child] in front of him close to his face and cry and scream back at [the child]”. Additionally, the mother says that the father has left the child in a car and not buckled him in. She refers to the father leaving the child unattended on the changing table. 

15. On 23 January 2011 the father was admitted to the psychiatric unit at P Hospital. The mother and the child visited the father on a number of occasions.

16. On 1 February 2011 the father was discharged from P Hospital and transferred to S Hospital Psychiatric Ward. He was discharged on 2 February 2011.

17. Between February 2011 and November 2011, the parties were not living together but gradually explored the possibility of reconciliation. The mother says that during this time the father seemed stable and making a genuine attempt to recover. The father told the mother that he was taking his medication and regularly attending outpatient assistance. By April 2011 the parties were seeing each other again and the father started staying overnight occasionally with the mother. This increased over the next few months. Gradually however, the father’s “old behaviour started to return”. The father was very energetic, could not sleep, would speak quickly and was erratic and frenetic. The mother thought that the father not living in one place and not seeing the child regularly was contributing to the father’s unstable state so she suggested the parties move in together. The parties agreed to trial living together for a six month period to assess whether they could make the relationship work. The parties commenced living together again in November 2011.  The parties were in conflict almost immediately.

18. By January 2012 the mother says that she no longer felt that the child was safe in the father’s care. Since this time, the father’s contact with the child has been limited and mostly supervised.

19. In February 2012 the parties had an argument resulting in the father throwing a knife at the mother (discussed below).

20. On the evening of 5 February 2012 the parties had an argument resulting in the mother leaving the parties’ home and moving into the maternal grandmother’s home for six weeks during which time the father spoke to the child on the phone twice per day and saw the child for a few hours (discussed below).

21. The parties finally separated on 6 February 2012. 

22. On 11 March 2012, the mother and child returned to live with the father in Suburb V for six weeks. The parties were separated under one roof during this time. The mother did not allow the father to go out with the child alone.

23. On 15 March 2012, the parties unsuccessfully attended Family Dispute Resolution.

24. On 21 March 2012 the father filed an Initiating Application.

25. On 27 April 2012 the mother filed a Notice of Child Abuse or Family Violence.

26. On 12 May 2012 the father moved out of the Suburb V home and commenced residing at an apartment in Suburb W.

27. On 20 May 2012 the mother made a police report stating that the father attended the house to collect some mail. She said that she had no fears for her safety but that her solicitor had advised her to report all contact with the father to the police.

28. On 21 May 2012 orders were made for the child to live with the mother and have supervised time with the father two hours per week at XX Contact Service. The father’s time was conditional upon him attending a treating psychologist/psychiatrist and following all reasonable directions as to ongoing treatment/medication. 

29. In June 2012, due to delays with the XX Contact Service, the father made inquiries with SS Contact Centre. However, the SS Contact Centre refused to accept the referral of the family to the service following an initial interview with the father. Agreement was subsequently reached and consent orders were made on 18 June 2012 for supervision to be provided by X Contact Centre.

30. On 6 June 2012 a Child Dispute Conference occurred. The parties agreed that the father was to engage with a psychiatrist via a GP and that the maternal grandparents were to supervise the father’s time provided that he engaged with a psychiatrist.

31. On 9 June 2012 Dr A, GP referred the father to Dr F, Consultant Psychiatrist for a review of anxiety and stress. The father commenced attending on Dr F on 14 July 2012.

32. On Sunday 1 July 2012 the first contact between the father and the child occurred at a Play Centre supervised by X Contact Centre. From this date to November 2012, the father spent time with the child weekly supervised by X Contact Centre.

33. On 29 July 2012 the child missed a contact with the father due to illness. The mother telephoned the service at approximately 11.00am to advise that the child was unwell and would not be able to attend. She left it as late as possible in the hope that the child would feel better and would be able to attend. The following day, the mother attended upon her GP with the child and obtained a medical certificate as he was still not well.

34. In September 2012, the parties attended intake with XX Contact Service and were accepted onto a waiting list.

35. On 19 September 2012 the father filed an Application in a Case seeking orders that the paternal grandfather be appointed as a supervisor in place of XX Contact Service or X Contact Centre.

36. On 23 September 2012, the child missed a further contact with the father due to ill health.

37. On 28 October 2012 the father brought his parents to a contact visit without notice to the mother or the mother’s consent. The father says that he requested his parents attend the visit. They were refused entry by X Contact Centre and waited outside. The mother does not recall this request being made by the father. She says that she was not contacted by the service during the time the father had the child so denies not approving the paternal grandparents attending. The mother says that she was advised by the supervisor following the contact that it is not their policy for other people to attend. The mother advised the supervisor that she did not object to the paternal family attending on the condition that not too many people attend.

38. On 19 November 2012 consent orders were made for the child to spend time with the father for five hours each Sunday under the supervision of the paternal grandfather. Additionally, the father was ordered to continue to attend all appointments with Ms Z, Psychologist and Dr F, Psychiatrist. The father was to submit to blood tests to check for the presence of medication prescribed by Dr F and to disclose the results to the Independent Children's Lawyer. The father was not to personally attend changeovers but rather was to remain in the car. The orders also provided that the paternal grandfather sign and file at court an Undertaking with regard to the supervision of the child and also to provide the mother with a verbal report as to what occurred during the contact period including the father’s activities with the child and what the child had eaten, his toileting, and whether he had slept. On each contact after this date when the mother asked the paternal grandfather to provide her with any details, he was evasive and refused to give her any details. This caused the mother great concern as the child was only two years old and she believed it was important for her to know such details when she resumed care of the child.

39. In late 2012 the child underwent a procedure for a problem with blocked tear ducts. The child had previously experienced difficulties with eyes. At this time, the orders in place provided that the father not see the child without a supervisor. The father arrived at the hospital to see the child. The mother advised a nurse that the father was not allowed to be there but the father refused to leave. With the intervention of a nurse the father agreed to leave.

40. On 26 and 30 December 2012 the child did not attend contact as he and the mother were unwell.

41. From January 2013 to 16 February 2013, the mother did not provide the father with time with the child. She says that she made this decision as she was concerned that the child was not being appropriately supervised by the paternal grandfather. She also had concerns about the paternal grandfather’s failure to communicate with her what had happened during the contact visit. The mother acknowledges that this amounted to a failure to comply with the orders of November 2012. She says that contact did not occur on seven occasions but she says on two occasions she had a medical certificate. The orders of November 2012 did not require her to provide the father with make-up time if the child was ill and the mother did not offer any.

42. On 4 February 2013 the father filed an Application in a Case seeking time with the child on Jewish holidays. In 2013 the father spent time with the child for Passover.

43. In early 2013 the mother contacted the father’s lawyers and requested that they advise the Road Traffic Authority (“RTA”) of the father’s diagnosis and his medications. They did not respond. The mother then contacted the RTA to check what the father’s obligations were. They confirmed that the father had to advise them of his illness and advise what medication he was on and provide an appropriate medical certificate that he was safe to drive. The mother gave examples to the RTA of the father’s driving which gave her concern. They suggested that she file a report with her concerns. On 13 February 2013 the father received a letter from the RTA advising that an unsafe driving report had been received about him and requested him to undergo a medical examination to determine his medical fitness and competency to drive. The father subsequently underwent a medical examination which confirmed that he was fit to drive. The mother says that it was not her intention to have the father’s licence revoked but rather she wanted reassurance that the father was compliant with his obligations for safe operation of a motor vehicle when he was taking medication.

44. On 12 February 2013 orders were made by consent for the child to spend time with the father for five hours each alternate Sunday such time to be supervised by the paternal grandfather with changeovers to occur at XX Contact Service. It was further ordered that a communication book be kept.

45. From February 2013 to June 2014 the child was unable to spend time with the father due to illness on about six occasions. During this time, the mother says that there were instances that caused her concern where the father demonstrated elevated moods and a pattern of behaviour, in her opinion, when it would be unsafe for the child to be in the father’s care unsupervised. In particular, the mother points to the level of activities that the father did with the child and the type and quantity of food the father gave to the child.

46. After an attendance at court in September 2013 the mother became concerned about the father’s behaviour and consequently, the child’s safety in his care. Further orders were later made for the Independent Children's Lawyer to receive regular blood test analyses to ensure the father was complying with his treatment and medication.

47. On 14 June 2014 the child was unwell and vomited in the car at changeover. The father still proceeded with the activities he planned with the child. The supervisor from XX Contact Service noted that the father was talking non-stop. In his oral evidence the father denied talking non-stop and stated that in fact the supervisor spoke faster than he did.

48. In June 2014 XX Contact Service ceased providing supervision at changeovers (for time which the paternal grandfather would then supervise) due to the father’s questions about their policies and procedures and the paternal grandfather’s behaviour (he had been caught with his eyes closed on occasion).

49. On 24 June 2014 orders were made by consent discharging the 19 November 2012 orders. The orders stated that the father’s time with the child be supervised by DD Service with changeovers to occur at McDonalds. From June to September 2014 two visits were cancelled during this time due to the child’s health.

50. On 30 September 2014 DD Service ceased providing services due to an incident that occurred at a public swimming centre (discussed below).

51. In September 2014 the father requested that he spend time with the child for Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. The mother says that she understands that these celebratory meals occur at night and she felt that the child should be older before he started to participate when the events would be more meaningful. She says that Yom Kippur fell on 5 October 2014 at which time DD Service had ceased providing their services and no alternative supervisor had been arranged.

52. On 4 November 2014 interim consent orders were made that the child’s time with the father was to be supervised at XX Contact Service.

53. On 26 December 2014 the father says that he missed contact with the child. The XX Contact Service was not open on Boxing Day.

54. In March 2015 when the child started his school readiness program, the mother sent a lengthy email to the father updating him in regards to the child’s hearing and speech and the school readiness program as well as photos of the child in his uniform.

55. On 5 April 2015 the father says that he missed contact with the child. However, the mother says that this was Easter Sunday and the XX Contact Service was not open.

56. On 29 May 2015 the child missed contact with the father as he was sick. The mother provided a medical certificate.

57. On 26 June 2015 XX Contact Service ceased providing the service to the family (discussed below).

58. On 9 July 2015 the parties reached an interim agreement that the father’s time be supervised at N Contact Service and were placed on a waitlist. The mother says that she advised the Centre that she had no issue with the child’s paternal family attending.

59. On 31 August 2015, the child underwent surgery for tonsillectomy, adenoidectomy and grommets. On 24 July 2015 the father sent an email to the mother’s solicitors requesting time with the child post-surgery. On 29 July 2015 the mother’s solicitors responded advising that the mother did not consent. She offered to facilitate a telephone call between the child and the father the evening before the surgery and again as soon as the child’s treating practitioners thought appropriate. The mother made this decision due to the father’s previous aggressive behaviour at hospitals and difficulties between the father and medical staff. The mother wanted the child to be in an environment without any stress. On 24 August 2015 orders were made restraining the father from attending the hospital but noted that he was able to speak to the child by telephone on the day prior to the surgery and the mother would facilitate a telephone call between the father and the child after the surgery.

60. On 20 October 2015 the child attended orientation at R Grammar School and was enrolled to commence Kindergarten in 2016. The father did not agree to the child attending the school and sought that he be enrolled in a public school. The parties exchanged correspondence about the issue. The mother made the decision to start the child at R Grammar School in 2016.

61. Between 4 and 11 November 2015 the parties exchanged significant correspondence following from a request made by the father to have telephone time with the child. The mother agreed to telephone time subject to certain conditions which the father did not agree to. The conditions proposed by the mother were:

    82.1.Telephone calls to occur each Wednesday evening between 5 and 5.15pm

    82.2.Telephone calls to be initiated and facilitated by the mother to the father’s landline

    82.3.Telephone calls not to be recorded

    82.4.Telephone calls not to relate to court proceedings

    82.5.The father is not to criticise the mother if the child could not talk to the father for the full 15 minutes.

62. The father complained that in the past the mother would distract the child whilst he was on the phone to his father, cutting the telephone conversation short. He also raised concerns that there was no guarantee that the mother would call him at 5pm. He also sought make up time if a phone call was missed.

1. On 13 November 2015 correspondence commenced between the parties in relation to a request by the father for DNA testing to confirm his parentage of the child. On 14 December 2015 the father filed an Application in a Case seeking DNA testing. On 11 January 2016 orders were made requiring the parties to undergo parentage testing. The testing confirmed that the father is the child’s father.

2. On 5 December 2015 the first supervised visit at N Contact Service occurred. After this visit, the mother was involved in a car accident. On 10 December 2015 the solicitor’s for the mother wrote to the father’s solicitor advising them of the accident and that the child was not injured but had been experiencing nightmares. Significant correspondence ensued from the father seeking details about the accident and expressing the father’s disappointment that the mother did not inform him of the child’s welfare in a timely way.

3. On 6 February 2016, the child attended N Contact Centre to spend time with the father. At this time the father made comments to the child about a wart on the second biggest toe on his left foot which caused him distress (discussed below)

4. At the time of the final hearing the current parenting orders were those made by Aldridge J on 4 November 2014 which were in the following terms:

   87.1.[The child] is to spend time with his father on one (1) occasion each fortnight for two (2) hours supervised by [XX] Contact Service … or any another supervised agency as agreed between the parties (“the supervised contact agency”) at a date and time as nominated by the supervised contract agency.

   87.2.In the event that supervised time becomes available through a supervised contact agency on a weekly basis and/or up to five (5) hours each week, then the parties are to do all acts and things to facilitate [the child] spending supervised time with his father on one (1) occasion each week.

5. The five hours a week didn’t happen. The mother’s position (which I accept as being appropriate) was that she had grave reservations about the father having time away from a structured supervised contact centre in circumstances where the father hadn’t even been able to operate appropriately in that context at XX Contact Service.

FATHER’S MENTAL STATUS

1. From August 2009 to January 2011 the father attended upon Ms M, Counsellor. He ceased attending upon her once she advised him that she had an appointment with the mother which was arranged without his approval and the father says resulted in him being wrongly institutionalised in January 2011.

2. The records from the P Hospital indicate that the father was assessed by two psychiatrists in January 2011, the first being Dr I on 23 January 2011 and the second Professor J on 25 January 2011. Both doctors firstly examined the father and reached the opinion that the father was at that time a mentally ill person. Dr I observed the father to have elevated, rapid and loud speech and that it was virtually impossible to interrupt him. The father, when he presented on 23 January, was adamant that he did not have a mental illness and was refusing all medication.  Dr I concluded that the father had suffered a relapse of bipolar affected disorder in the manic phase. There was a report that the father had attempted to take the child, who was then three months old, from childcare for a swimming lesson. Professor J who saw the father two days later also recorded that the father was speaking very rapidly and that it was extremely difficult to interrupt him. At that time the father denied that he was unwell, though he did acknowledge that he had had previous involvement with a psychiatrist. Professor J concluded that the father at that time appeared to be manic and that he required involuntary treatment as he was a potential risk to his three month old child.

3. In the discharge summary, Professor J recorded that during examination the father demonstrated flight of ideas and was elevated and irritable with preoccupations of a persecutory nature regarding his employment history. He also observed that the father remained manic, lacked insight and was highly irritable throughout his admission and transfer to S Hospital.

4. The father says that his admission to P Hospital on 23 January 2011 was based on false and misleading information provided by the mother to the father’s counsellor at the time. I took the father to the letter annexed to his affidavit from the Service Director of EE Mental Health Service dated 5 April 2011 which responded to multiple complaints made by the father about his admission. The letter was in part apologetic about certain complaints made by the father (such as dead cockroaches in his room). It however indicated that the assertion by the father that clinical notes said that he had been brought in by police was not reflected in the clinical notes. The clinical notes record that his admission was a result of information received from the community centre (the father said he was going to prove that that is incorrect also but no further evidence was led on that topic). The father says once he was transferred to S Hospital he was released of his own free will without having to see anyone or take any medications.

5. The father denied that he had ever been diagnosed with bipolar disorder in January 2011. The father gave evidence in his most recent affidavit of a conversation he said that he had with a psychiatrist at S Hospital on his discharge to the effect that he had been misdiagnosed with bipolar disorder. The father says he had a conversation with a psychiatrist who said “I can understand because of the way you talk that people might think you have bipolar disorder”. No records were produced to corroborate this assertion and I do not accept it.

6. During his oral evidence, the father asserted that his three current treating professionals all doubted that he had bipolar disorder but rather thought he had a personality disorder. That statement by the father was inconsistent with Dr F’s evidence.

7. The father also said that he had been to another psychiatrist, Dr K, at the BB Centre in accordance with a recommendation made by Dr E in the last report, who had told him he didn’t have bipolar. I have no independent information about that consultation.

8. The father currently takes 450mg of lithium daily and 500mg of valproate twice daily which stabilise symptoms associated with bipolar disorder. He also takes 20mg of antidepressant medication daily.

9. The father says that it is well documented that he is unable to tolerate higher doses of medication due to gastrointestinal side effects. He says that he became unwell for a short period of time due to medication. Irrespective of these effects, he says that he continues to take the medication and has fully complied with all recommendations, advice and directions of treating medical practitioners.

10. The father was asked about the mother’s assertion that he was obsessed with his WorkCover claim. The father said that he merely vented his frustrations about the matter with the mother just as she ventilated her work issues with him. The mother alleged that the father would talk about the claim even when no one was talking to him. The father said that this was untrue and perhaps the mother had not seen that he was talking to someone on the phone.

11. The father says that he was previously subjected to workplace bullying and harassment. He says these issues occurred simultaneously to the problems he was experiencing in his personal life including the parties’ deteriorating relationship and his inability to spend time with the child and the symptoms he presented were due to his high levels of stress associated with work and he says from being kept from the child by the mother.

12. The father says that he can become emotional when he talks about past events. He also has a tendency of speaking in a quick and loud tone using his hands which often culminates in him being misunderstood by others.

13. The father says that he does not believe his current condition undermines his parenting capacity. He has been able to function in normal life and have meaningful employment at various stages through these proceedings despite his diagnosis.

Dr F’s Evidence

1. Dr F, psychiatrist, has been treating the father since July 2012. Dr F expressed the view that, as well as Bipolar Affective Disorder II, the father probably had a personality disorder. In a letter dated 29 September 2012 he states, “[the father] is most likely presenting with hypomanic phase of bipolar affective disorder. This occurs in context of multiple psychosocial stressors and lack of treatment”. In a letter dated 21 August 2015 he states, “He also appears to have personality vulnerabilities which culminate in him being misunderstood in many situations.”

2. Dr F conflated the concept of personality vulnerabilities and the concept of personality disorders, commenting that they were on the same continuum. He confirmed that medication was not effective in treating personality disorders and that other treatments are not readily available. 

3. Dr F was questioned in respect of his diagnosis of Bipolar II disorder. Dr F did not have any doubt about that diagnosis. He said that he had personally seen the father in both hypomanic and depressive states. Dr F opined that the behaviours that the father has exhibited from time to time can be attributed to a combination of the father’s bipolar disorder and his personality disorder.

4. Dr F also indicated that it was possible that the father had some frontal lobe disorder and recommended that further neurological testing be conducted to exclude subtle cognitive defects and for that purpose he had referred the father to the University of NSW.

5. In relation to the diagnosis of bipolar disorder, Dr F had referred the father to the BB Institute for a second opinion. The father reported that the BB Institute had advised in a report that he did not have bipolar disorder and that this report was sent to Dr F as his treating psychiatrist. Dr F indicated that he had received no such report.

6. In the report of 1 April 2016, Dr F talks about the complicated interplay of these two diagnoses of bipolar disorder and personality disorder. He said that it was due to his personality vulnerabilities that there always seems to be chaos around the father. He said, “In our practice alone we have had complaints from neighbours, clinicians, other patients and reception staff to the point of requiring to discontinue the therapeutic relationship with him”. I asked Dr F whether that meant that the father was no longer his patient. Dr F indicated that it would be difficult for him to continue as the father’s clinician given the issues with the father in the clinic but he would have to see the father again so that he could refer him to somebody else.

7. Dr F opines, in a letter dated 7 February 2012, that the father’s long-term prognosis for bipolar disorder is good and that he has been cooperative and responded well to treatment. Dr F confirmed personality disorders are more difficult to treat since medications do not assist. Dr F opined that his psychotherapy had only produced marginal improvement in the father’s behaviour.

8. Dr F thought that the father’s current medications had some positive effects but because of continuing ongoing stressors (associated with the litigation and the lack of time that he was spending with the child) the positive effects have been mitigated.

9. Dr F did not think that the father was a physical risk to the child nor did he think that his personality vulnerabilities would be an immediate threat to the child, although that may change as the child gets older and expresses independent views about topics in which the father may have a different view.

10. It was put to Dr F that the father’s behaviour has the potential to cause unintentional emotional abuse to the child to which Dr F responded that in his opinion a greater emotional abuse would be done to the child if arrangements were not put in place for the child to have proper time with the father. Dr F has not seen the child at any time and has not seen the father and the child together. I am unable to place any weight upon this opinion expressed by Dr F. Dr F is also of the opinion that the father did lack insight into the effects of his behaviour arising from his bipolar disorder and personality disorder (this is to be contrasted with Ms Z’s opinion that the father does have insight or has improved his insight).

Ms Z’s Evidence

1. The father started attending upon Ms Z, psychologist, on 5 May 2012. In the last six months she has been seeing him almost every fortnight. The father’s sessions with Ms Z focus on his distress levels triggered by his separation from the child and the emotionally damaging court proceedings. She initially treated the father for an Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depression.

2. Ms Z was asked about her therapy over the last four years. She said that only a small part of it had been therapeutically aimed at the father’s personality disorder. Part of what the psychologist assists the father with is crisis management.

3. In a letter dated 11 February 2013 she says:

   Although [the father] has some difficulties with regard to his symptoms related to his Bipolar Disorder, specifically anxiety and hyperactivity, he is not irrational, aggressive or unable to concentrate or make decisions. He is in fact hypervigilant with regard to his son. As such, I have no concerns about [the father] being unsupervised when caring for his son.

   [The father] is most likely going to continue to struggle with his Bipolar Disorder, however whilst under the care of psychiatrist Dr [F] and myself as well as being on medication, [the father’s] condition should remain stable. Prior to commencing treatment with Dr [F] and myself, [the father’s] condition was not severe enough to be disrupting his daily functioning.

4. Ms Z said that she was aware, given that her practice is in the same premises as Dr F, of the “complaints from neighbours, clinicians, other patients and reception staff”. She conceded that the father was “difficult” and very candidly said “if anyone had a preference they would not want to engage with him. Personally, that would be my preference as well”.

5. Ms Z thought that although the father initially lacked insight, there has been an improvement in his level of insight. She believed that better insight led to better behaviour, however she conceded that she is giving her opinion based on her consultations with the father alone (although she has had some discussions about the father with Dr F) and she has not had available to her the range of material that the independent expert has had available to him.

6. Ms Z confirmed that one common behaviour of the father is that if you present a proposition to him that he thinks is slightly flawed or unjust, he will take the point and argue it in an expansive way. Other than that she found the father not to be abusive or aggressive and understood points that were made in an assertive way to him. Ms Z says that if the father feels that he is being policed or the subject of authority, it will not work very well. She asserted that he required strict guidelines as to what he can and cannot do.

7. Ms Z stated that the father has his own views about what might be just. If there is anybody who disagrees with his viewpoint, that triggers in him a reaction which becomes confronting. She mentioned that this may become a problem as the child gets older and starts to express his own point of view about topics with which the father may disagree.

8. She assessed that the father has a personality disorder with mixed features. Ms Z stated that personality disorders are difficult to treat and they require long term therapy. She agreed that personality disorders can abate over time as people get older.

9. Ms Z asserted that targeted therapy had seen the father’s behaviour improve significantly but I am unable to place any significant weight upon that assertion given that Ms Z said that targeted therapy had been minimal and the improved behaviour was not detailed or expanded upon by Ms Z.

Dr G’s Evidence

1. The father has attended upon Dr G, his General Practitioner, since 2012. Dr G gave evidence in a very straightforward and frank manner. The father continues to see Dr G on approximately a fortnightly or monthly basis for all medical needs including his mental and physical health. There have been times when the father has attended upon Dr G multiple times during a week due to increased levels of distress resulting from his inability to see the child. The father also attended upon Dr G more frequently when his psychiatrist, Dr F, was unable to see him during one period of about three to six months. The issues Dr G discusses with the father include self-awareness, relationship techniques, interpersonal skills, communication skills, conflict minimisation and resolution.

2. In July 2014 Dr G recorded that the father had told him that his psychiatrist had threatened to call the police if the father did not leave his office. Dr G commented that whilst that event in the psychiatrist’s rooms did not reflect well upon the father, the fact that the father was able to tell him about it was something positive.

3. Dr G opined that the father could be compliant, delightful and settled as long as there is somebody setting the boundaries for him and enforcing those boundaries. He emphasised that if authority figures were not tough with the father that he would be encouraged to act badly. Dr G said that when he initially saw the father about three years ago he was behaving badly about 50 per cent of the time. He estimated that this was now down to about 20 per cent of his consultations with the father. He commented that the father is annoyed when his behaviours are challenged in the context of an attempted therapeutic intervention. Dr G confirmed that in his view the main thing that makes the father angry is the injustice he feels by being constrained by court ordered supervision. When referring to the father’s bad behaviour, Dr G was referring to irritability, being argumentative and not being able to accept an instruction and comply with it.

4. In a letter dated 5 February 2016 Dr G states:

   [The father] … has made gradual improvements to various behavioural issues … The progress made so far appears to have been gradual, most marked during the last twelve months, and largely due to behaviour modification and other techniques practised with his psychologist, psychiatrist and general practitioner. This does suggest that personality contributes more to [the father’s] behaviour rather than his mood disorder.

5. Dr G expressed some personal doubts about the diagnosis of the father with bipolar disorder. Dr G provides the father with prescriptions for Lexapro and Valproate. Both these drugs are mood stabilisers and are prescribed by Dr F, the father’s psychiatrist. However, Dr G said that he did not see that the prescription of these medications are greatly assisting the father (although he said it was not up to him to second guess the psychiatrist’s diagnosis of bipolar disorder and his prescription medication for that disorder). Dr G was of the opinion that it was probable that the father had a personality disorder and opined that it was a narcissistic personality disorder (although he used DSM-IV criteria).

6. Given that he thinks that the major source of the father’s problems is a personality disorder, Dr G opined that the therapy that the father should receive involves dedicated psychological strategy and planning. He opined that the progress of any treatment for the father’s personal vulnerabilities would be slow.

7. In a letter dated 8 September 2014, Dr G states:

   …the diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder Type II in itself does not prevent any form of parental functioning. It is also highly likely that [the father’s] mental health condition would significantly improve with a more streamlined custody arrangement, bearing in mind the ‘catch 22’ effect of not having a straightforward arrangement.

1. Dr G suggested strategy for parenting orders would be to put the father on a trial period of some significant time and if the father proved himself then to move to an unsupervised regime.

Dr E’s Evidence

1. Dr E, psychiatrist, provided a Chapter 15 report to the court. In his September 2015 report Dr E opines that the predominant feature of the father’s condition has been, over time, an “unremitting elevation in his mood (hypomania)” which he says has resulted in “a very disorganising effect on his thinking, patience and judgement”. This elevated behaviour has been complicated, Dr E says, by “considerable rumination, doubting, checking and other intrusive thoughts and actions”. Dr E agreed with Dr F and Dr G that the medication prescribed for the father has not been seen to have had any positive effect. Dr E concluded that there has not been a substantial improvement in the father’s mental state which has been evidenced by the breakdown in contact visits because of the father’s poor judgment and his conduct around the child’s health and hospitalisation. However, Dr E did concede that the father now has more insight into his condition and how his behaviour affects others. However, he said that this level of insight does not last long.

2. Dr E opines that while the treatment and support provided by Dr G and Ms Z has resulted in some improvement in the father’s social judgment, the father only follows their advice for short periods and has not resulted in sustained improvement. He states, “This form of cognitive behavioural counselling will assist, but the overall progress likely to be gained will be somewhat limited. A much more substantial improvement in his behaviour will have to wait until a medication combination can be found to which he responds more decisively”. Dr E says that “the course of the past three years and the unsuccessful therapeutic interventions thus far suggest that there is a possibility that medical treatment and counselling will not have a great deal more to offer and that his mental state is going to continue more or less unaltered”.

3. Dr E agreed that the father requires certainty as to the time he is to spend with the child. Further, he opined that consequences need to be established and enforced if he breaks the rules so that the court can be confident that he will abide by the orders.

4. Dr E disagreed with Dr G’s opinion that the father had a narcissistic personality disorder and said while the father is self-absorbed he is not narcissistic. He opined that the father’s personality problem was mainly obsessional in nature and not borderline or anti-social. He said the father had a significantly elevated mood and stated that the father had a mixed personality disorder with obsessional and hypomanic features.

Conclusion in relation to the father’s mental status

1. I find that the father has a very difficult, long standing mental status problem which is unlikely to be significantly improved by future treatment.

2. Notwithstanding the misgivings of the father’s general practitioner in relation to the diagnosis I accept that the father has bipolar disorder which is currently managed by medication. The father also has a personality disorder. The combination of these two medical conditions means that the father behaves on a regular basis in a way which presents significant challenges to the mother in terms of dealing with the father as a parent. The father can often present himself as irritable and argumentative. His personality disorder creates a longer term problem particularly as the child grows older and has a direct effect on the father’s capacity to manage views expressed by the child and behaviours of the child with which the father disagrees or objects.

3. Although the single expert, the father’s treating psychiatrist, the father’s treating psychologist, and his general practitioner, all disagree about the nature of the father’s personality disorder, they all agree that he has one. Although I would normally rely upon the treating psychiatrist’s diagnosis by way of preference, Dr F had not fully turned his mind to the nature of the father’s personality disorder (for example he was still working on DSM-IV diagnostic criteria). I am most comfortable with accepting the diagnosis of the single expert, namely, that the father has a mixed personality disorder with obsessional and hypomanic features.

4. I also accept the single expert’s view that treatment for personality disorder is very problematic. The history of this matter is that over the long period that this case has been in the court, significant resources have been provided to the father to attempt to improve the difficulties he has with his mental status. Very little progress has been made by way of improvement. As I have found, the father has a very difficult, long standing mental status problem which is unlikely to be significantly improved by further treatment.

MOTHER’S MENTAL STATUS

1. When the mother was in a relationship with the father she was diagnosed with PTSD in relation to a former relationship in which she was the victim of domestic violence. She commenced seeing a counsellor, Mr H, as she found the relationship with the father difficult. She found the father’s behaviour to be confronting and intimidating.

2. The mother acknowledges that her PTSD is something she has to deal with on a regular basis. She says that manifestations of her stress are depression and anxiety but not aggression or anger. She says that she is not unpredictable and does not believe that she presents a danger to the child.

3. The mother is not currently undergoing any treatment or taking any medication for her PTSD. She has never taken any medication and no recommendation has been made to her to do so.

4. The mother is currently being treated by her GP for stress and anxiety relating to these Family Court proceedings (particularly she says due to the extent of correspondence received from the father and the Applications he has made). She recently stopped work because she was unable to cope with the demands of parenting, the proceedings and working fulltime. It is her intention to return to work.

5. The father says that during the parties’ relationship the mother had flashbacks and constant vivid recollections of her previous relationship experiences.

6. The father says that the mother is often unstable, erratic and unable to manage her stress. He says that she spent days in bed displaying depressive symptoms and mood swings. On other occasions, he says that she was prone to outbursts of anger and would become unexpectedly aggressive and abusive during general conversations. The father says that due to the mother’s unpredictable behaviour, he is concerned for the child’s welfare. I place little weight on the father’s perceptions of the mother’s instability.

7. In his report dated 14 September 2015 Dr E stated that apart from the mother’s degree of anxiety and exasperation when discussing the mass correspondence the father had produced in relation to her parenting of the child, “she seemed to be in a good, stable frame of mind and there was no evidence of active psychiatric symptoms.”

8. I accept Dr E’s opinion about the mother’s mental status.

THE FATHER’S DIFFICULTY WITH SUPERVISION

1. The father has had a history of complaints about those who have provided supervision of him.

2. The father on multiple occasions said that he was highly offended by something that had been recorded by a person whose professional job it was to make observations and make recordings about their observations in respect of his behaviour.

3. In his September 2015 report, Dr E noted after discussing the withdrawal of contact services with the father that the father did not seem to have a “great deal of insight into how this had happened. While he recognised in a general sense that he probably could have been a bit more prudent, when it came down to the details, he felt that the records had misrepresented what had gone on and that his grievances were justified. He did not seem able to grasp how intrusive, overwhelming and at times inappropriate his behaviour could be.”

SS Contact Service

1. In June 2012 the father had an unproductive intake procedure with SS Contact Service which ended in that Service not accepting the father for supervised time.

XX Contact Service

1. From February 2013 to June 2014 XX Contact Service provided supervision at changeovers. From November 2014 to 26 June 2015 the parties utilised their contact centre services.

2. The father acted inappropriately at the XX Contact Service on a number of occasions. The notes produced by XX Contact Service contain a number of entries describing the father acting in an uncontained way.

3. I am satisfied that the father deliberately stood on a balloon outside the coordinator’s office and that it exploded with such a noise as to alarm a number of the co-workers who mistook it for a gun shot. I do not accept the father’s evidence that the balloons popped on their own accord.

4. The father indicated to XX Contact Service staff that he had a very big problem with the implied bias in “Peppa Pig” to fathers and the role of fatherhood. The father was not willing to easily accept the warning by the supervisor to not make those types of comments in front of the child and other children. I do not accept the father’s protestation that if he did say such a thing it was not in front of the child.

5. The supervisor recorded the fact that the father had referred to her as a “prison warden”. I did not accept the father’s explanation that during a game he was playing with the child he designated the supervisor as a prison warden.

6. On 22 June 2014 the father turned up for contact at XX Contact Service having not been notified that such contact had been cancelled. In the file note from this occasion, the supervisor notes that the father was talking very fast and not letting her speak. She notes that she told the father that “he gives to (sic) much information and we don’t need to know every little thing that happens on his visit”. She also noted that the father had suggested that racism may be a factor in the supervisor’s impression as she was not Australian. The father then continued to tell the supervisor about his diving qualifications. After leaving, the father telephoned the supervisor to give her additional information to prove that he was a good father. The father indicated he was highly offended by what was in the file note. I accept the note accurately recorded what had happened at the time.

7. The father found it highly offensive that the XX Contact Service had called the police when he failed to turn up at a scheduled contact event on 23 January 2015. The mother had delivered the child in accordance with the arrangement. XX Contact Service telephoned the police after the father did not answer his telephone and his parents advised XX Contact Service that they had not heard from the father for two days. The father conceded that XX Contact Service had at that time concerns about his mental status. Given that the service had those concerns, I find that they acted responsibly when the father had failed to attend at the appointed time and that they were otherwise unable to contact the father.

8. The father complained of inaccuracies in the notes of XX Contact Centre. For example:

   156.1.That the father overloaded the child with toys during play; and

   156.2.That the father was moving quickly from room to room.

9. It is unlikely that a professional supervisor would make inaccurate notes about those types of observations. I accept the contact centre notes accurately record these behaviours of the father.

10. Multiple supervision reports record how many activities the father tries to pack into his allocated time with the child. The father said that the contact centre notes were incorrect in relation to their recording of multiple activities that he did with the child on any one day.

11. Taken overall, the supervision notes indicate, and I accept, the father’s insistence that the child play multiple activities in a short space of time, is overwhelming for the child. The contact centre notes are consistent with Dr E’s observations of the father during the report writing. The father had brought to the interview a backpack on wheels which held a number of toys for him and the child to play with. In his report, Dr E recounts the toys that the father pulled out one after the other to show to the child. Dr E noted that “[the child] seemed to be a bit bemused by this stream of toys and his play started to become disorganised”. Dr E observed the child attempt to organise his father by suggesting he have a turn at a particular game but was unsuccessful in distracting the father from introducing other activities. At one point when Dr E observed the child to become overwhelmed by the toys he suggested to the father to focus on one activity which he did but explained that he “gives [the child] so much to do because he sees [the child] so infrequently”. Dr E concluded that “although [the father] can play with [the child] at a more appropriate level, his capacity to regulate this himself is poor”. In his oral evidence the father says that these comments by Dr E were a result of Dr E not liking the father bringing noisy toys such as a ukulele for the child to play with, rather he would have preferred the father and the child to be quiet. The father also asserted that Dr E did not like him.

12. On 26 June 2015 XX Contact Service ceased providing the service to the family. A file note dated 26 June 2015 made by the supervisor on that occasion describes the father repeatedly asking the child if he needed to go to the toilet, to which the child responded no. The father then lifted the child up from his chair, took him to the bathroom, pulled down the child’s pants and assisted the child to hold his penis until he finally urinated. The supervisor observed the child to cry and scream in protest when the father picked him up to take him to the bathroom. The supervisor told the father that the child was upset due to the force the father had used to make him use the bathroom. The father told the supervisor after the child had gone to the toilet that he knew his son but the supervisor advised the father that it was not ok to force the child to go to the bathroom and make him cry. The father’s version was that only on three or four occasions did he inquire of the child as to whether or not the child wanted to go to the toilet. The father said that he has subsequently learnt through parenting programs that his behaviour towards the child on this occasion was in fact inappropriate and that he should have waited for the child to indicate a need or wish for toileting.

13. The mother says that XX Contact Service withdrew their services due to concerns over the father’s behaviour and the child’s level of exhaustion and distress and the toileting incident.

14. The father was cross examined about the circumstances in which XX Contact Service cancelled their service. The father insisted that what the service did was cancel the service to the family. What is clear however from the termination notice dated 26 June 2015 was that XX Contact Service cancelled the service to the family because of the father’s behaviour. In the termination report dated 1 July 2015 XX Contact Service, after citing numerous examples of the father’s behaviour during contact visits (such as disruptive behaviour, not following directions and the large volume of emails and inquiries), they conclude:

    It is the belief of the Coordinator that despite trying extremely hard to assist [the father] in contact with his son, he is unwilling to follow guidance and support. [The father] is not open to suggestions on how to improve his time with the child, even speaking to the child in a normal voice rather than baby talk. This has been an ongoing issue as [the father] believes he should be allowed to talk to the child how he wants.

    It is clear that [the Contact Centre] is never going to be able to provide [the father] with a service that he requires to meet his needs. His attitude towards staff and his behaviour at the Contact Centre has now become unacceptable. On these grounds the Coordinator has no choice buyt (sic) to terminate the matter from the centre.

15. XX Contact Service had accumulated two binders of paperwork on the family. The vast bulk of that paper was email communication by the father to the centre. The father explained that he was attempting to clarify with the centre their practices and procedures, particularly about the issue of makeup time. The volume of the emails was grossly excessive and is an example of the way the father normally behaves.

DD Service

1. From 12 July 2014 to 28 September 2014 DD Service provided supervision. On 30 September 2014 DD Service ceased providing services due to an incident that occurred at a public swimming centre. The mother was concerned that during this incident the child had been placed in a position which could have caused him physical and psychological harm. She was also concerned that the supervisor was not properly qualified to protect the child. The mother instructed her solicitors to write to DD Service to seek clarification as to the supervisor’s qualifications and whether their management was confident that any supervisor was able to manage the father effectively if his behaviour escalated. No response was received from DD Service. 

2. The DD Service report about this incident on 28 September 2014 at the swimming centre states:

   An attendant advised that anyone who wished to have a turn on the large inflatables had to be able to swim twenty five metres unassisted, and that everyone had to perform a swim test over the distance to confirm this. [The father] then took [the child] to the other end of the main pool where the swim tests were being performed. An attendant advised [the father] that [the child] would have to perform the swim test without his buoyancy vest which she termed a flotation device, however a dispute evolved as [the father] was adamant that [the child’s] vest was not a flotation device. After a few minutes, the attendant pointed to the concealed foam inserts in the vest and advised [the father] that indeed it was a swim aid of some sort, and if [the child] was going to perform the swim test, then it would have to be removed. After more discussion, [the father] removed the vest, and despite being advised that the swim test had to be done individually, [the father] jumped into the water so as to be near [the child] when he swam. The attendant advised supervisor that she could not be in the water also. Supervisor told [the father] that [the child] was to remain as close as possible to the pool edge where supervisor remained in order to reach [the child] should he become distressed. [The child] then entered the water, but it became immediately evident that [the child] was upset so supervisor instructed [the father] to remove the child from the water at once. [The father] lifted [the child] out of the water immediately and placed him on the pool edge, saying he was very proud of him for trying. [The father] then replaced the swim vest and returned with [the child] towards the children’s area, but instead diverted outside as there were activities set up in the area outside the building.

3. This is an example of the father not being able to follow simple directions of a professional in the child’s presence and the child becoming distressed as a result of the tension the father had created. The mother got the impression that the child had been placed in physical danger (an incorrect impression) and reacted badly at the end of this contact session. She expressed her dismay to the supervisor, indicating that she had lost all faith in their ability to supervise. As a result of what the father had done and how the mother reacted to the level of supervision, DD Service terminated their services and the supervision that had taken place on 28 September 2014 was the last occasion where DD Service provided supervision.

1. The mother shall be permitted to travel with the child outside the Commonwealth of Australia subject to giving the father 21 days’ notice in writing of her intention of doing so. The father shall not be permitted to travel with the child outside the Commonwealth of Australia given the requirements as to supervision which have been imposed.

I certify that the preceding three hundred and forty nine (349) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Watts delivered on 23 December 2016.

Associate:

Date: 23 December 2016

SCHEDULE 1

1. That the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the care, welfare and development of the child, [C] born … 2010 (hereafter referred to as "the child") including but not limited to matters in relation to:-

a)   The school which the child shall attend;

b)   The religious instruction and upbringing of the child;

c)   The medical treatment which the child shall receive;

d)   The sporting and other activities which the child shall engage in.

1. That the child live with the Mother.

2. That from the date of commencement of these orders, the child spend supervised time with the Father for a period of six (6) months as follows:-

a)From 10.30am until 5.30pm commencing the first Saturday following these orders and on each alternate other Saturday thereafter;

b)From 10.30am until 5.30pm occurring on every other Sunday thereafter;

c)On the child’s birthday (…) for a minimum of four (4) hours as agreed between the parties and in default of an agreement, from 2.30pm until 6.30pm if it is on a weekend or from 3:00pm until 6.30pm if it is on a school day;

d)On Father’s Day from 10.30am until 4.30pm;

e)On the Paternal Grandfather’s Birthday, being … each year, for a minimum of four (4) hours as agreed between the parties and in default of an agreement from 2.00pm until 6.00pm if it is on a weekend or from after school from 3:00pm until 6:30pm if it is on a school day.

f)On the Paternal Grandmother’s Birthday, being … each year, for a minimum of four (4) hours as agreed between the parties and in default of an agreement from 2.00pm until 6.00pm if it is on a weekend or from 3:00pm until 6:30pm if it is on a school day. g) On the Father’s birthday for 10.30am until 6.30pm if it occurs on a weekend or from 3:00pm until 6.30pm if it occurs on a school day.

1. That the Father’s time with the child pursuant to Order 3 herein be supervised by Mr [FF]. If Mr [FF] is not available, the Father’s time with the child be supervised by a qualified representative of [O Nanny Service] or other nanny and baby sitter service that provide qualified supervisors.

2. That all supervision costs associated with the child spending time with the Father be shared equally between the parties.

3. That commencing six (6) months from the date of these orders, the child spend unsupervised time with the Father as follows:-

a)   On each alternate weekend from 5.00pm Friday until 5.00pm Sunday;

b)   From after school at 3.00pm until 6.00pm each Wednesday, the Father to collect the child from school and return the child to the Mother’s residence or such alternate agreed location and in default of an agreement changeover shall take place at McDonalds Family Restaurant …;

c)   For one half of all NSW gazetted school holidays for terms 1, 2, and 3 as agreed between the parties, and failing agreement, for the first half in odd numbered years and for the second half in even numbered years;

d)   For the first and last week of the Christmas school holiday period;

e)   On the child’s birthday (…) for a minimum of four (4) hours as agreed between the parties and in default of an agreement, from 2.30pm until 6.30pm if it is on a weekend or after school from 3.00pm until 6.30pm if it is on a school day;

f)   On the Father’s birthday for 10.30am until 6.30pm if it occurs on a weekend or from after school from 3.00pm until 6.30pm if it occurs on a school day;

g)   On the Paternal Grandfather’s Birthday, being … each year, for a minimum of four (4) hours as agreed between the parties and in default of an agreement from 2.00pm until 6.00pm if it is on a weekend or from after school from 3.00pm until 6:30pm if it is on a school day.

h)   On the Paternal Grandmother’s Birthday, being … each year, for a minimum of four (4) hours as agreed between the parties and in default of an agreement from 2.00pm until 6.00pm if it is on a weekend or from after school from 3.00pm until 6:30pm if it is on a school day.

i)   Unless the child is already in the Fathers care, from 10.00am Saturday until 5.00pm Sunday on the Father’s Day weekend;

j)   At such other times as may be agreed between the parties.

k)   Any other time the child wishes to spend with the father.

1. That commencing eighteen (18) months from the date of these orders, the child spend unsupervised time with the Father as follows:-

a)On each alternate weekend from after school on Friday from 3.00pm until 5.00pm Sunday;

b)On alternate weeks, from after school on Wednesday afternoon from 3.00pm until Thursday morning at 9.00am, the Father is to collect and deliver the child from and to school;

c)For one half of all NSW gazetted school holidays for terms 1, 2 and 3 as agreed between the parties, and failing agreement, for the first half in odd numbered years and for the second half in even numbered years;

d)For the first and last week of the Christmas school holiday period;

e)On the child’s birthday (…) for a minimum of four (4) hours as agreed between the parties and in default of an agreement, from 2.30pm until 6.30pm if it is on a weekend or after school from 3.00pm until 6.30pm if it is on a school day;

f)On the Father’s birthday for 10.30am until 6.30pm if it occurs on a weekend or from after school from 3.00pm until 6.30pm if it occurs on a school day.

g)On the Paternal Grandfather’s Birthday, being … each year, for a minimum of six (6) hours as agreed between the parties and in default of an agreement from 12.00pm until 6.00pm if it is on a weekend or from after school from 3.00pm until 6:30pm if it is on a school day;

h)On the Paternal Grandmother’s Birthday, being … each year, for a minimum of six (6) hours as agreed between the parties and in default of an agreement 12.00pm until 6.00pm if it is on a weekend or from after school from 3.00pm until 6:30pm if it is on a school day;

1. Unless the child is already in the Fathers care, from 10.00am Saturday until 5.00pm Sunday on the Father’s Day weekend;

j)At such other times as may be agreed between the parties. k) Any other time the child wishes to spend with the father through whatever means

1. That commencing twenty four (24) months from the date of these orders, the child spend unsupervised time with the Father as follows:-

a)   On each alternate weekend from after school Friday at 3.00pm until Monday morning at 9.00am, the Father is to collect and deliver the child from and to school;

b)   On alternate weeks, from after school at 3.00pm on Wednesday afternoon until Thursday at 9.00am, the Father is to collect and deliver the child from and to school;

c)   For one half of all NSW gazetted school holidays for terms 1, 2 and 3 as agreed between the parties, and failing agreement, for the first half in odd numbered years and for the second half in even numbered years; d) For the first and last week of the Christmas school holiday period;

e)   On the child’s birthday (…) for a minimum of four (4) hours as agreed between the parties and in default of an agreement, from 2.30pm until 6.30pm if it is on a weekend or after school from 3.00pm until 6.30pm if it is on a school day;

f)   On the Father’s birthday for 10.30am until 6.30pm if it occurs on a weekend or from after school from 3.00pm until 6.30pm if it occurs on a school day;

g)   On the Paternal Grandfather’s Birthday, being … each year, for a minimum of six (6) hours as agreed between the parties and in default of an agreement from 12.00pm until 6.00pm if it is on a weekend or from after school at 3.00pm until 6:30pm if it is on a school day;

h)   On the Paternal Grandmother’s Birthday, being … each year, for a minimum of six (6) hours as agreed between the parties and in default of an agreement from 12.00pm until 6.00pm if it is on a weekend or from after school at 3.00pm until 6:30pm if it is on a school day;

i)   Unless the child is already in the Fathers care, from 10.00am Saturday until 5.00pm Sunday on the Father’s Day weekend;

j)   At such other times as may be agreed between the parties.

k)   Any other time the child wishes to spend with the father through whatever means

1. That from the commencement of these orders, the child spend time with the Father each year on the first and last day of the following religious holidays:-

a)Shahvuot;

b)Rosh Hashanah;

c)Purim;

d)Hanukah;

e)Passover;

f)Sukkot.

10. That the Father’s time with the child pursuant to Order 9 herein be from 10.30am until 4.30pm if such religious holiday falls on a weekend or from after school at 3.00pm until 7.00pm if such religious holiday falls on a school day.

11. That following the commencement of order 6, the child spend time with the Father, each year on the following days;

a)   New Years Day;

b)   Australia Day;

c)   Anzac Day;

d)   Queens Birthday;

e)   Labour Day;

f)   Boxing Day.

12. That the Father’s time with the child pursuant to Order 11 herein be for a minimum of four (4) hours as agreed between the parties and in default of an agreement from 2.00pm until 6.00pm

13. That for the purposes of changeovers the location shall be McDonalds Family Restaurant … in order to facilitate Orders 3, 6(a), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) (i), (h), (k) 7(a), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) (h), (i), (k) 8(a), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) (h), (i), (k), 9 and 11 herein.

14. That in the event the child is too ill or unable to spend time with the Father in accordance with these orders for whatever reason, the Mother shall provide the Father and the supervising individual with no less than twenty-four (24) hours’ notice prior to the time when the Father was to spend time with the child.

15. The mother shall be responsible for any and all late fees associated with the father’s supervision if she fails to provide notice in accordance with Order 14.

16. That in the event that the child is unable to spend time with the Father due illness or for whatever reason, then he shall spend make up time with the Father on another day or period that is no more than three (3) weeks from the day or period that he was to spend time with the Father in accordance with these orders.

17. That each party as soon as practicable, notify the other if the child is seriously ill, is to be admitted into hospital or any other serious issue associated with the child’s welfare and wellbeing at those times when the child is in the care of the other party.

18. That in the event that one party is unable to spend time with the child due to their illness or any other reason, that party shall ensure that they provide the other party with no less than twenty four (24) hours’ notice, however in the case of a medical emergency notice shall be as immediate as possible.

19. That the child have telephone contact with the Father each Tuesday and Thursday between 6.00pm and 6.30pm on weekdays and 8.00am and 9.00am on Christmas Day and on the child’s birthday.

20. That within seven (7) days, the Mother provide the Father with the telephone number on which he can telephone the child pursuant to Order 19 herein and the Mother ensure that this telephone is charged and active at all times when the child is to have telephone contact with the Father.

21. That the Mother facilitate such telephone contact by ensuring that the child is available to talk to the Father with privacy and without interference from the Mother or any other party and the Mother shall permit the child to telephone the Father on such other occasions when the child expresses a wish to do so.

22. That the parties keep one another informed of their residential addresses, email addresses mobile, work and home telephone contact numbers, and notify the other party of any change to those details within forty eight (48) hours of such change occurring.

23. That the child be known as [C Hill-Lawson] and both parties do all acts and things necessary and sign all necessary documents to have this change of name recorded on the child’s birth certificate with the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages in the state of New South Wales within fourteen (14) days of these orders.

24. That within seven (7) days, the Mother and Father do all things reasonably necessary to enrol the child at a school agreed upon between them to enable the child to commence attending the nominated school from the beginning of the school term and in default of an agreement, the child be enrolled at [Q] Public School.

25. That both parents be permitted to attend the child’s extracurricular activities and school for all school related events, including parent/teacher interviews, parent days, assemblies, concerts and like events to which parents are invited.

26. That each party be restrained from travelling with the child outside of the Commonwealth of Australia, unless the written consent is provided by the other party not less than twenty-one (21) days prior to departure. The party travelling with the child must also provide:-

a)   Details including travel destination and dates of travel, not less than twenty-one (21) days prior to the intended departure date;

b)   A full itinerary including flight details, travel dates, accommodation details and suitable contact telephone number, as soon as bookings have been made and not later than twenty-one (21) days prior to the intended departure date;

27. That [Mr Lawson] be solely referred to as the Father to the child and [Ms Hill] to the child be solely referred to as the Mother and that neither party encourage the child to refer to any other person as his mother or father by any name or other term.

28. That both parties do all acts and things necessary and sign all documents necessary to ensure the child is enrolled in the next available semester or midterm if available, of the “[Y] Program” held at the [L] Synagogue and do all acts and things necessary to ensure the child attends this program.

29. That each party ensure that the child is transported to the “[Y] Program” at commencement time of each session when the child is spending time with either parent. The child shall be picked up from school at whatever time necessary, to ensure he is able to be transported to the program on time.

30. That the parties use their best endeavours to encourage and foster the child’s relationship with the other party and the child’s immediate and extended family and that neither party denigrate the other or members of the other’s family to or in the presence of the child.

31. That the mother and any other party be restrained from smoking cigarettes in the vicinity of the child and in particular in the same room he is in or in a motor vehicle in which he is travelling.

32. That the Mother pay the Father’s costs of and incidental to these proceedings.

33.

SCHEDULE 2

1. THAT all previous parenting orders in relation to the child [C Hill] born … 2010 the child of the parties be discharged.

2. THAT

a.the mother have sole parental responsibility for the said child;

b.she shall notify the father of her intention to make any major decision in relation to the said child in writing save and except in case of emergency; and

c.notify in writing the father of the name and contact details of the child’s current and future treating medical and mental health professionals.

1. THAT the said child live with the mother.

2. THAT the said child spend time with the father during each school term:

a.for not less than 4 hours each fourth weekend at times and on a day to be agreed upon, or such longer period as the parties may agree in writing,

b.such periods commence on the weekend at the conclusion of the first week of the school term and each fourth weekend thereafter.

c.such time to be supervised by [X Contact Centre] or such other supervising organisation as agreed between the parties in writing.

d.in the event of the parties failing to agree on the times or day then the time the child spends with his father shall be from 11.30am to 3.30pm each fourth  Sunday thereafter during school term.

e.In the event father’s day falls during a time that the child is not spending time with the father then the child shall spend time with the father from 11.30am to 3.30pm that day;

f.such other periods as may be agreed between the parties in writing.

1. THAT the time in accordance with order 4 be suspended during all school holidays

2. THAT each party shall contact and do all such things and sign all documents as are required by [X Contact Centre] or other agreed registered supervising agency as agreed in accordance with order 4. a. for the purpose of them providing the supervision required in order 4. b., within 7 days of the making of these orders.

3. THAT the parties each pay half the costs, including any cancellation or transport costs of [X Contact Centre] or other agreed registered supervising agency as agreed in accordance with order 4. a., providing supervision required in order 4. b.

4. THAT the father and the mother shall comply with all rules, regulations, requirements and directions of [X Contact Centre] or other agreed registered supervising agency.

5. THAT the father’s travel time to enable the implementation of order 4 shall be in addition to the time specified in that order.

10. THAT for the purpose of change over the mother or her nominee shall deliver the said child to a location as agreed between the mother and [X Contact Centre] or other agreed registered supervising agency at the commencement of the time the said child is to spend time with the father in accordance with these orders and the mother or her nominee shall collect the child from the same location at the conclusion of that time.

11. THAT in the event that the mother is unable to comply with order 9 hereof  then she shall as soon as practical make the appropriate arrangements for the transport of the said child to and/or from spending time with the father with [X Contact Centre] or other agreed registered supervising agency..

12. THAT in the event that

a.the child is ill and cannot attend to spend time with the father in accordance with these orders then the mother shall do all things necessary to provide sufficient notice to the father and shall provide a medical certificate to evidence such illness;

b.the supervisor is ill and cannot attend to supervise the child’s time with the father in accordance with these orders then the time shall not occur and the father shall provide adequate notice of such illness to the mother.

c.The child’s time with the father is unable to occur as a result of either of the reasons referred to in order 12 a or b then the mother shall arrange for make up time to occur.

13. THAT the ICL and the parties have leave to make available a copy of these orders to [X Contact Centre] or any other agreed supervisor and to disclose to them the reports of Dr [E].

14. THAT the parties have leave to provide to their respective treating medical and mental health professionals and the child’s treating medical and mental health professionals copies these orders and Dr [E’s] reports.

15. THAT in the event that mother’s day falls during any period the child is to spend time with the father then that time shall be suspended and will take place the following weekend.

16. THAT the  mother:

a.sign all documents and do all things necessary to:

i.         authorise the school, pre-school or day care at which the child may from time to time attend:

(1)to furnish the father with copies of all school reports, notices and advices concerning:

(a)  the said child; and

(b)  any activity involving the said child;

and

(2)to make available to the father copies of any school photographs of the said child at his expense.

b.notify the father immediately of:

i.         any major illness suffered by the said child;

ii.        any hospitalisation of the said child;

and

c.make available to the father copies of any medical report or reports that may be sent to the mother in connection with such illness or hospitalisation;

and

d.Authorise:

i.         any hospital in which the said child may be admitted; and

ii.        any medical practitioner under whose care the said child may be

to give such information to the father as he may request.

17. THAT the father shall continue to attend all appointments with and follow all advice of:

a.his psychologist, Ms [Z], and

b.his psychiatrist, Dr [F], including following all recommendations as to medication and treatment and including the filling of all prescriptions for prescribed medications at his own expense.

18. THAT for the purpose of communication between the parties the mother provide to the father a postal address or post office box number and that the father be restrained from communicating with or attempting to communicate with the mother other than by prepaid post to that address or post office box.

19. THAT each party is restrained from denigrating the other to the child or in the presence or hearing of the child and shall not cause or permit any other person so to do.

20. THAT otherwise all other outstanding applications and cross applications be dismissed.

21. THAT notwithstanding Order 2.c. and Order 16 herein the father shall otherwise be restrained from communicating with the child’s treating medical and mental health professionals and schools other than to request documentation be forwarded to him in relation to the child and for no other purpose.

22. THAT during the periods that the father is due to spend time with the child in accordance with these Orders that the paternal grandparents and extended paternal family shall be permitted to attend such time.

23. THAT unless otherwise agree between the parties in writing, the location for changeover shall be McDonalds ...