LERNER & LITTLE
[2020] FamCA 112
•26 February 2020
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| LERNER & LITTLE | [2020] FamCA 112 |
| FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Best Interests – Whether children should spend time with mother – Where the father asserts that the mother poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the children due to her past relationship with her former partner, whom she knew to be sexually attracted to children – Where the mother’s former partner is awaiting trial on a number of sexual offences involving children, including a charge involving his conduct toward one of the subject children – Where the father asserts that the mother failed to protect the children and there is a real possibility that at least one of the children has been sexually abused as a result – Where the mother seeks to explain her failure to act protectively as occurring in circumstances where she was the victim of family violence and her will was overborne by her former partner and also contends that she thought her former partner’s disclosures to her of his sexual interest in children were fantasy, despite evidence to the contrary, and that he would not harm the children – Where the father seeks that the mother spend no time with the children and that he have sole parental responsibility – Where the mother seeks to spend as much time with the children as possible and if supervision is required that the time be supervised by her sister – Where the mother lacks insight and has sought to minimise her responsibility for exposing the children to possible abuse – Where the mother poses an unacceptable risk of harm due to her personality vulnerabilities which cause her to be vulnerable to manipulation in the context of personal relationships and a consequence of that manipulation being either that the mother does not recognise risk to her children or is prepared to ignore risk and the possibility that she will undermine and destabilise the children’s relationship with the father – Where the risk cannot be ameliorated by supervision – Where it is not in the best interests of the children to have an ongoing relationship with the mother – Where the father will have sole parental responsibility, the children will live with him and spend no time with the mother. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth), r 13.07A |
| Baghti & Baghtiand Ors [2015] FamCAFC 71 Banks & Banks (2015) FLC 93-637 Bant & Clayton [2019] FamCAFC 198 Johnson & Page (2007) FLC 93-344 M & M (1988) 166 CLR 69 N and S and the Separate Representative (1996) FLC 92-655 |
| APPLICANT: | Mr Lerner |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Little |
| INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Ms Ellis, Raise Law |
| FILE NUMBER: | BRC | 1584 | of | 2014 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 26 February 2020 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Brisbane |
| PLACE HEARD: | Brisbane |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Carew J |
| HEARING DATE: | 20 - 23 January 2020 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Mr T. Jordan |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Lucy Wood Family Law |
| FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Self-represented |
| COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Ms J. McArdle |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Raise Law |
It is ordered that
All previous parenting orders and parenting plans be discharged.
The father have sole parental responsibility for the children, X born … 2008 and Y born … 2009, in relation to major long term issues (as that term is defined in s 4(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)).
The children live with the father.
The mother spend no time with the children.
The mother be restrained and an injunction hereby issues restraining the mother from attending the children’s school.
The mother be restrained and an injunction hereby issues restraining the mother from contacting or attempting to contact the children by any means whether directly or indirectly.
Paragraph 4 of the Order made on 11 December 2018 and paragraph 11 of the Order made 17 September 2018 be discharged and the father be permitted to read the statements made by the mother to police dated 7 May 2018 and 2 July 2018 if he chooses to do so but in any event all copies of the statements be returned to the independent children’s lawyer within 7 days of this Order.
The father and mother keep each other informed at all times of an email address at which they can be contacted in case of emergency.
This Order authorises the release of the reports of Ms J dated 14 December 2018 and 4 March 2019, Dr T dated 15 February 2019, Dr D dated 3 December 2018 and the Reasons for Judgment dated 26 February 2020 to any treating practitioner of the father, mother, and/or children.
Pursuant to s 65DA(2) and s 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the particulars of the obligations this Order create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes this Order 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 this Order.
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 Lerner & Little has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE |
FILE NUMBER: BRC 1584 of 2014
| Mr Lerner |
Applicant
And
| Ms Little |
Respondent
And
Independent Children’s Lawyer
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Mr Lerner and Ms Little have two children, X aged 11 years and Y aged 10 years. The parents are unable to agree about what parenting order should be made and, in particular, whether or not the children should spend any time with the mother.
The dispute arises as a result of the mother’s association with a man who is now awaiting trial on a number of sexual offences involving children and, in particular, a charge of engaging in conduct with X with intent to facilitate the procurement of the child to engage in a sexual act. The mother is the main prosecution witness in the criminal proceedings.
Ultimately, it was common ground that despite the mother having at least some knowledge of her former partner’s sexual interest in children, she left the children in his care on many occasions.
The mother contends that while concerned by what her former partner disclosed to her, she thought he was fantasising and did not believe he would hurt her children. The state of the evidence is such that no positive finding of abuse of the children by the mother’s former partner can be made but abuse cannot be ruled out. The mother seeks to explain her behaviour as occurring in circumstances where she was a victim of family violence. The mother contends that as the risk to the children has now been removed (because her former partner is no longer in her life), the children’s time with her should be increased and no longer supervised.
For the reasons which follow I find that the mother presents an unacceptable risk of harm to the children which cannot be ameliorated by supervision. The children will continue to live with the father, and the mother will not be permitted to spend time with the children.
Issues
With the assistance of the parents and the independent children’s lawyer (“ICL”) the following issues were identified and confirmed as the significant issues requiring determination:
a)Whether the mother poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the children due to her past relationship with Mr K, and her alleged failure to protect the children;
b)The impact on the children of limited supervised time with the mother; and
c)The capacity of the parents to co-parent.
Proposals
The father proposes that he have sole parental responsibility for the children and that they live with him and spend no time with the mother.[1]
[1] The precise terms of the order sought by the father are set out in exhibit 14.
At the end of the trial, the mother did not press for a return to the week about parenting arrangement, which had been operative until suspended in September 2018. Essentially, the mother’s proposal is for the children to spend as much time with her as possible and if supervision is determined to be necessary, she proposes that her sister supervise her time with the children. She also proposes that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for some issues.[2]
[2] The precise terms of the order sought by the mother are set out in her Response filed 12 January 2020.
The ICL recommends that the father have sole parental responsibility for the children and that they live with him and spend time with the mother once every two months from 9.00am until 5.00pm supervised by Ms H, the mother’s sister.[3]
[3] The precise terms of the order recommended by the ICL are set out in exhibit 13.
Background
The father and mother lived together from 2007 until finally separating in January 2015. They had a number of prior separations and during one such separation, a parenting order was made by consent on 1 April 2014 providing for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility, and for the children to live with the mother and spend five nights per fortnight with the father. The week about arrangement was agreed to in a parenting plan on 4 November 2015.
The two children of the relationship are X born in 2008 and Y born in 2009.
The father is self-employed. He is 49 years of age. He and the children live in the F Region, Queensland. The father commenced a relationship with Ms L in October 2017 and lived with her for a short period from May 2019 to July 2019 before their relationship as a couple came to an end in November 2019. They remain friends and communicate several times each week and see each other every few weeks for a family barbeque. Ms L is a widow and has two children of similar age to the subject children. The strain of these proceedings and of trying to blend their families became too much and they ended their relationship.
The mother works in the health industry. She has worked in that industry for about 13 years. She is 43 years of age. As no mention is made of any current relationship I assume the mother is not in one. The mother says that she has recently had to file for bankruptcy due to these court proceedings and would find it difficult to meet the costs associated with the contact centre if supervised visits were to continue. The mother lives in a four bedroom house in the F Region which she shares with two boarders.
The mother commenced a relationship with Mr K in or about April 2015 having met him in January 2015. Mr K has two children of similar age to the subject children. While the mother and Mr K did not ever live together on a permanent basis, they spent regular time at each other’s homes throughout their relationship, which was ended by Mr K on 12 February 2018. The mother and Mr K continued to have a sexual relationship until about March 2018.[4]
[4] The mother provides differing accounts about the nature of the sexual encounters engaged in i.e. whether or not they were consensual.
The mother reported Mr K to police on 19 April 2018 and during the period 26 April to 7 May 2018 the mother assisted police in their investigation of Mr K. In mid-2018, Mr K was charged with seven offences including child sex offences. The particulars of the offences are as follows:
Charge 1 of 7 –
CRIMINAL CODE 210(1)(a)&(3) INDECENT TREATMENT OF CHILDREN UNDER 16 CHILD UNDER 12 YEARS
That between the 1st day of February 2018 and the 6th day of May 2018 at [Suburb M] in the State of Queensland one [Mr K] unlawfully and indecently dealt with [W] a child under the age of 16 years and [W] was a child under 12 years
Charge 2 of 7 –
CRIMINAL CODE 218B(1)(a)&(2) GROOMING CHILD UNDER 16 YEARS WITH INTENT TO PROCURE ENGAGEMENT IN A SEXUAL ACT CHILD UNDER 12 YEARS
That between the 1st date of January 2016 and the 6th day of May 2018 at F Region or elsewhere in the State of Queensland one [Mr K] being an adult who engaged in conduct in relation to a person under the age of 16 years namely [X] with intent to facilitate the procurement of the said [X] to engage in a sexual act in Queensland and the said [Mr K] believed [X] to be under 12 years
Charge 3 of 7 –
CRIMINAL CODE 218B(1)(a)&(2) GROOMING CHILD UNDER 16 YEARS WITH INTENT TO PROCURE ENGAGEMENT IN A SEXUAL ACT CHILD UNDER 12 YEARS
That between the 1st date of February 2018 and the 7th day of May 2018 at Brisbane or elsewhere in the State of Queensland one [Mr K] being an adult who engaged in conduct in relation to a person under the age of 16 years namely child unknown with intent to facilitate the procurement of the said child to engage in a sexual act in Queensland and the said [Mr K] believed the unknown child to be under 12 years
Charge 4 of 7 –
CRIMINAL CODE 210(1)(a)&(3) INDECENT TREATMENT OF CHILDREN UNDER 16 CHID UNDER 12 YEARS
That between the 1st day of February 2018 and the 7th day of May 2018 at Brisbane or elsewhere in the State of Queensland one [Mr K] unlawfully and indecently dealt with an unknown child a child under the age of 16 years and unknown child was a child under 12 years.
That between the 1st date of February 2018 and the 7th day of May 2018 at Brisbane or elsewhere in the State of Queensland one [Mr K] being an adult who engaged in conduct in relation to a person under the age of 16 years namely child unknown with intent to facilitate the procurement of the said child to engage in a sexual act in Queensland and the said [Mr K] believed the unknown child to be under 12 years
Charge 5 of 7 –
CRIMINAL CODE 228D POSSESSING CHILD EXPLOITATION MATERIAL
That on the 6th day of May 2018 at [Suburb M] in the State of Queensland one [Mr K] knowingly possessed child exploitation material namely an image
Charge 6 of 7 –
DRUGS MISUSE ACT 1986 9(1) POSSESSING DANGEROUS DRUGS
That on the 6th day of May 2018 at [Suburb M] in the State of Queensland one [Mr K] unlawfully had possession of a dangerous drug namely 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine
Charge 7 of 7 –
WEAPONS ACT 1990 50(1) UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF WEAPONS
That on the 6th day of May 2018 at [Suburb M] in the State of Queensland one [Mr K] unlawfully possessed a weapon namely anti personal (sic) gas
A protection order was made in favour of the mother against Mr K on 8 May 2018 and the children were also named as protected persons.
The children were initially interviewed by police on 10 May 2018. X has been interviewed twice and Y once.
On 12 July 2018, the mother left an obscure voice mail message for the father on his phone without informing him of the charges against Mr K. The message was as follows:
Hey, how’s it going, it’s just me. Umm – hey – I was hoping you could please give me a call – umm – I have to talk to you about something, it’s about umm,[Mr K] and umm, he’s err, he’s got himself into some serious trouble. Obviously we’re not together anymore – I’m not – and the serious trouble is due to me and I need to explain it to you because – oh [sighed] – I didn’t want to say anything to you because – I didn’t want you – I know you don’t like me, I know there’s a lot of hate there, still, and so does [Mr K], he knows that as well so there’s a good chance umm, he’s gonna, or his defence team will call you and try and get you to make a statement umm against me and I need you to not do that – umm – can you please call me.
I was going to tell you – I just – I’ve been through a really, really difficult time and I don’t need anyone mocking me or you know making fun of me for making the wrong choice with [Mr K], but he’s turned out to be a really horrible person – umm – and yeah, anyway – I’ll – if you can please call me, or if not, if you don’t want to call me, that’s, if you don’t want to know, fine – just do me a favour and please don’t go against me, that’s all I’m asking. Thank you, bye.
The father did not contact the mother in response to the message.
On 18 August 2018, the mother sent a text message to the father informing him that Mr K had been arrested for grooming X and other girls of similar age. The message was as follows:
Just want you to know that [Mr K] has been arrested and is being charged with grooming of [X] and sexual offences against other girls of similar age. [X] has been interviewed by police and has been cleared along with [Y]. His address as you know is [Z Street, Suburb M] in case u would like ask him any questions to make sure [X] has been safe…
His bail conditions require him to be at home each night by 8:30pm and not leave home before 6am. He has had 3 court mentions so far. The next one being at [C Town] district court in Aug.
Happy to discuss further should you need to.
[Ms Little]
The father did not contact the mother but commenced proceedings on 24 August 2018 and obtained an ex parte order on 29 August 2018 enabling the children to remain in his care and restraining the mother from removing them.
The children have been in the father’s sole care since that time and from 21 October 2018 the children have spent two hours per week with the mother supervised at a contact centre.
On 16 October 2019, Mr K was committed for trial. At the time of the trial before me, Mr K’s criminal trial had not occurred.
Before considering the particular issues identified by the parties as significant, I set out below the statutory provisions and legal principles applicable in parenting applications.
Applicable legal principles
Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) sets out the objects, principles and matters that must be considered when determining what parenting order is proper.[5]
[5]Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 65D.
A ‘parenting order’ is defined in s 64B of the Act and may deal with matters including:
a)The person or persons with whom a child is to live;
b)The time a child is to spend with another person or other persons;
c)The communication a child is to have with another person or persons; and
d)The allocation of parental responsibility for a child.
The objects and principles of Part VII of the Act are set out in ss 60B (1) and (2) and those sections make it clear that the Court is concerned with, among other things, a child’s right to be cared for by both parents when it is safe for that to occur.
In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order, the Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration (s 60CA).
The best interests of the child are determined by reference to primary considerations, namely, the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, and additional considerations including any views expressed by the child, the nature of the relationship between the child and each parent, the past involvement of each parent with the child, the likely effect of any changes, the capacity of each parent to provide for the intellectual and emotional needs of the child, any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family etc (s 60CC).
In considering the primary considerations the Court must give greater weight to the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence (s 60CC(2A)).
Family violence is defined in s 4AB and means violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person’s family or causes the family member to be fearful. Particular examples of such behaviour include assault, repeated derogatory taunts, intentional damage or destruction of property etc.
In cases involving allegations of abuse or family violence a positive finding of abuse should not be made unless the Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities having regard to the “inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding” and proof to the reasonable satisfaction of the court “should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony or indirect inferences”.[6] Where it is not possible to positively reject an allegation as groundless the Court is required to assess and evaluate the magnitude of any risk to determine whether the risk of harm is unacceptable.[7] The components which go to make up a finding of unacceptable risk “need not each be established on the balance of probabilities. The court may reach a conclusion of unacceptable risk from the accumulation of factors, none or some only of which, are proved to that standard” although “a Judge may be cautious in coming to a finding of unacceptable risk if none, rather than some only, of the accumulation of factors considered, satisfy the standard of proof”. [8]
[6] M & M (1988) 166 CLR 69 citing Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336, 362 (Dixon J).
[7] M & M (supra); N and S and the Separate Representative (1996) FLC 92-655.
[8] See Johnson & Page (2007) FLC 93-344, 81,890 [68], 81,891 [71].
The Full Court of the Family Court recently reviewed the role of the Court in assessing risk in Bant & Clayton[9] and said:
[9] [2019] FamCAFC 198.
38. In M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 at 78 (“M v M”) the plurality of the High Court considered the assessment of the existence and magnitude of a risk in the context of sexual abuse of a child and said:
Efforts to define with greater precision the magnitude of the risk which will justify a court in denying a parent access to a child have resulted in a variety of formulations. … courts are striving for a greater degree of definition than the subject is capable of yielding. In devising these tests the courts have endeavoured, in their efforts to protect the child’s paramount interests, to achieve a balance between the risk of detriment to the child from sexual abuse and the possibility of benefit to the child from parental access. To achieve a proper balance, the test is best expressed by saying that a court will not grant custody or access to a parent if that custody or access would expose the child to an unacceptable risk of sexual abuse.
39. It is to be remembered that the concept of “unacceptable risk” referred to in M v M was within the framework of resolving “the wider issue” namely what is in the best interests of the child and to which the resolution of the existence of an “unacceptable risk” is subservient (see M v M at 76; B and B (1993) FLC 92-357).
40. The process by which a risk is identified and its magnitude measured cannot, in parenting cases, be subject to rigid mathematical or empirical assessment. As the High Court said in CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172 (“CDJ v VAJ”) at 218:
151. …Given the nature of applications for parenting orders, there must often be a real chance that the order under appeal is not in the best interests of the child. Such applications necessarily involve predictions and assumptions about the future which are not susceptible of scientific demonstration or proof. Perceptions, predictions and even intuition and guesswork can all play a part in the making of an order. …
41. As long ago as 1995, in N and S and the Separate Representative (1996) FLC 92-655 at 82,713 – 82,714, Fogarty J said of this determination:
Thus, the essential importance of the unacceptable risk question as I see it is in its direction to judges to give real and substantial consideration to the facts of the case, and to decide whether or not, and why or why not, those facts could be said to raise an unacceptable risk of harm to the child.
The Full Court went on to stress the importance of the whole of the evidence in assessing risk and said:
51. The conclusion of the existence and magnitude of a risk was based on all of the facts and circumstances to which his Honour referred. It would not be proper to approach that task by analysing each fact or circumstance to see whether that particular fact would support the conclusion to which his Honour came, in the words of counsel for the father, to “atomise” that evidence (see Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308). Rather, it was a conclusion formed by a consideration of all those aspects taking into account the necessary elements of prediction and assumptions about the future to which the court spoke in CDJ v VAJ.
The Court is not required to make findings of fact on every factual dispute raised by the parties.[10] The paramount issue for the Court is to determine what order is in the best interests of the subject child in the particular circumstances of the case and in the process of that determination the Court “cannot be diverted by the supposed need to arrive at a definitive determination” on each and every factual dispute.[11]
[10]Baghti & Baghtiand Ors [2015] FamCAFC 71.
[11]M & M (1988) 166 CLR 69.
Section 60CG imposes a statutory imperative to ensure that a parenting order does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence and empowers the Court to include in the Order any safeguards that it considers necessary for the safety of those affected by the Order.
Each parent has parental responsibility (i.e. all the powers, responsibilities and authority which, by law, parents have in relation to a child), for a child subject to any Order made by the Court (s 61C).
Section 61DA provides that when making a parenting order, the Court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility. The presumption does not apply where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent has engaged in abuse of the child or another child who, at the time, was a member of the parent’s family or where there are reasonable grounds to believe a parent has engaged in family violence as defined in s 4AB. The presumption may be rebutted if the Court is satisfied that an order for equal shared parental responsibility would not be in the child’s best interests.
Where the presumption does apply, the Court is required to consider whether equal time or substantial and significant time is in the child’s best interests and reasonably practicable (s 65DAA).
Section 65DAC makes clear that an order for shared parental responsibility requires decisions about major long-term issues to be made jointly after consultation. Major long-term issues mean issues about the care, welfare and development of the child of a long-term nature and includes issues about education, religious and cultural upbringing, health, name, changes to living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the child to spend time with a parent (s 4).
Although I may not specifically discuss in these reasons each subparagraph of each relevant section I have considered all sections as required when making my determination.[12]
Whether the mother poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the children due to her past relationship with Mr K, and her alleged failure to protect the children
[12]Banks & Banks (2015) FLC 93-637.
Children left with Mr K by the mother
Ultimately, it was common ground that the mother left the children with Mr K on many occasions during the period of her relationship with him, the last occasion, according to the mother, being 5 to 7 February 2018 when the mother was interstate with her employment. Since that time Mr K has, on at least one occasion, dropped his children off at the mother’s home while the children were present.
While I am conscious that the mother represented herself I find it surprising, given the focus on Mr K in these proceedings, that the mother did not set out in her trial affidavit the particulars of when the children were left alone with Mr K. In her affidavit she says only the following:
115.The kids have been in the care of [Mr K] on occasion over the 3 years while I have had to go away for work. They have mainly stayed with [Mr Lerner] or I have hired a live-in baby sitter from my friends babysitting service. I do not recall a time when the kids were at [Mr K] (sic) without the other kids. On occasion he has picked the kids up from school for me if I was running late as I did with his kids from [CC School]. I was not aware of [Mr K] having intentions of harming the kids at the time.
116.[Mr Lerner] says the kids told him that they stayed at [Mr K] (sic) ‘All the time’ without me but this is not true. The kids are again telling [Mr Lerner] what they think he wants to hear. I have been working for [N Company] since 2017 and I travel to [DD City] twice a year for 3 days and once every two months for an overnight stay in my country areas. I usually plan all of my travel for when the kids are with [Mr Lerner] unless it’s a compulsory conference for the 3 days.
117.[Mr Lerner] has stated in his affidavit filed 23rd December 2019, point 75, that I travelled for one week of every month and this is simply not true. He also states that I didn’t have a nanny from January 2016 until February 2018 which is also not true.
118.I engaged the services of a nanny through ‘[P Company]’, [Ms BB], who lived in with the kids while we were living at [Suburb AA], and I had to go away for work for conference. This was approximately two months before [Mr Lerner] took the kids from my care in 2018. I had engaged babysitters for the entire time of the relationship with [Mr K] except for the odd occasion. [Mr K] did not particularly enjoy looking after the kids. Four kids are a lot to look after by yourself. I would always try to get [Mr Lerner] to look after them or engage a babysitter if he refused.
The impression created by the mother is that the children rarely spent time with Mr K without her. In her affidavit the mother dismisses, in particular, the children’s statement to the father that they stay with Mr K “all the time”. The mother also conveys her belief that the risk to her children was somehow reduced by Mr K having his own young children present.
My impression of the mother during cross-examination was that she was reluctant to acknowledge the extent to which she put the children at risk. While her reluctance is perhaps understandable from her perspective, it did not assist her case when trying to persuade the Court that she recognises and accepts responsibility for her actions and that it might be possible to rebuild trust between herself and the father.
From the commencement of these proceedings, the mother misled the father and others about when the children were left with Mr K. For example, during her interview on 5 November 2018 with Ms J, the family report writer, the following is recorded by Ms J in her report:
102.[Ms Little] reported wanting to do anything to please [Mr K] and described being slowly desensitised to [Mr K’s] sexual fantasies and eventually not recognising appropriate boundaries. She described that on the weeks that she had the children in her care, [Mr K] was a kind, loving man who the children adored. She denied the children did not like [Mr K], suggesting that [Mr Lerner] held that view to support his case. She reported that she had only left the children in [Mr K’s] care on one occasion…
(emphasis added)
When reinterviewed by Ms J on 18 January 2019, Ms J records the following:
47. [Ms Little] told me that [Mr K] cared for the children on occasions during the day on his own and on occasion when she worked late for dinner meetings for her work. She told me these occurred approximately every month and that [Mr K] cared for the children at his home until 10:00 or 11:00pm when she returned. I questioned [Ms Little] about whether she had not thought to tell me such information at the last family report, when she had been clear that [Mr K] had only ever spent one or two nights alone with the children throughout their relationship. [Ms Little] told me that she had not remembered stating that and said that she and the children always stayed at [Mr K’s] home.
When cross-examined about what she had told Ms J the mother rejected the suggestion that she had lied to Ms J when conveying that she had only left the children with Mr K once. When pressed, she conceded that it could be called a lie but added she would say it was more “sheer panic”. Given the mother’s concession, it is clear that whatever her motivation, she was deliberately untruthful to Ms J during the first family report interview. My finding in this regard is fortified by noting that on 5 November 2018, after telling Ms J there had only been one occasion when she had left the children with Mr K, the mother sought to minimise her responsibility for doing so by saying she did not know Mr K’s “true nature” at that time. This was also untrue, as will be discussed below.
Eventually the mother made admissions during cross-examination that the time the children spent with Mr K in her absence was significantly more than she had represented in her trial affidavit.
What the mother knew about Mr K during the relationship is, of course, a significant factor when assessing the magnitude of the risk posed by her and will now be considered in detail.
Mother’s knowledge of Mr K’s sexual interest in children
In her written summary of argument the mother submits that - “At no time during the relationship did the mother witness [Mr K] physically harm a child”. That statement is misleading. On the mother’s own evidence she witnessed Mr K having sex with two girls whom the mother believed at the time were between 12 and 16 years of age. Seemingly, the mother is seeking to draw a distinction between her belief at the time and what she says she was informed by police after her relationship with Mr K ended, namely, that the girls were not under age and consented. Her submission is disingenuous.
The fact is the mother had considerable knowledge about Mr K’s sexual interest in children from very early in the relationship and despite becoming aware of more and more concerning information she continued to leave the children with him. For example, the mother concedes the following:
a)Early in her relationship with Mr K, “probably in 2016”, Mr K said to the mother “I want to kidnap a child, use the child as a sex slave and then kill the child”. He also said he wanted to search the streets for possible children;
b)In or about 2016/17, Mr K repeatedly looked through photographs on a ‘porn’ website called FF until he found a “young girl”;
c)In early 2017, Mr K asked the mother “would you ever consider trading X?” This was a request made on “multiple occasions”;
d)In early 2017, Mr K called himself a psychopath;
e)In 2017, Mr K arranged for an adult female in America to send him child pornography via an ‘App’ called ‘GG’. The mother saw the video sent to Mr K when he asked her to look at it. It involved a young girl about 8 years old being raped by an adult male;
f)In 2017, Mr K communicated with a 14 year old girl in Country Q via the FF website. They then communicated via Skype regularly for about two weeks during which Mr K asked the girl to masturbate and stream it live to him, which she did. When Mr K arranged for the girl to travel to Australia the mother was “really jealous of their relationship” and told Mr K he had to choose between her and the girl;
g)Mr K joined the mother to a ‘porn’ site which she and Mr K accessed together. It catered for “kinks, so you could contact likeminded people. There were incest groups, rape groups, gang bang etc”;
h)The mother viewed video footage of “young girls having sex with” Mr K. Both girls were wearing school uniforms and the mother estimated their ages at between 12 to 16 year old. The mother watched the videos and saw that Mr K made one of the girls bleed. The mother says she could tell the girls were in pain;
i)Mr K told the mother that prior to the commencement of their relationship he had made an arrangement to fly to Canberra to “do an exchange of his daughter for another young girl for sexual acts” but that he did not take his daughter because “her mother had become suspicious”. Mr K told the mother that he met the man in Canberra and went to his house where he had sex with a 10 year old girl while the girl’s younger sister lay next to them on the bed. Mr K said that the father of the girls watched him and masturbated;
j)If she and Mr K passed a young girl on the street, Mr K would squeeze the mother’s hand and the mother says “I would know he would be looking at a child”;
k)Mr K told the mother that when he lived in Sydney he pretended to be a modelling agent for a photographer friend. Mr K would organise for young girls to have their photographs taken and he and the other man would offend against these girls. The mother says that Mr K asked her “to have photographs taken to try and get the scheme happening again”. The mother says that “for some reason this didn’t happen”;
l)Mr K repeatedly asked the mother if she had been molested by her father as a child and whether or not he ever shared her. The mother said that Mr K wanted her to say she had been “abused by loved ones”. The mother says that Mr K loved the stories of abuse that she made up to satisfy his sexual needs;
m)In 2017, after Mr K moved house, they had an argument when she would not do something he wanted. She sent him a message reminding him that “he was the one chasing children”;
n)Mr K had a number of mobile phones. One phone he used specifically for “setting up meetings, recording sex or talking to anyone that he met online” and he “never allowed me access to his mobile phones”; and
o)The mother “understood that [Mr K] had a kink and liked different types of sex, including sex with children”.
In comments made by the children to Ms L it seeMs Ehat the children’s complaints to the mother about Mr K from time to time were dismissed. Their comments to Ms L include the following:
Saturday 15 December 2018
30. [Y] …
(a) [X] and me stayed at [Mr K’s] all the time … I was scared all the time. I kept a tennis racket (sic) under my bed …
…
(d) I never told Dad anything because Mum never believed anything I said about [Mr K] and always got me in trouble and I thought Dad would do the same.
…
Thursday 21 December 2018
34. [X] …
…
(c) I told Mummy that [Mr K] watched me in the shower but she told me not to be silly.
35. … I asked [X] how she felt around [Mr K] when she was alone and she responded “very uncomfortable”. She said “I didn’t tell Mum because when I told her that before, I got into trouble.”
The mother’s involvement with Mr K after 12 February 2018
Mr K ended the relationship with the mother on 12 February 2018.
After about two weeks, Mr K informed the mother that he had a new girlfriend who was 20 years old and she had moved in with him. The mother says she was devastated upon hearing this news. The mother provides different accounts of her encounters with Mr K thereafter. It seeMs Ehat up until March 2018, the mother had consensual sexual intercourse with him on many occasions when he came to her home to console her. After that time, it seeMs Ehat they either had consensual intercourse or he frequently raped her, sometimes even hiding in her home with other males who also raped her. The mother told Ms J that police have footage of her being drugged and raped by Mr K and other men. The mother confirmed during cross-examination that no charges have been brought against Mr K, or the other men, in relation to these alleged assaults. In this context, I note the evidence of Detective Senior Constable R who viewed screen shots of online messages between the mother and Mr K, which included the following exchange:
[Mr K]:The guys sent a message to say thanks and they enjoyed fucking u. I promised I would pass it on.
Mother: Awesome thanks, can’t wait until next week.
The mother contends that Mr K confessed to her in March 2018 of having “finally done it” i.e. sexually abused a child. The details of his alleged confession are as follows (as reported by the mother to police):
[Mr K] told the mother that he had used ‘[a sleeping tablet]’ to sedate a young child aged 10 or 11 who was the best friend of his daughter’s. The child often slept at Mr K’s home. Mr K crushed up the [sleeping tablet] and put it in the child’s drink before she went to bed and after she was sedated he “pulled her top up, took her pants off and performed oral sex on her. He said she did not taste very good. He … ejaculated on [the child’s] breasts and vagina. He then took a series of photographs which he then sent to another male, in exchange for trust and an opportunity to offend against the other male’s daughter.”
Mr K had a plentiful supply of sleeping tablets throughout the relationship. Both he and the mother regularly obtained prescriptions for it. The mother says that she suffered from insomnia and found sleeping tablets helpful in getting to sleep. The mother also says that she “self-medicated” with alcohol during her relationship with Mr K.
Subsequent to Mr K’s confession to the mother in March 2018, she had consensual sexual intercourse with him, and on one of those occasions he commenced to talk about X. He said he wanted to be X’s “first” and asked the mother if he could give X sleeping tablet and play with her a little bit. When the mother said she would not trade X, Mr K said “no, no, no she would be with me”. This was not the first time Mr K had talked about X during sex with the mother. During their relationship, the mother says there were multiple occasions when he had done so.
The mother contacted police on or about 12 April 2018 and first spoke to a police officer on 19 April 2018.
The mother provided information and assistance to police prior to Mr K being charged in mid-2018. The mother describes herself as a “covert operative” and gave the impression of being very proud of her involvement with the police investigation. She takes credit for “saving children”. In her summary of argument, the mother submits - “The mother has … acted in a protective way not only to her own children but to other children”. I reject the mother’s submission that she acted protectively with her children.
Between 19 April 2018 and 6 May 2018, the mother engaged in online chats with Mr K in an attempt to ascertain information about an alleged paedophile ring. The mother’s communication with Mr K during this time is disturbing, however, she says that in order to gain his trust she had to pretend she had an interest in child sexual abuse. One of her messages to Mr K is as follows:
What did you do with his daughter? Tell me about it, I want to cum
The mother and Mr K made arrangements to meet up with a paedophile and discussed in online messages buying a present for the child who was to be the target of the abuse. Ultimately, the meeting did not occur.
It is disturbing that despite the mother being neither authorised nor encouraged by police to involve her children in her “covert operative” activities, the mother provided two photographs of X to Mr K prior to his arrest. The mother says that Mr K wanted to know about X’s development and asked her to send him a photograph of her. The mother says that one photograph was a “fully clothed photo of X smiling at the camera” and the other was “of her in her undies picking something up off the floor”.
Despite the extent of her knowledge about Mr K, the mother does not see anything wrong with sending Mr K the photographs saying she “would have been happy to show my grandmother”. The fact that Mr K is a paedophile (according to the mother) and could use the photographs of X on websites accessed by other paedophiles did not appear to be a matter of concern to the mother.
Reasons given by the mother for leaving the children with Mr K
The mother seeks to excuse, or at least explain, her actions in leaving the children with Mr K by raising the following matters:
a)Prior to Mr K’s admission about his abuse of his daughter’s best friend she thought he was just disclosing “fantasies” to her and she did not believe that he would harm her children;
b)When she and Mr K spent time together with their respective children he was a normal family man;
c)According to the mother, Dr D (who undertook a psychiatric assessment at the mother’s request) accurately sums up her case:
[Ms Little] presents now as a person who is totally incredulous, with the benefit of hindsight, that she entered into a personal relationship with [Mr K], and she continued in that personal relationship in 2016 and 2017 and until February 2018.
This level of incredulity supports the contention that her sense of trust for any future relationship has been severely impacted by the effects of her experience of the relationship with [Mr K], and therefore, the contention that she has learnt (the hard way) from that relationship experience.
d)She was a victim of domestic violence from Mr K and was overborne by him.
The mother’s suggestion that she thought Mr K was disclosing fantasies and she did not believe he would harm her children is untenable for a number of reasons, including her own evidence that she had viewed a video of him having sex with girls she thought at the time were 12 to 16 years old, causing them to bleed and to be in pain. The mother’s attempts to minimise the significance of this evidence does her little credit. In her trial affidavit she said:
16.I was always referring to the younger women as children as I don’t believe that is it (sic) morally ok to date someone half you own age. The women he was attracted to were all at least half of my age and to me that is still a child. I feel strongly about this and have had many arguments with [Mr K] about it, often our relationship ending over his attraction towards these younger women.
I do not accept for one moment that when the mother referred to children in her various statements to police she was referring to “younger women”.
During cross-examination about the video viewed by the mother involving girls she thought at the time were 12 to 16 years old, the mother said that she found out after the police became involved that the girls were in fact above the age of consent and consented to sex with Mr K. The mother also said that her estimation of age was exaggerated i.e. the girls were older. None of that matters. What is important is the mother’s belief at the relevant time, and that notwithstanding that belief she left her children alone with Mr K.
Another reason why I reject the mother’s evidence that she thought Mr K was only disclosing fantasies arises because of the mother’s sworn statement to police dated 7 May 2018, which included the following paragraphs:
87.[Mr K] told me he went to their place and had sex with a ten-year-old girl. He told me that the girls (sic) younger sister was lying next to them on the bed when it happened. Their father was watching and masturbating in the corner of the room.
88.I was shocked when [Mr K] told me, but I let it go because it happened before we met. I didn’t think he would do anything like this when we were together.
(emphasis added)
The allegations of domestic violence against Mr K require separate, detailed consideration.
Domestic violence allegations against Mr K
The mother says little in her trial affidavit about domestic violence in her relationship with Mr K. The following paragraph is the only reference to domestic violence during her relationship with him:
15.I realise now that during my relationship with [Mr K] he introduced small amounts of manipulation and control over a period of time as to desensitise me to further abuse more serious abuse. When I was with [Mr K] it was like being with Dr Jekyll and Mr hyde. He was Dr Jekyll when our kids were around and Mr. Hyde when they weren’t. Manipulation and gas lighting were a major method of control for [Mr K]. A lot of what [Mr K] did and said concerned me, but the nature of his personality made it hard to know what was truth and what wasn’t. This confusion is an aspect of the abuse.
(as per original)
In relation to the mother’s ultimate decision to go to the police, the mother says in her trial affidavit:
18.[Mr K] was an ex police officer himself and had made threats of harm to me before. He told me he would be able to have me dead in a couple of weeks if he needed. He had a hit man from Sydney that he knew. His parents are really wealthy and give him large sums of money regularly so I believed I should be very careful around him.
In a sworn statement provided to police on 8 May 2018, the mother gave a detailed account of her relationship with Mr K which included the following:
27. I would often witness this type of behaviour [drug taking], but wasn’t involved. His behaviour would change when he was using. He would become hard to handle. He would become obnoxious forceful. His friends would often tell him to be nice to me, because he could be really mean.
28. We would fight about it all the time. He was never violent but often forceful during sex. By that I mean he would force himself on me during sex, he would be rough. He would pin me down. I didn’t feel like I was being raped because I didn’t say no. But it wasn’t gentle or kind in anyway.
...
30. He showed me pornography websites. I was curious and didn’t think it was harmful. It was a bit risky and a bit exciting. [Mr K] wanted me to join the site Motherless.com and I agreed. …
…
39. It was around this time that [Mr K] introduced me to having threesomes. I really did not want to participate, but I wanted to keep him happy. His kink was watching me have sex with other men. … He was very dominant. He would direct what was going to happen.
…
41.If I went to work, he wanted me to organise Tinder dates and live stream the sex back to him. The date did not know I was live streaming back to him. I was really worried about getting caught. If I didn’t organise a date, [Mr K] would do it for me. [Mr K] loved to watch. He would tell me that he would masturbate while he watched.
42.If I told him I did not want to be participate he would become angry. He would tell me he didn’t want me anymore and would accuse me of “Promising the world and delivering nothing.” He would make me feel incredibly guilty. I just wanted him to love me and want me.
…
49.When [Mr K] and I got back together we were sitting on his veranda when he showed me a transcript of the conversation I had with the guy. I remember seeing my words. I knew that I said that. I started crying. I was crying begging him to forgive me. He was angry. He said, “You slut you betrayed me.” I was so confused. He wanted me to act like a slut, but if I did what he wanted he got angry. He didn’t ever want me to connect with anyone again. He really had control of me and I was willing to try and do whatever I could to please him.
…
51.I just wanted someone to love my kids and I. I just wanted to get married and buy a dog. I don’t want to grow old alone. I wanted a real family life.
52. …He really bonded with [X]. …
53.… I thought if I stayed with him he would change and he would want to marry me.
…
55.… I remember also meeting a young 18-year-old girl at [a club]. We were out with friends and she came and joined our group. She came back to [Mr K] (sic) house with us. We had gone back there to get changed before we went to a friend’s party. Whilst I was having a shower and getting changed [Mr K] (sic) was having sex with her.
56.I remember remaining really calm. But internally I was exploding. We went out and the 18-year-old girl came. She was all over him. Our friends were saying “[Ms Little] what is going on?” I spoke to [Mr K] and said “People are starting to notice something is not right. Get rid of her.”
57.When [Mr K] moved away from her I said “Are you ok? Do you want me to get you home?” But she just didn’t connect with me. [Mr K] later came over and said, “Let’s go” we took the girl with us. We went back to [Mr K] (sic) unit and she fell asleep in his bed. I was really upset and jealous.
58.I remember saying “It’s her or me.”
59.[Mr K] chose her. I left the apartment and he closed the door on me, kicking me out. I went home and cried. The following day I called the girls friend and said, “Come and get her.” I went around to [Mr K] house. He told me he had sex with her that night and again that morning. He said, “I’m sorry,” I took him back.
60.He kicked me out of his unit another time to have sex with a girl that was talking to one of his mates on Tinder. The girl had a kink where she liked to be choked until she passed out. I was again distraught and took him back the next day.
…
62.The more I agreed to do, the more kink [Mr K] wanted. … He got really pushy and would throw tantrums if I said no. His regular saying was “You always promise the world, but deliver nothing.” …
…
64.If there was ever a serious situation I would make him nervous about being busted …
65.… I was jealous that he wanted to have sex with another female and that I wasn’t enough.
66.I found myself constantly trying to please him. The more I tried to please him, the more he wanted from me. The kinkier the better. …
67.In 2017, I moved to my current address. I moved because the owners sold the unit. [Mr K] remained in his apartment. I was really worried about it. I was worried the relationship would fade and that he would be able to have other women there. He always told me he would be honest with me, even if it hurt me.
…
76. [Mr K] has also had periods where he has felt suicidal and I have taken him to see a doctor …
…
94. Before we broke up he became really manipulative. He said words to the effect of “You can’t give me what I need.” …
…
96. I would back track and get coaxed back in because I feared losing him.
…
98. … I remember saying “Let’s make this work. I love you. Maybe we should try counselling.”
…
100. [Mr K] then said, “It’s over.” I was crying in the hallway. I said, “You are the love of my life.”
101. [Mr K] said, “This is the only way I know how to protect you.”
…
104. He called to tell me he had a new 20-year-old girlfriend. Then I fell apart. …
105. I was really upset and jealous. …
…
110. He then came around the following day. I said “Go away. You need to leave me alone.” But I opened the door. He knew I was angry. He held my arms behind my back, dragged me upstairs and forcibly had sex with me. He was being very rough but I didn’t tell him no. …
…
112. On another occasion when he came around I told him, I told him that I was secretly seeing someone from work the whole time we were together. He looked really hurt and I felt pretty good.
…
114. Because I had lied to him I sent him an email telling him it was a lie and I explained I wanted to hurt him. I sent the email to his work email address. I told him in this email that I will always love him and thanked him for the last four years.
…
127. In March 2018, I had a conversation with [Mr K] at my house and we ended up having sex. …
…
135. He started to come back over regularly. Each and every time we had sex. He organised a gang bang. I went along with it…
…
137. … He would call me “His little slut” and I would let him. …
…
169. Not long after I realised that I was letting [Mr K] control me again. I messaged [Mr K] and said “Going to give tonight a miss.” He replied “No problems.”
During the mother’s interview with Dr D[13] on 26 October 2018, the mother said the following in relation to the nature of her relationship with Mr K: (taken from a transcript produced by Dr D)
Over this three year period he managed to manipulate me I guess. He’s an ex-police officer. I had over a period of time complete trust in him and once he realised I had complete trust in him I guess he started his manipulation. He introduced me to a lot of sexual stuff like pornography and things like that which he made it very normal for me in our relationship which (sic) I’d never been into pornography. …
Slowly slowly over a period of time one thing was introduced and then he wanted me to have threesomes and just expand our sexual life together. I said I don’t think I can do that, I need a connection with someone to be able to have sex with them. He encouraged me to chat with people on a website that was basically set up for Swingers or people who wanted to have an open relationship with other people. It was a really big thing for me and I look back now and I think how did I even get to that point. Like I said I’ve worked with my counsellor quite significantly to establish his manipulation and his control and power and things like that over me. …
… There was no indication that to me that he was in any way threatening to my children at all. To me however I always expressed to him that I didn’t want to be part of the threesome thing. We talked about why he needed it. He would say that he would need it, it was just some sort of kink that he had. I guess it was a trade-off for me, I said to him alright, I’ll give it a go, I’ll try and I did.
….
… I didn’t think it was possible for me to be manipulated the way that I was because I’m a very strong person and somehow I had been.
…
… We separated a few times, … but then he would do things like threaten suicide. … I’d start to feel sorry for him and we’d end up getting back together.
[13] Dr D was retained by the mother to provide a psychiatric assessment of her.
Prior to her interview with Dr D, the mother prepared a lengthy statement and provided him with a copy of it. While the statement is undated, I note that the interview with Dr D occurred on 26 October 2018 and he received the statement the day prior. The mother details in her statement how she was gradually introduced to pornography by Mr K which initially made her feel a “bit naughty”. She was drawn into Mr K’s ‘kinks’ which included having sex with groups and strangers and live streaming their sexual encounters to others. The mother describes a “lot of arguments” over his behaviour, which included taking cocaine and ecstasy when he was not with her. On occasion he would come to her home after one of these sessions and “be forceful during sex. He would get quite rough and pin me down so I couldn’t move”. He made her end friendships with two males. When she ‘connected’ online with another man, Mr K called her a slut and threatened to leave her. All the mother wanted was for Mr K to love her. Mr K shared stories with her that she says she thought were his fantasies including having sex with a young girl of about 11. When he suggested they have a young woman join them in sex she says she was “not keen” but she was coaxed into doing so and he made her feel loved. On four occasions they broke up over Mr K having sex with another woman but they reconciled. On one occasion, Mr K picked up an 18 year old girl and they went back to his home. The mother said that Mr K broke up with her (the mother) that night when she insisted he choose between the 18 year old and her and he chose the 18 year old. They reconciled the next day. On one occasion when Mr K asked the mother if she would “trade” X, she became angry with him and did not speak to him for several days. After one argument the mother left Mr K’s home and he sent her “quite a nasty message trying to make me feel guilty and to manipulate me”. He often used threats of suicide to gain her attention. In November 2017, the mother told Mr K that she just wanted a normal relationship but would turn a “blind eye” if he wanted to go a “swinger’s party” by himself. He seemed to accept her statement but a month later he became “distant and a bit spiteful”. In January 2018, the mother took the two children on a ten day cruise with her sister and family. On 12 February 2018, the mother says she knew the relationship was over and became really angry with Mr K. She pushed him into saying the relationship was over. The mother says that they did not speak for two weeks and then Mr K told her he had a new 20 year old girlfriend who had already moved in with him. The mother was “really upset” and when Mr K showed up on occasion unexpectedly at her home he would console her and “end up forcing himself on me”. She wrote him an email saying goodbye but he ignored it and “would turn up and often forced himself on me”. In the middle of March 2018, after confessing to her that he had sexually molested the best friend of his young daughter, the mother played along with him in order to gather evidence against him which she then provided to police.
On 8 January 2019, the mother submitted to a sexual risk assessment by Dr T, a psychologist. She provided Dr T with a detailed account of her relationship with Mr K, including the following information:
…
11. viii. [Mr K] ‘introduced’ her to pornography and requested that they watch it together to augment their sexual activity. She had some misgivings but thought, ‘if it’s only porn then I guess it’s ok.’
…
11. xi. [Mr K] then requested that they invite other adults (strangers) to participate in their sexual activity. Again, she was hesitant but complied. She would form relationships with other adults online (primarily men) who would come around and have group sex with her and [Mr K]. Although she described [Mr K] as the driver of this activity, it was she who engaged with the men online and invited them to come around for sex.
11.xii. She was uncomfortable with [Mr K’s] sexual demands but he told her that he ‘needed’ theses sexual activities. She thought that he would leave her if she did not satisfy his requests.
…
11.xvi. She began to feel more empowered in late 2017 due to a new work role. She told [Mr K] that she no longer wanted to have sex with others and she wanted to have a monogamous relationship with him. He agreed but their relationship soured from this point onwards. [Mr K] often left her with all four children and stayed out all night. He became less interested in sex with her.
11. xvii. In February they separated. …
11.xviii. Things got ‘violent and blurry’ after this. [Mr K] continued to turn up to her house and they would have sex. She said, ‘a part of me still loved him I guess.’
…
11.xxiv. … [around late February] … [Mr K] was often violent towards her during sex.
The father submits that the mother’s allegations of domestic violence against Mr K are a fabrication by the mother and points to the following inconsistencies:
a)Contrary to the mother’s claiMs Ehat she was overborne by Mr K:
i)The mother admitted her engagement with pornography websites was - “a bit risky and a bit exciting”;
ii)The mother described her resistance as having some “misgivings” but then readily engaged in the various activities with Mr K;
iii)The mother was not concerned about joining a pornography website called …. She described being “curious” and did not think it was harmful;
iv)The mother, together with Mr K, accessed various pornography websites and was aware he looked through various profiles until he found young girls, and she then participated with him in live streaming them engaging in sexual acts. Nothing in the mother’s various statements or accounts indicate she was opposed to that activity;
v)The mother was the ‘face’ of the profiles on the various pornography sites;
vi)The mother went along with the various activities “to keep [Mr K] happy”;
vii)When the mother was interstate she went onto a website called ‘Tinder’ and located men to come to her hotel and then livestreamed her having sex with the stranger to [Mr K]. Some of the men did not know they were being filmed;
viii)While the mother says she was “not keen” on introducing females into their sexual encounters there is no suggestion by her that she was coerced in any way to go along with it;
b)The mother says she thought [Mr K] would change and marry her;
c)The mother says that the more she “agreed” to do, the more [Mr K] wanted and she wanted to “please him”;
d)While the mother describes [Mr K] as being “rough” during sex, she denies he was violent and denies that he raped her (during their relationship); and
e)The mother was prepared to lie to [Mr K] by inventing stories that she was sexually abused by loved ones in order to satisfy him sexually.
The father submits that the mother was in a consensual relationship with Mr K which was ended by Mr K, and the mother is now making up stories of rape and violence to “cover her tracks” in relation to her failure to protect the children.
In my view, whether or not the mother is being truthful when alleging she was a victim of family violence is not a matter I need to decide. Whatever the nature of their relationship, the mother knew that Mr K had already abused a 10 year old child because he told her he had. She was prepared to dismiss it because it happened before she met him. The mother also witnessed a video of Mr K having sex with girls she thought at the time were between 12 and 16 years of age. He made one of them bleed and the mother could see that the girls were in pain. Mr K squeezed her hand when he saw a child, which the mother understood indicated his arousal. She knew he had a sexual interest in children.
Accordingly, even if the mother were a victim of domestic violence and her will was overborne by Mr K through psychological manipulation, the fact that she left her children in harm’s way indicates her vulnerability to such manipulation from Mr K, and perhaps others, and that is a significant risk factor.
Conclusion as to risk
There is no evidence that the mother herself has or would sexually abuse the children. The nature of the risk posed by the mother is twofold:
a)The intensity of her personal relationships exposing her vulnerability to manipulation and the consequence of that manipulation - either that the mother does not recognise risk to her children or, alternatively, is prepared to ignore risk; and
b)The potential for her to undermine and destabilise the children’s relationship with the father.
In providing a psychiatric assessment of the mother at her request, Dr D opined:
I do not diagnose any mental health condition that might increase the risk of [the mother] re-entering into a relationship with someone such as her former partner.
[The mother] is a person who exercised her free will to enter into a relationship with her former partner, Mr K, and who continued, as a result of the basic structure of her personality and intellect, in that social context, to continue to relate with Mr K (through the ups and downs of the relationship) until the relationship ended in February 2018.
While the mother may not suffer from any mental health condition, her personality vulnerabilities present a real risk. As the mother’s own case demonstrates, despite her knowledge about Mr K’s sexual interest in children she loved him and did not want him to leave her. She wanted to be married and have a normal family life with him. The mother was prepared to do anything to please Mr K and was devastated when he ended their relationship. It was only after that time that the mother went to police.
The Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women (“the Department”) were notified by police after Mr K was charged and an investigation was undertaken. While the Department did not intervene in any way, the outcome of their assessment dated mid 2018 raised a significant concern that is relevant to my assessment:
The primary concern is that [the mother] has been significantly groomed by [Mr K] throughout their relationship and that it has already been seen that he has been able to convince her to recommence a relationship with him after he asked to engage with X in a sexual manner; that he will again be able to convince her to have a relationship or contact with him.
The fact that Mr K and the mother are no longer in a relationship does not extinguish that risk. Her vulnerability is not limited to Mr K as discussed further below.
On 8 May 2018, the mother was referred to a sexual violence counselling service by police, who were concerned about her safety and wellbeing. Upon presentation the mother was “experiencing daily trauma symptoms such as sleep disturbance, flashbacks to abusive incidents, intrusive thoughts, emotional overwhelm (sic) and high anxiety”. The mother has attended 58 sessions with her counsellor, Ms E, who holds a Bachelor of Social Work.
Nothing in Ms E’s evidence persuades me that the mother has yet addressed her personality vulnerabilities and the impact those vulnerabilities have on her capacity to protect the children. Rather, the focus in therapy appears to have been on assisting the mother to recognise Mr K’s conduct as abusive and assisting her to manage in her day to day life both in returning to employment and caring for the children. I have no doubt that such matters are appropriate topics for therapy to assist the mother, but as noted by Ms J when she saw the mother on 5 November 2018:
103. … She presented with a focus on her experiences of domestic violence and trauma, on one occasion saying words to the effect of that “no one is interested in the trauma I suffered.” Such a statement was said when I was particularly focused on discussing concerns regarding risk to X and Y from Mr K.
In Ms J’ opinion, the mother’s therapy has not yet addressed the mother’s seeming inability to recognise risk or, I might add, her preparedness to ignore risk to her children. The mother’s focus during the trial remained very much on her own experiences and perceptions rather than the children’s.
A matter that may have some relevance to the mother’s future therapy is something said by her father to Dr T, which is reported as follows:
52. vi.[Ms Little] had a history of forming intense interpersonal relationship with others, characterised by a strong level of attachment. He related the story of her friendship with another girl from her pony club in her teens. His recollection is that the (sic) [Ms Little] became very attached to this girl, to the extent that the other girl’s parents were concerned about the relationship.
Dr T also expressed the following view about the mother’s personality:
65.[Ms Little’s] personality style is characterised by a proneness to boredom and a drive for excitement and adventure. These are features of impulsivity. She experiences poor self-worth, perhaps related to the rejection by her mother, the emotional absence of her father, and her poor academic achievement. She has a history of quickly forming intense emotional connections with others (particularly intimate partners) and then overvaluing these relationship at the expense of other sources of enjoyment in her life. She has an openness to unconventionality, which facilitates her decision to work as an exotic dancer for 10 years. Her success in this industry earnt her some social approval but probably did little to remediate her longstanding low self-worth.
66.In relationships, [Ms Little] has difficulty negotiating conflict and acknowledged a particular difficulty ending relationships. She seems to have some dependence on intimate relationships to bolster her self-worth, and to feel distressed and lonely when relationships end. This distress has led her to reach out to ex-partners and reinitiate the relationships.
This latter observation by Dr T accords with the father’s evidence that after their relationship ended, the mother would telephone him on some pretext that would cause him to go to her house only to be confronted with her admission that she had made something up just to get him to come over. This propensity by the mother was the reason the father did not respond to the mother’s initial voice message left on his phone in July 2018. It also accords with the mother’s own evidence about Mr K coming to her home to “console” her after the end of their relationship.
Despite Dr T’s expressions of optimism about the mother’s capacity to act protectively in the future, he acknowledged during cross-examination that he was not asked to assess the mother’s capacity to protect the children. He also acknowledged that such an assessment is entirely different to the assessment he undertook.
In assessing the magnitude of the risk currently posed by the mother, her history of deception is clearly relevant. The mother’s assurances that she can be trusted not to put the children at risk in future and that she now accepts responsibility for the situation in which the children find themselves cannot be taken at face value.
The mother initially deceived Ms J, the father, and this Court into believing that she had only left the children with Mr K on one occasion. When the mother saw Dr T on 8 January 2019 she again gave the impression that she had only left the children with Mr K for two nights in early 2018. She described this as her “biggest mistake” and looks back on this with shame “as well as relief that her children were not harmed by him”. Despite the mother’s apparent confidence that the children were not harmed, the mother conceded during the trial before me that her confidence is misplaced.
Sadly, there is a very real possibility that X has been sexually abused by Mr K. I say this because of the content of X’s interview with police on 17 February 2019 and her comments to Ms L over a number of months. When X spoke with police she said she and Y stayed overnight with Mr K when the mother was away. She said Y would be put to bed early and she and Mr K would stay up and watch television and he would give her hot chocolate. In the mornings she sometimes woke up with a “sore fanny”.
It was apparent during the mother’s evidence that she has not yet confronted the very real possibility that X has been sexually abused by Mr K and, if it did occur, her failure to protect her daughter. This is another issue the mother will need to address in therapy.
As noted earlier, the mother’s trial affidavit continued to mislead on the issue of Mr K’s opportunity to offend against the children. Of course, even if the mother had left the children on only one occasion for two nights in February 2018, she certainly knew enough about Mr K by then to know that he represented a significant risk to them.
While perhaps not of significant weight to the current assessment of risk, I nevertheless note that the mother’s history of deception includes lying to Mr K about being the victim of childhood sexual abuse; lying to him about being in a long term relationship with another man during their relationship in order to hurt him; and live streaming her sexual encounters with men she met interstate without informing them.
A further significant factor relevant to the assessment of risk is the mother’s current incapacity to accept that the father’s actions in having the children removed from her care were entirely understandable and reasonable in the circumstances.
The mother told Ms J that the Court proceedings were a “stab at” her by the father to get back at her for having left him. The mother maintains this view and did herself little credit when attacking the father during cross-examination, suggesting that his actions in these proceedings were motivated by a wish to hurt her for turning down his marriage proposal in 2013. Extraordinarily, the mother seriously maintained that the father was motivated by bitterness and spite as a consequence of her breaking off their relationship four years ago. The mother also suggested that the father was motivated by jealousy in relation to her relationship with the children.
The mother’s lack of insight was breathtaking. In her attempts to deflect responsibility, the mother has overlooked some key factors which justify the father’s actions as not only understandable but entirely appropriate:
a)Whatever the nature of her relationship with Mr K, she was not coerced, according to her own evidence, into leaving the children with him;
b)She repeatedly left the children with him knowing he had previously abused a 10 year old child and had a sexual interest in children;
c)There is at least a very real possibility that X was sexually abused by Mr K and X will have to live not only with that uncertainty but with the knowledge that her mother left her in the care of Mr K;
d)With Mr K’s encouragement, the mother filmed and posted a video of the children in their underwear on Facebook where it was accessible to the public. The mother does not see this as problematic;
e)The mother did not inform the father about Mr K’s arrest until three months after the event;
f)The mother kept significant information about Mr K from the father, including that he was capable of extreme violence and had threatened to have a hitman kill her;
g)She made the children keep a secret from the father i.e. that they had been interviewed by police. It is apparent from the comments made by the children to Ms L that this secret was a significant burden for the children;
h)The mother told the children that Mr K had hurt children and police were involved. During X’s police interview on 17 February 2019 she said the mother told her that Mr K was a sex offender;
i)Even after the end of her relationship with Mr K, the mother placed her children at further risk by acting as a “covert operative” for police in circumstances where she says Mr K is not only a paedophile but also a serial rapist (on occasion entering her home and raping her in the company of other men) and had threatened to have her killed;
j)Despite being instructed by police not to involve the children in her covert operations, she sent two photographs of X to Mr K at his request and, extraordinarily, sees nothing wrong with doing so;
k)The mother took a third photograph of X with a “naked bottom” while asleep but says she did not send this one to Mr K. The mother says she took the photo because Mr K had been “pressuring” her to send a photo. She had consumed a whole bottle of wine at the time she took the photo;
l)The mother says she “self-medicated” during the relationship by consuming alcohol and regularly took sleeping tablet to help her sleep;
m)She permitted her children and his children to swim naked while Mr K was present and sees nothing wrong with doing so;
n)In 2019, the mother created a social media account for X disclosing X’s full name and age. The mother posted X’s artwork and encouraged contact with X by direct message. The page, as at December 2019, has 489 followers. The account was/is publically accessible. Again, the mother sees nothing wrong with this; and
o)The mother maintains a presence on online dating sites using a profile name remarkably similar to the one she used throughout her relationship with Mr K and dismisses any suggestion that to do so is unwise. Her response demonstrates, in my view, an inability to assess risk.
The mother also suggested that the father and his former partner, Ms L had somehow coached the children into making the comments they have about Mr K. As will be discussed below, I reject that suggestion.
The mother drew attention to the father’s behaviour during an unannounced visit by police at his home on 17 February 2019 when they wanted to conduct another interview with X. X had by this stage already been interviewed at the police station. The audio recording of the police attendance was played during the trial and the father was clearly agitated. He raised his voice and called the mother a liar and a cheat and argued with police about their failure to inform him of their investigation of Mr K in which his children were directly involved when living with the mother at the time. While the father’s agitation was completely understandable in the circumstances, it is regrettable that he was not more conscious of protecting the children from his comments. While the father did remove the children from the room before talking with police, he readily acknowledges that that children may well have heard at least some of the conversation.
I do not believe that the father’s conduct on this occasion was typical or that he presents a risk to the children in the future of exposing them to his opinions about the mother and Mr K. The father on this occasion was caught by surprise. Understandably, he had a number of issues with the police and their failure to inform him about the potential risk the children had been exposed to while living with the mother.
The father will nevertheless need to be very careful in future to ensure that no sensitive conversations occur when the children are at home or in his care. He should take particular note that X disclosed during her police interview that she likes to eavesdrop.
Overall, the father has gone out of his way to protect the children and I was impressed by the father’s and Ms L’s handling of what has been a dreadful situation. I am satisfied that they have acted sensitively and in a child focussed way with the children and have not encouraged or coached the children to make statements about Mr K or the mother.
I can accept that the mother is remorseful about leaving the children with Mr K. I can also understand that in her panic she sought to minimise the harm she placed the children in by lying about the opportunity Mr K had to abuse the children. I can also accept that the mother is trying to understand how she could fail to protect her children, knowing what she did about Mr K. However, as identified above, the risks remain because of the following:
a)The mother’s personality vulnerabilities which leave her open to manipulation;
b)The very real possibility that X has been abused, which the mother has only recently acknowledged;
c)The mother’s failure to acknowledge responsibility for exposing the children to abuse; and
d)The mother’s propensity to deflect responsibility for the current predicament onto others.
Can supervision ameliorate the risk?
The combination of factors discussed above create a significant risk that the mother, even if supervised, will say something to the children which suggests the father is to blame for depriving her of a relationship with the children. I accept the father’s submission that it will only take a moment for the mother to “drive a wedge between the children and the father”. The children are confused and want answers (as is clear from the evidence of the children’s therapist Ms S, discussed below) but these issues must be dealt with very sensitively and carefully. The father has worked conscientiously with Ms S to date and I am confident he will continue to heed appropriate professional advice.
By contrast, the mother does not appear to have the capacity to focus on the children’s needs and interests. I say this because in addition to the factors already identified, the mother ignored specific instructions by the current supervisor that certain topics and questions were off limits. The mother has, on a number of occasions, breached those instructions e.g. the mother asked the children where they now live; she told them she was giving away their puppies; she told them she has a new car in which she would be able to take the children and their friends.
The ICL recommends that despite the risks, the children should spend time with the mother every two months. Her submission relies upon the opinion of Ms J. Ms J last saw the children in January 2019. At that time, the children demonstrated strong love and attachment to the mother and exhibited emotional turmoil at the limited contact they had with her. During her oral evidence at trial, Ms J opined that the loss and grief that would be experienced by the children if they did not see the mother at all would be insurmountable. In her view, at a minimum the children should spend supervised time with the mother each second month. In that way they could, in her view, maintain a connection with their mother.
The ICL recommends that the mother’s sister supervise the children’s time with the mother, in part because it is not known if the current contact centre is willing or able to provide long term supervision and also because the children have expressed resistance to continuing supervision at the contact centre. As long ago as 1 February 2019, X said she hated the contact centre. Y told Ms S very recently that he found supervision annoying. Additionally, Ms J noted the inherent shortcomings with long term supervision, particularly at a contact centre. In her view, children become bored and resistant to attending. This in turn can affect their relationship with not only the supervised parent but also the parent the children live with.
The mother’s sister has three young children of her own and lives on the G Region. Despite having volunteered to supervise the mother’s time with the children as early as the beginning of last year, she was not aware of any details relevant to this case. In December 2019, the mother purported to read to her sister and partner, Mr V, the contents of her police statements over the phone. I have serious doubts that the statements were read to Ms H in their entirety given her response to matters quoted from that statement during submissions (she was sitting in the public gallery at that time). Her reactions were commented upon during submissions.
I also have some reservations about the suitability of a family member providing supervision. As Ms J opined, such a role can be very difficult for a family member as they will experience loyalty conflicts. The mother’s sister no doubt wants to think the best of her sister. During her oral evidence she agreed with the mother’s opinion that the father had taken matters too far. Ms H was nevertheless an impressive witness who volunteered that the father had said to her that when the dust settles he will arrange time between the children and their cousins. The father also volunteered during his oral evidence that Ms H and her partner, Mr V were lovely people. While I consider that Ms H would do her utmost to protect the children, I agree with Ms J and the father that it is too much to expect of her - a comment made by the mother to the children cannot be “unsaid”.
While not proposed as a supervisor by the ICL, the mother also suggested that Mr V be an alternate supervisor. In addition to the matters already raised in relation to Ms H, Mr V was clearly partisan when giving his evidence. He suggested that the mother had not done anything wrong and thought the father had taken matters too far.
One other reservation I have about either Ms H or Mr V being the supervisors relates to the circumstances of their being read the mother’s police statement. Firstly, they permitted it to occur when their children were at home and the phone was on speakerphone. They were on the phone to the mother for an hour or two and their children were coming and going. It is not known what, if anything, their children heard. It was simply inappropriate for their children to be potentially exposed to information in the statement, let alone their parents’ reaction to it.
Since Ms J last saw the children they have been seeing their own therapist for over a year now. Ms S, psychologist, most recently saw the children the week before the trial commenced. The children both expressed a wish to have a relationship with the mother but both expressed reservations about her.
Y said he would struggle if the mother re-partnered and he believes the mother’s reported promise to him that she will not get a boyfriend. It is not clear when such a promise was made. There is no record of it in the notes relating to supervision but nor was there any mention of an interaction between the mother and some swearing teenagers that caused some consternation to the children. Y told Ms S that he did not want a repeat of what happened with Mr K who “hurt X and other children”.
X said she wanted to ask her mother questions about Mr K and the mother’s actions around this. She does not want the mother to drink or socialise and wanted to know what she could do if she felt unsafe when with the mother. X believes that “mum wasn’t a good mum for bringing Mr K into our lives”. X also said she would be wary if the mother had a boyfriend. X said she would accept a decision by the Court which resulted in her not having any time with her mother because she trusts the Court to look at everything and make a decision about what is best for her. Ms S opined that X appeared to be wavering in her feelings towards her mother. “X agonises over the family issues/worries/events and she is forever seeking truth. She has never ending questions and many ongoing fears – most often relating to Mr K and the mother taking her or harming her. She has had ongoing issues and support needs pertaining to mood, behaviour, eating and sleeping. She loves her mum and dad but does not trust her mother and is upset with her mum.” X is reported to be “frequently easily upset and difficult to calm in school and at home but appears to be calmed by the father”.
I have found the decision about whether to provide for some ongoing relationship between the children and the mother very difficult. I accept that the children love the mother and that she loves them. I accept that the children will suffer grief and loss if they do not spend time with the mother but I am very concerned about the vulnerability of the children at this time. On balance, I am not persuaded that the unacceptable risks posed by the mother to the children can be ameliorated by supervision, even with a person trained in techniques on how to appropriately protect children from emotional harm.
The impact on the children of limited supervised time with the mother
As I have determined that the children will not spend time with the mother, this issue does not require separate consideration.
The capacity of the parents to co-parent
A presumption that it is in the best interests of children for parents to have equal shared parental responsibility applies in all parenting cases unless there are reasonable grounds to believe a parent has engaged in abuse of the child or family violence. The presumption may also be rebutted by evidence that satisfies the Court that it would not be in the children’s best interests.
In this case, the parents have no trust in each other and have no ability to communicate. The mother believes the father has acted unreasonably in causing the children to be removed from her care. She considers he is motivated by spite and bitterness. Given the failure of the mother to protect the children and her failure to provide honest information to the father in a timely manner, or at all, I cannot envisage a circumstance where the father would have the capacity to consult and negotiate with the mother about major long term issues.
If the parents were required to consult in order to make joint decisions it would most certainly result in conflict. Historically, they have had very different views about major long term issues, such as health matters, and were unable to resolve that conflict e.g. Y was prescribed Ritalin to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. The father opposed the child being medicated. The child ceased taking Ritalin when he remained in the father’s care from August 2018.
As the children will remain living with the father I propose to make an order that he have sole parental responsibility.
Conclusion
The mother in this case maintained a relationship with a man she now accuses of being a violent paedophile. The mother is the primary prosecution witness in criminal proceedings against this man with whom she had a relationship for about three years. The extent of the mother’s knowledge about Mr K’s sexual interest in children was significant, yet she left her own children with him on many occasions. It is not known whether or not the children have been sexually abused by him but there is a real possibility that at least one of them has been.
The mother alleges that she was the victim of family violence during the relationship with Mr K and that she was manipulated by him. While that may be so, it is her vulnerability to such manipulation that remains a significant risk factor impacting on the children.
The mother has accused the father of being motivated in these proceedings by spite. In doing so the mother demonstrates a failure to appreciate the impact of her relationship with Mr K on the children and a failure to accept responsibility for decisions she made which put the children at risk.
Hopefully the mother will be able to address these issues and others in ongoing therapy.
There is also a significant risk that the mother will attempt to drive a wedge between the children and the father by saying something that attributes blame to the father. These children are vulnerable. They need the father’s strength and stability. The children have lots of questions about their predicament that will one day need to be addressed sensitively and in a child focussed way. Unfortunately I can have no confidence that the mother can be trusted to spend time with the children even in a supervised setting. She has already demonstrated a disregard for clear instructions about things that should not be said in front of the children.
I have come to the conclusion that on balance it will be better for the children to live their lives at this stage without exposure to the mother and the risks that brings with it. I am conscious that the children have a right to see the mother, but only when it is safe to do so and in my view it is not safe for them to do so.
The outcome of this Court case is not going to be the end of what is likely to be a long road to recovery for the children. As the ICL submitted, this is just the first chapter.
Other matters
The mother has previously involved X’s school friend in a clandestine attempt to make contact with X. This caused significant distress to X. While the mother’s actions may be understandable, this sort of behaviour may undermine the child’s road to recovery and destabilise her. The mother will therefore be restrained from contacting or attempting to contact the children by any means. The mother will also be restrained from approaching the children’s school.
I will nevertheless order that each party keep the other informed of an email address so that the father can contact the mother in case of emergency or to invite her input at some future time.
The father has said he will reach out to Ms H “when the dust settles”. He described Ms H and Mr V as lovely people and I accept that both he and, in particular, Ms H have the capacity to act in the best interests of the children. I am confident that the father will permit the children to see their cousins in the future. It would probably assist if he and Ms H and Mr V attended mediation to work out the practicalities and agree on boundaries. It would be helpful if the mediator had a copy of my reasons for judgment to assist the parties to come to an agreement. There must be transparency and trust. If that is lost, the children will lose their opportunity to have a relationship with extended family.
At the end of the trial, counsel for the father sought the discharge of orders restricting his client’s access to the mother’s police statements dated 7 May 2018 and 2 July 2018.
The request for discharge of the orders was not a matter pressed by the father personally but rather a matter that counsel considered should be addressed. Although considerable parts of the mother’s statements are quoted in my reasons, I consider that the father should have the opportunity to read the statements if he chooses to do so. After all, it is the father who will have to deal with the children’s questions going forward and it is better for him to have as much knowledge as possible about the circumstances. X will never know for sure if she has been sexually abused by Mr K but it is important for her that her life is not defined by it. The more information the father has to assist his daughter to come to terms with the situation the better.
The father is restricted by r 13.07A of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) from disclosing the contents of documents or disseminating documents that have been provided to him during this case and that restriction will continue. However, it is not uncommon for documents produced pursuant to subpoena from police or other authorities to be returned to the ICL at the conclusion of a trial. As proceedings against Mr K are ongoing, I will order that the copy of the mother’s statements be returned to the ICL within seven days.
I certify that the preceding one-hundred and thirty-seven (137) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Carew delivered on 26 February 2020.
Associate:
Date: 26.02.2020
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Standing
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Natural Justice
0
10
2