M & M

[1998] FamCA 1742

[1998] FamCA 1742

THE FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA  No. NC 1135 of 1997

AT NEWCASTLE

IN THE MATTER OF

M  (Respondent Father)

AND  M  (Applicant Mother)

CORAM:         The Honourable Justice Mullane

Dates of Hearing:      1-3 September 1998
Date of Orders:  3 September 1998
Date of Reasons for Judgment:          12 November 1998

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(ex tempore)

Appearances:

Mr Duane of Counsel instructed by Messrs Hills, Solicitors, DX 21408, Raymond Terrace, appeared on behalf of the applicant Mother.

Mr Gorton of Counsel instructed by Messrs Elaine Hirst, Solicitors, DX 21414, Raymond Terrace, appeared on behalf of the respondent Father.

Mr Coakes of Counsel instruct by Legal Aid Commission, DX 7911, Newcastle appeared as the children's representative.

CHILDREN –Contact – Limited basis to aid separation from father – Supervised by Court – Violent behaviour by father – Inability to see inappropriateness of behaviour – Relocation by mother restricted until contact period expired

The mother, aged 25, and father, aged 33, cohabited between December 1992 and 21 January 1997.  There are two children of the relationship, B, aged 4, and E aged 3.  On separation those children remained with the father.  Since separation, the mother, who also has a 7 year old son, D, from a previous relationship, has formed another relationship.

On 28 February 1997, interim orders were made providing that the mother have contact with the children of the relationship from Monday morning until 4pm Wednesday.  On 23 July 1997, the father, who alleged D had sexually abused B, succeeded in having contact varied to day contact between 9am and 5pm on Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday.  On 20 August 1997, those orders were again varied providing for the children to have contact with the mother from 9.30am Tuesday to 4pm Thursday.

The father is an aggressive, abusive and intimidating man who is unable to deal with people without resorting to abuse and is unable to accept responsibility for his behaviour.  In addition to threatening his former solicitors and the expert involved with the case, the father was physically and verbally abusive of the wife throughout the relationship, including in the presence of the children.  He also admitted to accidentally hurting E on several occasions when he was angry at her.  The father denigrated and belittled D and had a very poor relationship with him.

On several occasions following separation the father frustrated contact and made several spurious allegations of danger to the children.

The father did not concede he has a problem with abusive behaviour and denied that he had contributed to the children’s emotional and behavioural problems.

The parties agreed the children should reside with the mother and that she sought to have sole responsibility for decisions relating to their care, welfare and development.

Held:

1. That the father’s abusive behaviour presents a multi-faceted danger to the children in that there is the risk of injury and fear, and the risk that the children will learn from the abusive behaviour and ultimately treat it as acceptable.

1. That the children’s best interests, in all but the short term, require they have no contact with the father except to the extent necessary to avoid the distress of immediate separation.

1. That for a period of 12 months, the children have a series of contact, of reducing frequency, with the father, with such contact to be supervised by the Court counselling service.

1. That despite the discharge of the orders relating to interim contact, the father’s recognisance of good behaviour ought to continue.

1. That there is nothing to suggest the mother’s current partner ought to be restrained from staying overnight at the mother’s home.

1. That, with the financial assistance of the Department of Community Services, the children to attend preschool for as many days per week as possible in order for them to learn how to relate to other children in a normal environment.

1. That during the currency of the contact order the mother be restrained from moving beyond the Shire of Port Stephens, Newcastle City or the City of Lake Macquarie.

1. That the father not be permitted to institute proceedings for contact during the next three years, except with the leave of the Court.

INTRODUCTION

1. This was a hearing of competing applications by the parents for orders regarding the care, welfare and development of their two children B, aged 4, and E aged 3.  These are the reasons for the orders which were made at the end of the hearing. 

1. The applicant mother is 25 years of age and not in paid work.  The respondent father is 33 years of age and also not in paid work.  The parents cohabited from about December 1992 and their final separation occurred on 21 January 1997.  B and E are the only children of the relationship but the mother has a child of a prior relationship who is D, aged 7.

THE ISSUES

1. The children were separately represented.  While residence and many other matters were in issue for most of the hearing, by the time of the final addresses many issues were resolved by agreement.  However, some major issues were still in dispute and some new issues had emerged.  The parties' and the children's representative agreed by the end of the hearing on the following matters and the Court is satisfied that orders to that effect are in the best interests of the children:

1)        The children reside with the mother;

2)        Each of the parents be restrained from:

a)        consuming any illegal substances in the presence of either child,

b)        consuming alcohol to excess in the presence of either child, or

c)denigrating the other parent or members of his or her family to either child "and to another other adult person" in the presence of either child;

3)        The mother to accept the supervision and direction of the Department of Community Services in relation to the care, welfare and development of the children;

4)        The mother to continue her program of counselling with a psychologist Kirsten Hides, or another psychologist approved by the Department, and counselling to continue as long as the psychologist advises;

5)        The mother to attend a case management meeting and any other meetings the Department requests her to attend;

6)        The parents each to be restrained from causing either child to be medically examined regarding any allegation of sexual abuse except with prior consent of the Department;

7)        The parents to each be restrained from discussing with either child any allegation of sexual or physical abuse;

8)        The children's representative, with or without a counsellor, explain the orders to the children;

1. The remaining issues were as follows:

1)        The children's representative proposed that there be an order that the children have contact with the father for two hours once every three months, with the first occasion of contact to be no earlier than 7 December 1998.  The mother sought an order that there be no contact by the children with the father.  The father sought an order that contact be defined as two days per week, or alternatively, one day per week until B commences school and thereafter every second weekend from 9 am Saturday to 5 pm Sunday;

2)        The children's representative sought an order that the mother have sole responsibility for decisions concerning the children's care, welfare and development.  The mother sought some orders whereby she would have responsibility for decisions as to the children's day to day care, welfare and development but each parent would have responsibility for decisions concerning the children's long term care, welfare and development.  The father sought no orders for responsibility for decisions;

3)        The children's representative sought an order that the mother be restrained from the use of tobacco in the presence of the children or either of them.  The father supported such an order but the mother opposed it;

4)        The mother sought an order restraining each of the parties from discussing with the children or in their presence any proceedings between the parties.  The children's representative and the father did not express opposition to such an order but they did not address it at all;

5)        The father sought an order:

That the father be discharged from the reconnaissance entered into on 14 July 1998.

The mother and the children's representative did not address this issue;

6)        The father seeks an order that the mother be restrained from permitting her boyfriend, Mr P, from staying overnight in the same residence as either child.  The children's representative did not support or oppose such an order.  The mother opposed the order sought;

7)        The children's representative sought an order that the mother:

Ensure that the children attend pre-school or a similar place for between four and five days each week commencing at the present time and continuing until the start of the December school holidays 1998/99 for B and until the start of the December school holidays 1999/2000 for E.

The father supported such an order.  The mother opposed it because she says she is unable to afford to pay for more than two days per week of pre-school for each of the children;

8)        The children's representative and the father sought an order that the mother be restrained from taking either child onto premises licensed for the sale or consumption of alcohol.  The mother opposed that order;

9)        The children's representative sought an order:

That the mother be permitted to remove the children from the Shoal Bay area provided she resides within the Newcastle City Council or Lake Macquarie City Council or Port Stephens Shire Council areas.

The father supported this application.  The mother seeks that there be no restriction on her movement;

10)      The children's representative sought an order:

That the father be restrained from making any application concerning the children, B and E, without prior leave of the Court.

The mother supported that application.  The father opposed it. 

THE BACKGROUND

1. In 1990 the mother commenced cohabitation with AR.  They married in the February of 1991.  D was born in April of that year.  The mother and D's father separated four months later and the mother continued to have the care of D. 

1. The father and the mother commenced cohabitation in December 1992 or January 1993.  They and D lived with the mother's father in his home at Messina Street, Shoal Bay.  The parties and D moved in about April 1994 to rented premises at Leonard Avenue, Shoal Bay. 

1. B was born on 9 February 1994.  About two months later the parties and their two children moved to rented premises at Nelson Bay Road, Shoal Bay.  They were there about five weeks and then moved to Woolgoolga and lived in the home of the maternal grandmother. 

1. In about September, 1994 the parties and the children moved to a caravan park at Maroochydore in Queensland.  About a month later they moved back to the maternal grandmother's home at Woolgoolga and stayed there briefly.  In November or December 1994 the family returned to Nelson Bay and rented a flat at Magnus Street. 

1. E was born on 4 January 1995.  The mother's sister's partner and friend of the mother committed suicide in January 1995.  On 14 March 1995 the mother's stepfather was killed in a motor vehicle accident.  The mother's paternal grandfather died in April 1995. 

1. The parents separated in January 1997.  About a month after separation the mother formed a friendship with a Mr T.  They did not cohabit.  He occasionally minded her children.  After about a month she discovered that he had been convicted of sexual abuse to a child and she ended the relationship. 

1. On 20 February 1997 interim orders were made by consent for contact by the children with the mother from 9 am to 4 pm on 21, 24 and 26 February.  On 28 February further interim orders were made for the children to have contact with the mother each week from the morning of Monday until 4 pm on Wednesday. 

1. Within days or weeks of the mother ceasing the relationship with Mr T she started cohabiting with Mr P.  They cohabited until about the start of March 1998 and then he moved out.  They resumed their romantic relationship in June of this year.  He now often stays overnight with the mother at her home. 

1. After separation the father alleged that B had been sexually abused by D.  On 23 July 1997 he succeeded in having the contact varied so that it was day contact only from 9 am to 5 pm each Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday.  On 20 August 1997 orders were made by consent varying the contact to each week from 9.30 am Tuesday to 4 pm Thursday and such other occasions as the parents agreed.  The mother undertook not to allow D to be with the children unless supervised. 

B

1. B is four.  Ms Single found B to be a friendly child.  He had a slight articulation problem although he was quite verbal.  She reported:

A striking feature of the presentation was B's anxiety and hyper-vigilance after disclosing things, particularly about his father, he would look anxiously towards the door.

1. From the report it appears that the father had instructed B what to say to Ms Single and intimidated him before the interview.  B, however, made statements to the counsellor to the effect that he had witnessed violence by the father to his mother, E, D and his paternal grandmother and also that he has himself been subject to violence from his father.  Ms Single observed B being provocative, aggressive and violent in his session with D and also with E.  Ms Single found that:

On the raven (story telling) task, in response to neutral stimuli, there was significant violent fantasy in B's pro forma.  This was very unusual for a 4 year old child and is very concerning.

1. She described her behavioural concerns about B:

Although the father reported no behavioural concerns, The mother did raise some, namely:

1)        B is quite physically aggressive.  He will often raise his fist at The mother and says he will hit her.  Occasionally he does so.  He is also quite defiant and rude to her.  He reminds her of his father when he is like this.

2)        B is quite cruel to E.  The mother said that once he tried to drown her at the beach.  He punches her at times very hard.

3)B is quite provocative towards D, taunting him but D remains quite contained.  These behaviours are consistent with B's violent fantasy world and long exposure to the family violence. 

The father and grandmother also report that B is still in nappies in the day time because of his soiling.  This is unusual in a 4 year old, especially one as bright as B.  The symptom may be associated with the father's/grandmother's seeming preoccupation with the child's bottom since there appears to be no medical reason for this soiling.

1. In her conclusions Ms Single said:

B presents as rather an anxious, hyper-vigilant little boy who never-the-less has a quite active, violent, fantasy life which is most unusual in a 4 year old child.  He describes witnessing violence perpetrated by his father towards his mother, grandmother and other men.  B has developed some inurement to this to this violence.  This is very concerning and is the type of early onset inurement which often results in the child growing up to be a perpetrator of violence (identification with the aggressor).  B shows some fear of his father and is relatively compliant to him.  However, when he is in the role of the more powerful one, he has reportedly been violent himself towards those he perceives as being weaker (his mother, his sister and step brother).  This violence is reportedly quite serious, punching his mother in the face, allegedly trying to drown E at the beach.  I have no reason to doubt the mother's account of these incidents and they are not inconsistent with B's violent psychic world.  B presents a picture of a child who has been exposed to early onset and repetitive physical violence.

B seems to be attached to both his parents and his grandmother.  His attachment to his father is quite an anxious (insecure) one, while he appears to be much more relaxed in his relationship with his mother.

1. B has, on numerous occasions, threatened that he will stab Mr P.  When asked why, he said "because Daddy tells us to".  B is oppositional to his mother and bites and kicks her.  He tells her he is going to stab her.  He is cruel to E and punches her.  The paternal grandmother testified his violence to E is getting worse.  He has kicked Mr P.  He also threatens to punch his mother and on one occasion he punched her in the face.  The mother has already taken B to counselling and proposes to get further therapeutic counselling if his violence continues. 

E

1. E will be 4 in January.  When interviewed by Ms Single, she was 3 years and 2 months.  Her speech was at times difficult to understand and she was difficult to engage in conversation.  The interview was terminated when she indicated she wanted to leave, but in the meantime she disclosed in the interview that she had seen her father hit her mother in the head.  Ms Single, in her conclusions, stated:

E presents as a child who, while being attached to both parents, is inappropriately overfamiliar with strangers.  She seems to have a generally avoidant attachment to her father, although at times she enjoys his company even if he is positively engaged with her.  At other times she displays fear towards him.  This is hardly surprising given the sometimes very aggressive nature of The father which would be intimidating to most adults.  E seems to have a more relaxed and intimate relationship with her mother and her grandmother and, in my opinion, is primarily attached to her mother.

There are elements of E's presentation which are concerning.  Her over-familiarity with strangers, her chaotic play which may be reflective of anxiety and her seeming inurement to pain (often seen in young children who use dissociation as a psychological defence to cope with repeated trauma).

D

1. D was seven at the time Ms Single interviewed him.  D alleged that when the parents were together the father used to strike him on the bottom with what appears was an egg slide.  He said the father used to call him "dickhead" and other names.  He said the father often said to him "shut up" or "shut up dickhead".  He alleged the father often smacked his mother about the head.  He said he was not frightened by such incidents but B and E were.  He said they cried when such fights occur and "I had to take them away".  He also alleged that the father, when smacking him "used to pinch my bottom". 

ABUSIVE BEHAVIOUR 

1. The father told Ms Single that his parents separated when he was about eight.  He has seen his father only a few times in the 25 years since.  He also related that he had trouble with the police in his adolescence for such things as throwing rocks at cars, and said of his time at high school "Some of the teachers were complete arseholes.  If I saw them in the street I would bash them". 

1. He told Ms Single that after his parents separated his mother had been attacked one night by her defacto husband and his brother had knocked the man unconscious.  He said, laughing, "My brother took care of him". 

1. The father told Dr White that at about 1965 when he was 18, he was "bashed up by five blokes" resulting in a shoulder injury.  He told Ms Single they bashed him with an iron bar. 

1. He told Ms Single that when he was 17 to 18 he found out his father is homosexual "and that is when I hated the world".  The father is violently homophobic. 

1. He told Ms Single that in his early adulthood:

I used to get drunk all the time and get into trouble.  I used to get drunk and get into fights, the general things that blokes get into.

1. He said he would fight back if someone harassed him. 

1. He said he punched one man causing dental injuries which cost $600 to fix "but he started it". In cross-examination the father gave more detail of the incident.  He said it was about 1991 or 1992.  He was walking from the hotel to a phone when he passed three men sitting on a seat:

They called me a faggot and other words I didn't appreciate.  They upset me.  I turned and asked "What did you say?"  Two got up and ran away.  The other guy I hit only once.  One hit, bang.  He was getting up as I punched him.  He fell off the seat.  He told me I'd done $600 worth of damage to his teeth.

1. The father said he had never seen the man before that night.   

1. He told Ms Single he had dispensed "plenty of black eyes and split lips" and said "You cop a hiding, you give a hiding". 

1. The father told Ms Single that in about 1988 he "flogged senseless" a man who had sexually assaulted his own sister.

1. In early 1994 before B's birth the father was offended by something the mother's father had said.  As a result he had an argument with the maternal grandmother and had a fight with the mother's brother.  The father afterwards put the mother out of their accommodation, but they later reconciled and she returned. 

1. In cross-examination the father told of him assaulting a man at about 4.30 am on New Years Day 1994.  He was on his way home from a hotel and wrongly suspected the man was carrying a knife.  He kicked the object out of the person's hand and kicked him in the chin, knocking him to the ground. 

1. When the mother's sister was living with the parents and objected to the father being physically abusive of D, the father forced her to leave. 

1. In about 1994 the father went to see the parties' friend, George, who was living with the mother's sister.  He asked George about repayment of an amount of $150 he had lent to George.  An argument developed and the father assaulted George by punching him. 

1. In late 1994 when the parties were living in Maroochydore the father was involved in a fight with neighbours.  He told Dr White that a man wrongly accused him of leaving the caravan at 5.30 in the morning to have sex with the man's girlfriend, a couple of caravans away but they "sorted it out".  When they left the caravan park it was because the father had argued with the female proprietor.

1. From about December 1994 the father regularly hit the mother, pulled her hair and spat on her. 

1. In July 1995 or earlier, the father assaulted D by stabbing him in the arm with a dinner fork causing marks to his arm but not drawing blood.  In June 1995 there was an incident when D would not eat his breakfast.  The father punched D in the face with a closed fist causing bruising to his face and a headache. D was then aged four.  Although the father denied the assault, he failed to appear at the hearing to defend the charge.  His evidence of why he did not attend was not credible.  He did not appeal against the conviction and fine of $600.  The mother was generally more credible.  The Court is satisfied that the father did commit the assault, as alleged by the mother. 

1. The father told Ms Single that he has one conviction for assault of D and two for assault of the mother.  He said that he fought with his brother in 1995 while he had E in his arms.  He said his brother had grabbed him by the hair and kicked him in the head.  He laughed and he said he then "introduced his" (brother's) "head to the floor".  He told the Court that his brother pulled his hair as he walked in the door and "I introduced his head to the floor".  He then said "He attacked me.  I put B down".  He said he then hit his brother. 

1. In early 1996 the father assaulted the mother by grabbing her by the hair and bashing her head into the door of her car.  The mother told him she was going to seek help from the police.  She took E and walked off.  The father pursued her in the car and alighted.  Then in the street, despite the mother's opposition and the intervention of a woman bystander, he took E from the pram and removed her to the car.  He said to the lady bystander "Shut your mouth or I'll punch you too." 

1. Later the same day in the car the mother refused to give him E, whom she was holding.  He grabbed her by the throat and squeezed her throat saying "Let her go or I'll kill you."  She could not breathe and she let him take the baby. 

1. He moved to his mother's home, taking the two children against the mother's wishes.  He would not allow the children to see the mother until two weeks later, when he brought them to see her.  This led to an argument with his brother, which developed into a fight when they punched each other.  But after the parents later reconciled the father was persistently violent to D. 

1. When the mother threatened to leave him he threatened to kill her and her siblings if she did. 

1. In November 1996 the father had an altercation with the maternal grandmother and the police were called. 

1. During the cohabitation the father often told the mother "If you ever leave I'll hunt you down- you and D and the children- and kill you all." 

1. Prior to separation the father persistently demeaned the mother, often in the presence of the children, D or others, by statements such as "she is a bitch" "she is hopeless" "she is psycho". 

1. The father withheld affection from the child, D, and particularly since separation has often been rejecting towards him.  The father has frequently demeaned D by saying to him words such as "you're useless" and "you're hopeless".  He has also used expressions such as "pig" when referring to D.  The father told Ms Single that a week before separation D was inserting the blades of a toy helicopter into his anus.  The father said he took the helicopter and said, "this is what happens", and smashed the helicopter into the wall: "into a thousand pieces".

1. On 21 January 1997 the father argued with the maternal grandmother when she objected to his attitude towards D, and he then: "smashed up" the parties' kitchen. 

1. Later the mother had removed the children to the home of the maternal grandmother.  The father went there, he removed the children, despite the opposition and intervention of the maternal grandmother who sought to physically prevent him removing them.  He told Ms Single that in the process he "pushed".  He said he should have done more than push her. 

1. In January 1997 after the final separation, the mother and her sister went to the father's home to collect D's bike.  They argued with him.  He told the mother: "you'll never see your kids again".  He pushed her backwards into a wall and spat on her sister.  They left.

1. When the mother left the father he refused to allow her to recover her furniture and belongings from the flat.  She later recovered her clothing.  It was in garbage bags and when she moved into new accommodation she opened the bags.  She then discovered that he had damaged every item of clothing, including shoes, belts and other accessories, by cutting them.  In the bag she also found a photo of herself which is annexed to her affidavit.  He had mutilated the photograph and written on it: "this is what dogs with smelly cunts look like", and had written on her body: "dog, I am a smelly dirty bitch".  He wrote on the back of the photograph:  "Genatil (sic) worts(sic) will let you remember me for a lot longer than you think you thrush infested mole".  There was also a Christmas gift card on which he had written: "to a smelly dirty dog", and "don't bother coming back".

1. After separation the father indulged in power play with the mother by refusing to implement contact orders for the children.  After separation when the mother's sister saw the father in public he would yell at her: "you're a fucking whore", and "you're a fucking dog", and make rude gestures at her.  Since separation the father has taught B to call D "pig", and to refer to Mr T as "rock spider".  The father also calls the maternal grandmother "fat cow".

1. In the first week of February 1997 the Raymond Terrace Local Court made an apprehended violence order restricting the father's behaviour towards the mother for a period of five years.  The father consented to the order.  In March 1997 the father was charged with assault of the mother.  He was later convicted. 

1. From late 1997 there was a period of about two months, including Christmas and E's birthday where the father refused to permit contact by the children with the mother, despite Court orders.  He purported to rely on various allegations of danger to the children, but they were spurious excuses and he failed to facilitate even contact supervised by him or his nominee, at his place or some venue chosen by him. 

1. After separation the father was often alleging that the mother was mentally ill and demanding that the mother undertake psychiatric treatment.   But she was not suffering from any mental illness, and there was no evidence that she was. 

1. The father has admitted to the Department of Community Services that he has twice accidentally injured E when he has been angry. 

1. In February this year in the Court premises, the solicitor for the children's representative, Mr Scally, requested the father to confer with him in an interview room.  The father was aggressive and abusive to Mr Scally and threatened he would: "report what he was doing to the Law Society".  The father at the hearing apologised to Mr Scally, but he appeared not to acknowledge the inappropriateness of his behaviour, because the apology was about six months later and when he spoke of the apology in the witness box he said: "I've received no apology from him, that's fine, yeah". 

1. The father has, since separation, had arguments with officers of the Department of Community Services and also with police officers.

1. When Ms Single, interviewed the father in March 1998, she found that he had a very "short fuse": 

He was quick to anger at even the mildest confrontation such as my attempts to clarify points I did not understand.  He could be quite threatening when angry.  The most striking features of the father's presentation were a marked volatility in his mood and a somewhat paranoid flavour in his thinking.  His pre-occupation with the mother and the alleged sexual abuse of his son had a somewhat obsessive quality with much anger involved.

1. He told Ms Single:

I keep saying my son is being sexually assaulted, but solicitors say that access is okay.  I'll go to the Solicitors' Board.  If my children come home bleeding the Solicitors will bleed. 

1. He told how he had telephoned Legal Aid in the ACT and had arguments with a female there: "She was lucky she was in Canberra".

1. Ms Single reported that when she interviewed the father in March this year he was: "almost totally denigrating of the mother", and:

He availed himself of every opportunity to criticise her or her family even when we were discussing different issues.  He seemed quite (negatively) obsessed with her.

1. The father referred in interview to a man with whom the mother had had a relationship since separation as: "Mr Paedophile", and threatened that he would be dead if the father finds out that he has molested E. 

1. In March, before Ms Single observed the father interact with the children, there was an ugly scene.  The father had failed to bring the children with him, although he had been previously requested to ensure that he did.  When Ms Single raised this matter with him, he became argumentative and abusive in the waiting room.  Later when he brought the children from the car he sought to question and dictate as to how she would conduct the session.  He threatened to take the children elsewhere if she did not comply with his requirements.  He told her that he had given his solicitors: "the flick", and would be complaining to the Law Council about his solicitor and the children's representative. 

1. During the observation session his behaviour included frightening E, berating the mother and talking about their dispute to Ms Single, not allowing E to leave the room and take refuge with the paternal grandmother, arguing with Ms Single when she reminded him that she wanted E to stay in the room, threatening E that he would slap her, questioning Ms Single's right to see the children later without him, and delivering a long rambling angry tirade, including complaints about the Family Court and making threats of revenge through: "60 Minutes", "A Current Affair", and his Member of Parliament, who, he said, would be putting his case before Parliament.

1. He complained about the police handling of his complaints about the mother and said they were corrupt and did not care.  He showed no concern about the children witnessing all this.  On one occasion when B approached the father holding himself and appearing like he wanted to go the toilet, B tapped his father on the knee and said he wanted to go outside.  The father said, “No” abruptly, and continued his conversation with Ms Single.

1. Although the father did play with the children during the observation period, these episodes were brief and he directed the play. 

1. On 3 March when Ms Single conducted interviews, she asked the father to return the children after the morning tea break so she could see them with the mother, but the father returned without them.  When she reminded him of her previous request, he denied it and became very angry.  He was still angry when he returned later with the children.

1. The paternal grandmother, in interview with Ms Single, denied that the father had ever been in trouble with the police, although it became clear that she was aware that he had.  She agreed that he has a short fuse.  She said he loses his temper.  If the children do something wrong he yells and hits them, "but only a smack".  She denied he has a history of violence, but she related several matters which demonstrated that he did.  She said at 17 or 18 when working at the show he had "a few words" with four or five men and later was attacked by them when asleep in his van.  He was badly beaten and suffered a large hole in his back with muscular damage.  He was concussed for four days.  She also said: "he and his brother are at loggerheads.  They don't talk, they just have a few go ins".  So far as she was aware their last fight was three or four years ago.

1. From Ms Single's observations of interactions of the father and his mother, it appears he is dominating of her and even intimidating.  In an interview with Dr White in May 1998, the father said that: "I abuse the solicitors" (because they cannot fulfil his instructions): "and they think I need counselling".  In the same interview he said that: "the children are complaining to Dr Stan Kutchner, that: "they are getting kicked and punched" (in the mother's care), but he offered no evidence from Dr Kutchner, his records or any other source to support such a serious allegation.  He vilified the mother to Dr White and presented an idealised view of himself: "in his role of a supportive person who worked, performed domestic duties and raised the children while his de facto wife pursued a slovenly existence".

1. At the end of the session where Ms Single observed the children with their mother, there was an incident.  She relates in her report:

I took the children outside to go with their father.  He demanded to see me then as he had "more to tell".  I told him I was unable to see him then but we had finished our planned sessions.  I had previously explained this to him.  At this the father became very verbally abusive, screaming at me in front of his children and a number of other children (in wheelchairs) and their parents in the busy back waiting area.  He told me he was going to complain about me to the Family Court.  I said I did not think it appropriate that these matters were discussed here, and suggested he take his children home.

I turned to walk back to my room.  He followed me.  He became more enraged, screaming out in a loud voice about me not listening to the allegations of sexual abuse of his son, and whether the mother had told me she had been raped by an uncle and had attended 11 different schools.  I was firm with him and told him that I would not discuss these matters with him in this inappropriate venue.  I had to go into my room and shut the door to stop his behaviour.

1. When B was interviewed and asked to tell Ms Single "about Steve" he told her that his father:

Get rid of Steve . . . with his muscles.  He would just hurt him. He will head butt him and hurt him. 

1. B also related witnessing assaults on his father by his mother and when asked whether his father gets angry at home sometimes, he said:

He fight nanny.  He throws food at nanny.  He says shut up to her.  He hit nanny.  He hit me and nanny.

1. He also alleged that his father hits E, his grandmother and himself with sticks and "daddy breaks tables and chairs, he throws them down".  He alleged that at their previous residence, the father had slapped D, "on his bum, on his face, on his head".

1. On 5 May 1998, the father was delivering the children to the mother for contact.  He had a lump of wood about 3 foot long beside the driver's seat.  They argued about the children's' clothing and financial matters.  The mother opened the rear door on the driver's side and gave B a kiss.  The father alighted from the car and said, "you are not taking them".  He picked up the lump of wood and made as if to hit the mother with it, she withdrew and he drove off with the children.  He did not facilitate the contact.

1. The mother initiated proceedings against him for non compliance with the contact order and he only resumed the contact after orders were made against him on 14 July 1998. 

1. In her conclusions, the Court expert Ms Single said:

While the father appears to have provided adequate physical care for the children, he is quite inconsistent in his interactions with them.  While he can be positive towards them, at other times, he is quite intimidating and chaotic in his relationship with them.  His frequent violence towards other people, particularly their mother and grandmother, in front of the children is alarming and their presentations indicate that this has been frightening and traumatic for them and continues to be so.  His constant vitriolic talk about their mother, in front of the children, and his insistence to them that they have been abused, when there is no evidence of this, have been very distressing for them.

The father has long-term serious problems with violence.  By his own admission, he sees violence as a way to resolve conflicts.  He displays no remorse about his violence in the past;  in fact, he was quite boastful about his ability to seriously hurt those he felt deserved this.  He has 2 convictions for assault of the mother and has been convicted of assaulting his young stepson, D (then 5), whom he punched in the face with a closed fist.  It seemed apparent that the father has considerable attachment problems with D, which do not seem to be evident with his own biological children.  There is no evidence that the two younger children have been seriously injured by the father but physical discipline of them seems to be his modus operandi for parenting.  He has admitted to DOCS that he has "accidentally" hurt E twice when he was angry.

Also of concern is The father's alcohol problems (which he denies) and his quite paranoid view of the world.  The father is a very untrusting person and sees himself as being persecuted by others.  He is quite negatively obsessed by the mother and has not in the past shown much empathy for her losses or her obvious depression.  His loss of her is far from resolved and I am quite concerned about her future safety with the father.

The father has made repeated allegations that:

AD (then 4) was sexually abused by another pre-schooler;

Bas a result of this sexual abuse, D became a perpetrator and began sexually abusing B;

CE is displaying sexualised behaviours.

B has not disclosed sexual abuse to anyone (except his father) and DOCS could find no evidence of the sexual assault of D or B.  In my opinion, none of these allegations can be substantiated.

However, these allegations by the father should be put in context.  The father has quite a hatred of and obsession with homosexuals and paedophiles.  His discovery that his own father was a homosexual has no doubt been a severe narcissistic (identificatory) wound for the father.  By his own admission, this discovery, in his late teens, propelled him into considerable violence.  This issue seems quite unresolved for the father.

He appears over-sensitive to any acts which he feels could be homosexual in nature.  The father's original claim that D observed another pre-schooler insert a stick and a car up his bottom at pre-school was not corroborated by the pre-school, which denied these acts could go unobserved.  DOCS expressed concern about "the constant talk" of this abuse in front of D.  It is likely that D's later sticking a toothbrush into B's buttocks in an argument (in the same way that young children often attack each other with pencils) has been misinterpreted by the father as a sexually assaultive act and he has continued to report such abuse happening when B goes on contact.

Both the father and the paternal grandmother seem quite preoccupied with B's bottom and their inspection of his body has been most intrusive and inappropriate.  The father also has a fantasy that B will grow up to be a paedophile, amongst other things, if he is returned to the care of his mother.  This is a most unusual projection for a parent to have.

The father seems to genuinely believe that B has been sexually abused.  This is somewhat different to many cases of unsubstantiated or false allegations within a divorce milieu, in which alleged sexual abuse is used as a manipulative tool.  The father seems quite fixed in this belief, despite medical advice to the contrary.  The father's unresolved issues about homosexuality and his family connection to this, his hatred of homosexuals and his paranoid view of the world seem to be propelling his beliefs about B being sexually assaulted.  As well, The father is now misinterpreting normal tiny bruises as signs of physical abuse and even sees bruises when none is present on the children.  I am concerned about the quasi-psychotic (paranoid) nature of these beliefs.

The father's obsession with this topic has been prolonged and it is unlikely that he will suddenly stop believing abuse has occurred.  While B as yet does not understand the meaning of sexual abuse, as he grows older, this will become apparent to him.  For a child to grow up believing that this has occurred, when it likely has not, would be very damaging, especially in terms of his self-identity and self-esteem and his future relationship with his half-brother.

1. On 14 July 1998, the father was placed on a recognisance when found to have contravened the order for the children to have contact with their mother.  Compensatory contact of 12 weekends was also ordered as additional to the current order. 

ISSUE 1:  CONTACT BY THE CHILDREN WITH THE FATHER

1. Counsel for the children submitted that there is no Benefit at this time in the children having a relationship with the father and no possibility of a worthwhile relationship.  The father it is submitted, is directly a danger to the children and also likely to undermine the mother's care of them.  The submission is that her fragility is such that he should be out of the picture.

1. The father suffers a serious handicap in that he cannot deal with people without resorting to abuse.  He is aggressive, violent and intimidating.  Dr White who is the Court expert who saw both of the parties and prepared two psychiatric reports for the proceedings stated in his summary to his report of 15 May 1998:

Summary and Conclusion. Mr M provided an apparently idealised view of his capacity as a single parent of a good relationship with D (Ms M's son from a previous relationship) and of his reasonableness in the matter.  He also provided an extremely negative view of Ms M which is hard to reconcile in terms of their relationship.  His version of events will require support from independent witnesses acceptable to both sides.

His allegation that D is sexually abusing B has not been justified.  He is demanding that Ms M have psychiatric treatment before the matter can proceed but in my view, that is not justified.

Like Ms M, Mr M does not have evidence of a psychiatric disorder which would prevent him from assuming the role of a single parent.  He does however have poor control of anger, relatively unstable employment and an immature attitude to life which suggests personality dysfunction.  Substance abuse was and may be a problem.

In this matter, assessment of custody and access must rely on family assessments of how the children relate to their carers and which parent can provide them a more altruistic environment in which to raise the children.

On the information before me, there can be no justification for denying the mother reasonable access to the children while the matter is resolved.  Persistence of behaviour such as AVOs against the mother for unsubstantiated and unlikely behaviours cannot be justified.  Ongoing disputation between the parents is a destructive influence on the children's development.

1. Ms Single found:

Leaving the children with their father exposes them to unacceptable levels of violence, inconsistent interactive parenting and continual denigration of their mother, even though they are physically well cared for.  It is unlikely that any counselling or psychotherapy will be able to change Steven in the short or medium terms.  He does not see his behaviour as a problem and is quite entrenched in his views to the extent that engagement in a psychotherapeutic relationship would be quite difficult.

1. In cross-examination Ms Single said the father's prognosis for major change is poor.  He does not concede he has a problem with abusive behaviour.  Indeed he is quite boastful about such behaviour.  He is unlikely to be able to change if he does not recognise his problem.  Failure to concede he has a problem in these proceedings means he is unlikely to ever concede it.  She also said she does not believe the father will change and it would be very difficult for him to do so.

1. The father had had the benefit of reading the reports of Ms Single and Dr White well before the hearing but his cross-examination provided conclusive evidence that he does not accept that his abusive behaviour is unacceptable or that if it is, that it is his problem.  In evidence-in-chief, he acknowledged that he has an "anger problem".  He said he is "keen to do something about it" and realises he is "largely responsible for the position he is in".  But, of course, he had not done anything about it prior to the hearing and in cross-examination he said his anger problem is "only when I am put in a situation" and he said, "if someone is physically attacking me, I will defend myself".

1. He also spoke of "occasionally when someone provokes me" and of that problem being "when I used to go out drinking".  When he was asked what he thinks the problem is he replied, "I am not the expert, I have been told, I am not the expert".  He was asked what he meant when he said he had an anger problem and he replied "when put in a situation, yes".  He said, "I don't go looking for fights any more, I used to, my last fight was in 1995".  He said he has learnt self defence and boxing too.  He said there is nothing wrong with self defence, "if it is only defending - not attacking" but his evidence in cross-examination included evidence of many assaults by him in situations which could not be described as self defence.

1. Of the incident where he damaged the man's teeth he said he was "fairly drunk" and although he thought that what he did was right at the time, he said that looking back he should have ignored the man. 

1. He spoke about assaults on the mother and said:

When we had arguments, before I hit her, I tried to put the children in the bedroom.  She would pick them up, use them as a shield.

and:

I encouraged her to put the child down, then I hit her.

1. He said he smacks the children because "I don't want them to grow into thieves", but there was no evidence to show that there was any danger of that.  He talked about one night when he assaulted the mother and said:

We had an argument about why she was not capable of supervising the children in the bath.  I punched her towards the back of the head, behind the ear where it is hard.  That is where I aim to hit.  I didn't want to hit her in the temple or kill her or anything like that.

1. He spoke as if he did her a favour and went out of his way to be considerate of her.  He said he regrets hitting her, but he obviously did not accept responsibility for his conduct.  He volunteered:

I have had quite a few girlfriends and I have never had to hit them. This was after a year of encouraging her to get help for her problems.

1. When he was asked whether he sees his temper as "a problem a lot of people create" he answered, "a lot of the time, yeah".  The father testified that he tries his hardest to keep out of fights and he told of an incident at the Country Club Hotel in January.  He was apparently proud of his restraint:

I had a schooner of beer in my hand and I could easily have smashed it into the side of his head.

1. When discussing the possibility of attending an anger management course he said:

I don't really have a problem, it is only when I am put in a position with arguments.

1. Then he said, "I am told I have a problem, so I must".  But when asked whether he thinks he has a problem he said, "experts say I have so I must".  He said that he thinks Dr White is wrong when he says the father has a problem.  When he was asked:  "Do you say you have a problem but you are getting it fixed?", he replied, "I don't know".  He was asked:  "Do you acknowledge your behaviour has caused problems for the children?"  He answered, "I am not sure, I am not an expert".  He said he has not apologised to the mother for his two assaults on her "because she provoked me".  He said he apologised to Mr Scally "because I had made a simple mistake". 

1. Consistently he did not accept responsibility for his abusive behaviour.  Instead he blamed others for provoking him, putting him in situations, making him do it, and other reasons. 

1. He conceded that B and E have serious emotional and behavioural problems but he denies that he has contributed to these. In answer to questions from me, the father said he does not agree that the emotional and behavioural disturbances shown by B and E suggest there is a problem where they have been living.  Eventually he was prepared to concede that witnessing violence could have serious adverse effects on children including the problem of the children imitating the violence.

1. He rarely conceded that he has a behaviour problem, and when he did, he sought to minimise it.  He said he would Benefit from an anger management course in that he would learn to control his aggression.   He said he was not sure whether violence is excusable "if you have to hit someone".  He said, "I don't think my behaviour is much of a problem". 

1. The father's abusive behaviour presents a multi faceted danger for the children.  There is a risk of violence to them personally and injury.  There is a risk that violence poses when it involves living with fear, insecurity and vigilance.  There is the danger of ongoing fear that the father will emotionally or physically abuse the mother they love.  There is the danger that E will learn from the father's abusive behaviour that abuse is part of life for females and become even more accepting of such behaviour.  There is a danger that both children will come to believe from the father's abuse of the mother, that women are lesser beings. 

1. But the greatest danger is that B, particularly, will learn from his father's behaviour that physical and emotional abuse are acceptable ways of dealing with other persons and thus come to share his father’s disability.  Such a disability would mar his dealings and relationships with others, including those he loves, bring him into conflict with the police, the Courts and the community, and result in him being penalised and even being imprisoned.

ISSUE 1:  CONTACT

1. On the evidence, the children's best interest in all but the very short term, require that they have no contact with their father.  The only contrary indicator is that they have some attachment to him and could be distressed by complete separation at this time. 

1. The conclusion is that they should have a sequence of supervised contact of reducing frequency designed to facilitate a separation.  The supervision needs to be by a professional person in order to ensure the children's safety, particularly from the example of abusive behaviour.  That will require that the supervision be by a professional person at safe premises and the only available option is the Court counselling service.  Because of its limited staff and resources, the contact will be infrequent. 

1. The paternal grandmother is unsuitable to supervise contact.  She does not accept that the father has a problem.  She minimises his tendency to violence and his past difficulties.  The father has also intimidated her.  She could not be relied upon to protect the children during contact.

1. The Court expert Ms Single, testified that she would consider a better option to be ongoing low level contact with the father and the paternal grandmother.  In that vein, the children's counsel had suggested 2 hours each three months.   But there are serious problems with such an arrangement.  There is the shortage of resources at the counselling service.  There is the strong likelihood that even with professional supervision, the father will expose the children to emotional abuse.   But most importantly, such contact will probably restrict the mother as to where she and the children can reside and would undermine her care of the children by imposing an ongoing stress for a parent who is already very vulnerable and having problems coping.

1. The contact orders should continue contact for a year so that if the father does recognise his problem and undertake successful therapy, he would be able to apply to the Court before the last contact and seek to continue contact. 

ISSUE 2:  RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECISIONS

1. The history of parental conflict and abuse and the decision regarding contact require that for the children’s sake the mother have sole responsibility for decisions as to the children's care, welfare and development.

ISSUE 3:  THE MOTHER’S SMOKING

1. There was no evidence to establish that the order sought is justified in terms of the children's interests and the order should be refused.

ISSUE 3: DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CHILDREN

1. The children have been badly affected by the parents' conflict already.  It is appropriate that the parents each be restrained from discussing the other, events in the other's home or litigation between the parents with either child or in the presence of either child.

ISSUE 5:  RECOGNISANCE

1. The recognisance of 14 July 1998 requires the father to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months and comply with the orders of 6 February 1998.  Those orders relate to interim residence and contact.  They are discharged by the orders which I have made and the reconnaissance requiring compliance with the orders of 6 February therefore does not need to be discharged in that regard.  The reconnaissance for the father to be of good behaviour should continue.

ISSUE 6:  MR P

1. The only evidence offered by the father in support of the order he seeks comes from his cross-examination.  He said that long before he met the mother, he saw Mr P "involved" in drugs in a hotel.  He said he was "drug dealing".  There was nothing more detailed and nothing more recent except that he alleged that the mother "told me she used to go there and score" and when asked to elaborate he said, "drugs off him" and said it was in 1996.  Later in his evidence, the father denied he stopped contact to stop the children seeing Mr P and he volunteered "I have got no problem with Mr P".

1. The evidence is that Mr P has a conviction for possession of cannabis when he was about 21, some 13 years ago and two for driving under the influence of alcohol, the second one being whilst disqualified.  That conviction was in 1992 or 1993 and he has no other convictions. 

1. The mother denies that Mr P is involved in drugs or uses them.  She denied that he has used cannabis with her or that she uses it.  On the balance of probabilities, Mr P has no involvement with illegal drugs.

1. The evidence establishes that Mr P, however, is quite hostile to the father, particularly because of the effect his abusive behaviour has had on the mother and her relationship with Mr P.  The conflict, abuse and harassment has caused the mother considerable problems coping.  Outside the Court when the father in passing, passed a remark to the maternal grandmother, with whom he has a history of hostility, Mr P challenged the father to go outside to have a fight.  The evidence, however, falls far short of establishing that Mr P presents a danger to the children by way of exposing them to violence. 

1. Indeed he presented as having considerable insight and as being very supportive of the mother.  Ms Single testified that he "could be quite positive for her" but she had not assessed him.  On the balance of probabilities, he will be a positive support for the mother, who badly needs support. 

1. The father's application to restrain the mother, whether from allowing the children to have contact with Mr P or from allowing Mr P to stay overnight, thus failed as such an order would not be in the children's interests.

ISSUE 7:  PRE-SCHOOL

1. Ms Single found that the mother has a serious problem in that she "accommodates" violence.  She is unlikely to take decisive action to protect the children from violence, especially by a partner of hers.  The evidence is that E too is displaying this problem, at least in terms of violence to her by B.  Ms Single in cross-examination testified that for the sake of the children and the adults, both children should have four or five days per week at pre-school until they start school.  She said that this is important in that it would provide a normal environment and would be useful in them learning how to relate to other children.  This would be particularly useful for B in learning how to contain his violence.

1. In her oral evidence the mother opposed an order regarding pre-school.  The submission of her counsel was that the mother cannot afford the cost of sending the children for more than two days per week.  She would, however would be happy to send them more often if the Department of Community Services can pay for the extra days.  It is therefore in the children's interest that there be an order that the children attend pre-school for two days per week and for three, four or five days per week if the Department of Community Services can provide the necessary funds for the additional days.  The Department should be requested to assist.

ISSUE 8:  LICENSED PREMISES

1. In his affidavit, the father related evidence of the mother taking the children to bingo at the Nelson Bay RSL.  The evidence was hearsay upon hearsay and is inadmissible.  The wife in oral evidence, denied taking the children to bingo.  She said she does not take the children to bingo when they are with her but later she said, "she hardly ever" takes D to bingo on Tuesday night because he is at school now. 

1. The evidence, however, did not establish that there is any ongoing practice of the mother to take any of the children to bingo or other licensed premises or that it is such a problem as requires a restraining order.

ISSUE 9:  CHANGE OF RESIDENCE

1. The father and the children's representative seek that the Court restrain the mother from commuting outside the area comprising the Shire of Port Stephens, Newcastle City and the City of Lake Macquarie.  The mother expressed some interest in moving away from the area in order to escape the father.  She has no particular place in mind, but has thought about Queensland or Mudgee. 

1. Ms Single could see some Benefit to the mother, and indirectly the children, in the mother putting considerable distance between her and the father.  It would reduce her fear and anxiety about him.  It would limit the undermining which his harassment and abuse causes her.   But a move could make contact of any frequency impossible if that became feasible because of the father undertaking treatment and overcoming his problem of abusive behaviour.

1. Accordingly, in the children's interests, the orders should be made but limited to when the present contact order expires.  During the currency of the order, the mother would still be able to move within the area.  That would not frustrate the contact order intended, but once the period expires, unless there is any further order, the mother would be free to move with the children outside the area.

ISSUE 10:  FURTHER APPLICATIONS BY THE FATHER

1. Because of the father's problem with abusive behaviour, his application for a residence order had no prospect of success.  His alternative claim for contact was also doomed.   But, unfortunately, even with the benefit of legal advice, he did not accept that his residence application had no merit until the hearing was almost completed.  He still did not come to such a realisation even though he had the benefit of the psychiatric reports and the report by Ms Single.

1. Meanwhile he subjected the mother to the stress of a lengthy hearing and, assuming she had legal aid, she has presumably exhausted or almost exhausted her prospects of aid in any further proceedings between them.  Because the father does not recognise his problems or accept responsibility for them but instead blames others, it is likely that he will make a further application, this time to seek contact without first accepting responsibility for his behaviour and taking effective steps to change. 

1. In the circumstances of his conduct in these proceedings, he should not be permitted to do that in the next three years except by leave of a Judge of this Court.

ORDERS

1. Accordingly the orders made at the end of the hearing were:

.1That the children B James M born 9 February 1994 and E Rose M born 4 January 1995 reside with the mother and she have sole responsibility for decisions as to their care welfare and development.

.2That the father deliver the children and their clothing and belongings to the mother at the Court Counselling Service at Newcastle at 10 am tomorrow (4th September 1998) and then leave the premises forthwith.

.3That the children have contact with the father at the Court counselling Service at Newcastle supervised by a Court counsellor as follows:

a         for 2 hours once per week during September 1998;
  b         for 2 hours once each second week in October 1998;
  c         for 2 hours once each subsequent month until 1 October 1999.

.4        That the paternal grandmother be at liberty to attend such contact.

.5That each contact appointment be fixed by the Director of Court Counselling at Newcastle and each occasion of contact be implemented by the mother delivering the children to the Counselling Service at least 15 minutes before the commencement time and leaving and returning as directed by the Director of Court Counselling and the father and the paternal grandmother, if she attends, arriving not earlier than the commencement time and leaving the Court building promptly at the end of the contact.

.6        That each of the parents is restrained from:

a         consuming any illegal substance in the presence of either child;

b         consuming alcohol to excess in the presence of either child;  or

cdiscussing the other parent, events in the other parent's home or litigation between the parents with the children or in their presence.

.7That the Court requests the NSW Department of Community Services to provide the mother and the children with ongoing supervision and support regarding the care welfare and development of the children, and that the mother accept such supervision and comply with all reasonable advice of the Department regarding the care, welfare and development of the children.

.8That the mother continue to attend counselling with Kirsten Hides, Psychologist attached to the Port Stephens Community Health Centre, or such other psychologist as the Department of Community Services approves, on such occasions and for such periods as Ms Hides or such other Psychologist advises.

.9That the mother attend a case management meeting and any other meetings concerning the children's care, welfare and development in respect of which the Department requests her attendance.

.10That except with prior consent of the Department each of the parents is restrained from:

acausing either child to be medically examined in relation to any allegation of sexual abuse;  or

bdiscussing any allegation of physical or sexual abuse with or in the presence of either child.

.11That the Department of Community Services is requested to assist the mother in locating funding for payment of preschool fees so that the children can attend preschool more frequently than 2 days per week until they attend school.

.12That the mother ensure that the children attend preschool for at least 2 days per week and for 3, 4 or 5 days per week if the Department can secure funds to pay the fees for them to attend the additional day or days and that this order apply until December 1998 for B and until December 1999 for E.

.13That the Children's Representative with or without a counsellor explain the orders to the children at the Court Counselling Service at 10 am tomorrow (4 September 1998).

.14That until 1 October 1999 the mother is restrained from changing the children's place of residence to a place outside the area comprising the Shire of Port Stephens, the City of Newcastle or the City of Lake Macquarie.

.15That the interim orders of the Local Court at Raymond Terrace of 20 February 1997 and 28 February 1997, the interim contact orders of this Court of 23 July 1997, the orders of this Court of 20 August 1997 and 5 February 1998 and the contact orders of 14 July 1998 are discharged.

.16That any outstanding applications are dismissed and the proceedings are removed from the active pending cases list.    

1. The Court now also makes the following orders:

.1That until 3 September 2001, the father is restrained from making any application for contact by the children B J M born 9 February 1994 or E R M born 4 January 1995 except by prior leave of a Judge of this Court, the application to be made ex parte and determined in Chambers on the papers;

.2That the Registry Manager forward a copy of these reasons to the parties, the children's representative, Dr Alan White and Ms Toni Single and the children's representative provide a copy to the Department of Community Services.

I certify that this page and the previous 21 pages is a true copy of the judgment handed down by Justice Mullane dated 12 November 1998.
____________________
Associate