Mornony & Nicolle (No 3)
[2023] FedCFamC1F 552
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Mornony & Nicolle (No 3) [2023] FedCFamC1F 552
File number MLC 6366 of 2019 Judgment of WILSON J Date of judgment 5 July 2023 Catchwords FAMILY LAW – PARENTING –– father seeking orders for sole parental responsibility and for the children to have no time with the mother – expert evidence that there is an ongoing risk to the children if they spend time with the mother – held, the father to have sole parental responsibility and the mother to have no time with children.
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – modest property pool consisting of superannuation only – mother seeking orders for equal division of superannuation – since separation father has had primary care and primary financial responsibility for the children – held, superannuation split ordered in accordance the father’s proposal.
Legislation Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) s 11
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 138
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4AB(1) and (2), 60CA, 60CC(2)(a)-(b), (2A) and (3)(a)-(l), 61DA(1), 61DA (2)(b), 64B(2)(b) and (c), 68Q, 79 and 90XT(1)(a)
Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001 (Cth)
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).Rule 8.19
Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic) ss 11 and 11(2)(b)(ii)
Cases cited Ashby v Slipper [2014] FCAFC 15
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Metcash Trading Ltd (2011) 198 FCR 297
Bant & Clayton [2019] FamCAFC 198
Blinko & Blinko [2015] FamCAFC 146
BNMB Transport Pty Ltd v Mercedes-Benz Australia Pacific Pty Ltd & Anor [2016] FCCA 2047
Bradshaw v McEwans Pty Ltd (1952) 85 CLR 352
CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing & Allied Services Union of Australia v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2007) 162 FCR 466
Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297
Cornett & Hext (No 4) [2021] FamCA 289
Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588
Evans & Co v Astley [1911] AC 674
Fitzwater v Fitzwater (2019) 60 Fam LR 212
Galea v Galea (1990) 19 NSWLR 263
Gerber & Beck [2020] FamCA 210
Gin v Hing (2019) 63 Fam LR 258
Girlock (Sales) Pty Ltd v Hurrell (1982) 149 CLR 155
Holloway v McFeeters (1956) 94 CLR 470
Honeysett v R (2014) 253 CLR 122
Isles v Nelissen (2022) 65 Fam LR 288.
J & A Vaughan Super Pty Ltd (Trustee) v Becton Property Group Ltd [2014] FCA 581
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
K & S Lake City Freighters Pty Ltd v Gordon & Gotch Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 309
Keane v Keane (2021) 62 Fam LR 190
Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361
Lithgow City Council v Jackson (2011) 244 CLR 352
Loddington & Derringford [2008] FamCA 380
Luxton v Vines (1952) 85 CLR 352
M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (No 2) (1990) 169 CLR 638
Mallory & Mallory [2022] FedCFamC1F 697
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Mornony & Nicolle (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC1F 31
Neil v Zang (2021) 62 Fam LR 432
Petrolink Pty Ltd, Re; Smith v Boné [2014] FCA 1024
Potter v Potter (2007) 37 Fam LR 208
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
Resource Pacific Pty Ltd v Wilkinson [2013] NSWCA 33
Sedgley v Sedgley (1995) 19 Fam LR 363
Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108
Summerby & Cadogen [2011] FamCAFC 205
Taggart & Taggart (No 2) [2020] FamCA 520
Taylor v Public Service Board (1976) 137 CLR 208
Tinkerbell Enterprises Pty Ltd v Takeovers Panel [2012] FCA 1272
Trustees of the Property of Cummins (a bankrupt) v Cummins (2006) 227 CLR 278
Wagstaff v Wagstaff (2023) 65 Fam LR 461
Books cited Sir Richard Eggleston, Evidence, Proof and Probability (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2nd edition, 1983) Division Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs 218 Date of last submissions 11 April 2023 Date of hearing 30-31 January, 1-2 February and 23-24 March 2023 Place Melbourne Counsel for the applicant Ms A. Goldthorp Solicitor for the applicant Coote Family Lawyers Counsel for the respondent Mr T. Byrne Solicitor for the respondent RRR Lawyers Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer Mr N. Gardiner Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer MMH Lawyers ORDERS
MLC 6366 of 2019 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN MR MORNONY
Applicant
AND MS NICOLLE
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
order made by
WILSON J
DATE OF ORDER
5 July 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT –
Parenting
1.The father has sole parental responsibility for the children X born 2013 and Y born 2015.
2.The children live with the father.
3.The children spend no time with the mother.
4.The mother is restrained from communicating with the children, save for sending them cards, gifts and letters for special occasions each year to the address of the paternal grandparents at D Street, Suburb E Vic, save that the father may vet those items and at his sole discretion determine whether and, if so, when to provide any such cards, gifts and letters to the children.
5.The mother is restrained from attending or communicating with any school attended by the children or either of them.
6.On or before 4:00pm on 12 July 2023 the mother must make available to the father a copy of all family photos and videos, including all photos and videos of the children from prior to separation for the purposes of copying these photos and videos and the father must then return the originals to the mother.
7.The father is permitted to travel with the children interstate and overseas.
8.For the purposes of s 11 of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth):
(a)it is noted that the above orders allow –
(i)the children are allowed to travel internationally with the father;
(ii)the children are allowed to live with the father when the father is outside Australia; and
(b)the mother is restrained from making an application for an Australian passport or travel related document for the children.
9.The children are permitted to have an Australian passport or travel related document provided the application for that document is made by the father, who may sign any declaration on the application in the form approved by the relevant Minister.
10.Any passport issued for the children, or either of them, must be retained by the father.
11.The father is granted leave to –
(a)produce a copy of these orders to the children’s school(s), the Department of Health and Human Services, Victoria Police and the children’s treating medical and allied health professionals; and
(b)utilise all documents filed in this proceeding in any intervention order proceedings between the parties or in any criminal proceedings associated with, or resulting from, any intervention order granted between the parties.
12.In the event that the children, or either of them, sustain or suffer any serious injury or is hospitalised, the father must inform the mother, in writing, as soon as possible and provide any particulars of any medical treatment received by the child/children.
13.Pursuant to s 68Q of the Family Law Act 1975, to the extent of any inconsistency between those orders and a family violence protection order, these orders shall prevail.
Property
14.The orders herein are binding on F Corporation (“the trustee”), the trustee of Superannuation Fund 1 (“the fund”) of which the husband is a member (Member No. …).
15.Paragraph 17 has effect from the operative time.
16.The operative time for the purpose of paragraph 15 is the fourth business day after service of an original certified copy of these orders on the trustee of the fund.
17.In accordance with s 90XT(1)(a) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) whenever a splittable payment becomes payable to Mr Mornony, from his interest in the fund, Ms Nicolle is entitled to be paid an amount calculated in accordance with Part 6 of the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001 (Cth) (“the Regulations”) using a base amount of $45,000 (“the amount”), and there is a corresponding reduction in the accumulation entitlement that Mr Mornony, would have in the fund, but for these orders (“the superannuation split”).
18.In accordance with these orders and the obligations set out in the Act and the Regulations, the trustee of the fund must do all such acts and things and must sign all such documents as may be required, to calculate the entitlement of and make payment to the wife in accordance with these orders.
19.Ms Nicolle must do all acts and things necessary and must sign all necessary documents required to rollover the superannuation split to her nominated superannuation fund.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WILSON J
INTRODUCTION
So far as parenting orders were concerned, the ambit of this ligation revolved around –
(a)whether orders should be made for the father to have sole parental responsibility for the children;
(b)whether the parents should have joint parental responsibility for the children;
(c)whether the mother should have time with the children in accordance with the regime proposed by her; and
(d)whether the children should have no time with the mother by reason of her psychiatric afflictions.
A very modest pool of assets fell for division.
As these reasons record, in my judgment –
(a)the father should have sole parental responsibility for the children;
(b)the mother should have no time with the children; and
(c)property interests in the superannuation should be altered in the manner hereafter recorded.
RELEVANT RECITAL OF THE PARTIES
At the time of trial of this proceeding the father was 42 and the mother was 36. The elder child was 9 and the younger was 6. In 2012 the parties commenced living together, they married in 2015, they separated in mid-2018 and they divorced in 2021. Their relationship lasted six years.
Litigation in this proceeding commenced in what was then the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (“FCCA”) in 2019.
The father, as applicant, made his trial affidavit on 10 August 2022. He pointed out that the children have lived in his care since October 2019 and they have spent limited supervised time with their mother.
The father works as a manager in the public service. His salary was modest and at the trial he was on unpaid leave. The father and mother met in 2012 in Country G while the father was working in City H. They married in the United States of America. The father’s extended family is made up of his sister (an educator), his mother and his father, all of whom he said have been and remain closely involved in the lives of the children in issue in this proceeding. The father has repartnered. The father’s partner made an affidavit and gave viva voce evidence in this proceeding.
The mother made a trial affidavit on 24 August 2022. In it she deposed to having been born in the United States. She deposed to her parents being medical professionals. She deposed to having studied a degree at university. The wife contended that her relationship with the father broke down, at least in part, by reason of the father’s drug taking, a proposition denied by the father.
The father asserted that the mother suffered from mental infirmities of such manner and degree that she was not capable of discharging the responsibilities of a parent with the consequence, so the father said, that he should have sole parental responsibility for the children and that the mother should have no time with the children. The medical evidence in this proceeding assumed a high degree of importance. To my way of thinking, it was utile to address that evidence early in these reasons so to that I now turn.
THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE
In this category of evidence I canvas the information given by psychiatrists, psychologists and supervisors.
Dr B, consultant psychiatrist, made four reports which he exhibited to his affidavits, all of which were admitted in evidence without objection.
Dr B’s 17 October 2019 report
When this litigation was in the FCCA, his Honour Judge Riethmuller (as the Honourable Justice Riethmuller then was) ordered a psychiatric assessment of both the mother and the father. After extensively considering the father’s history, Dr B assessed the father as having an adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood then in remission. So far as the mother was concerned, after extensively considering her history, Dr B said the following –
(a)the wife held paranoid beliefs in relation to the husband;
(b)she was consumed by rage and anger directed to the father;
(c)she continually abuses and at times physically abuses him;
(d)she alienates herself in the process;
(e)she demonstrates little to no insight into the existence of her disturbed mental state, her paranoid beliefs, her errant uncontained rage and aggression, her lack of emotional regulation, her poor judgment and reality testing; and
(f)those matters were consistent with borderline personality and current paranoid illness.
Dr B reported that the mother urgently needed psychiatric treatment and that the situation was likely to deteriorate further until she engaged in such treatment.
Dr B reported that in his opinion the father did not pose a risk to the children.
Dr B said he had significant concerns about the mother’s capacity to care for the children and that based on certain audio visual footage seen by Dr B depicting her in a highly disturbed state of ranting, swearing and abusing the children the mother presented as a risk to the children and that until she engaged in appropriate psychiatric treatment serious consideration should be given to changing the children’s residence to ensure their safety.
Dr B’s 19 October 2020 report
Dr B was requested to report again having reviewed reports of Dr J (psychiatrist) dated 8 November 2019 and a report of Dr K (psychiatrist) dated 13 October 2020, the report of Ms L dated 24 August 2020, the report of Dr M (psychologist) dated 9 December 2019 as well as Dr M’s report dated on 8 October 2020.
Dr B expressed the view that having read those reports Dr B remained of the opinion that the children were at risk in the care of their mother and that the mother needed to undergo psychiatric treatment designed for individuals with personality disorder.
Dr B’s 11 November 2021 report
On 23 September 2021 I ordered Dr B to provide an updated report which he did on 11 November 2021. In that report, Dr B stated –
(a)the mother adamantly denied that she was psychiatrically unwell despite Dr B putting to her that she was;
(b)she persisted in her view that the father had attempted to kill her;
(c)she downplayed the intensity of her communications with the father in which she called him “a fucking murderer” and that he had “a family history of mental health and paedophilia”;
(d)she had little insight into the difficulties of her relationship with the father;
(e)she maintained her opinion that the father was a drug user yet she denied she was obsessed with his drug use;
(f)she was emboldened when speaking to Dr B, perceiving herself as the victim of the father and she called Dr B’s report “shocking”;
(g)she was distressed yet she did not describe herself as being depressed;
(h)she remains scared; and
(i)she lacks insight and was dismissive of her disturbed mental state and compromised psychological functioning.
Dr B remained of the view that the mother has a personality disorder in partial remission. Dr B remained of the view that a lack of awareness and insight continued to pose a risk to the mother’s ability to manage and understand the children and to support the relationship between them and the father.
Dr B’s cross-examination
On the fourth day of the trial of this proceeding, on 2 February 2023 Dr B was cross-examined, mostly by Mr Bryne of counsel for the mother. Dr B explained[1] how the mother’s personality disorder and delusional disorder impacted upon her ability to parent the children. Dr B said the following –
[DR B] – Well, the – both conditions are really part of the same problem, and the difficulty that I saw was that whilst she is a loving mother and has a certain bond with the children, her emotional dysregulation and, at times, paranoid views in regard to the father meant that she often could not contain herself, and there is – there are – there is some evidence that this was a problem when – she was seen when having contact that this was a problem also. She was inclined to be overly close and somewhat manipulative of the children, and her views of the husband meant that there was a very slanted approach to the parenting in the sense that the relationship between her and the children and the father – or the children and the father – was impacted upon in a negative kind of way. She, across the assessments, had difficulty containing herself in regard to the view of him and, as a result, she was often quite afraid and fearful of him, and it meant that she had difficulty in being with him, coparenting with him, and supporting the relationship between them.
…
MR BYRNE – When you reference my client, the mother, suffering from a delusional disorder, is that, in part, based upon your considered opinion that she has made allegations which you would characterise as, to use my word, fanciful or untrue?
[DR B] – I’ve seen her twice now and the last time I saw her she continued to maintain certain unshakable beliefs in regard to the father. That was part of the presentation at the time and she clearly is generally afraid of him. That was not commensurate with my assessment of him, however, and so the fixed nature of the belief, which was exhibited on both occasions, remains, I believe, a problem for her in allowing the relationship to develop. Delusional disorder is a condition in which there are firm and unshakable beliefs which are not open to persuasion. I don’t consider that she – having seen her twice, that she has a discrete delusional disorder, I think, as part of her personality functioning and personality disorder is known as – one of its diagnostic criteria is that of paranoid beliefs and I think the paranoid beliefs occur in the context of her general personality functioning. She has had some treatment and I felt that aspects of her condition had settled when I saw her the second time, but, overall, she had great difficulty in coming to another view of the husband and seeing him as functioning in a normal and reasonable manner. Similarly, the views expressed by the family therapist was similarly so on that second occasion, so I considered there were still risks in regard to her ability to care for the children in a way that allowed them to be free of the conflict between the parties.
[1] T 325 L1 – T326 L2.
Dr B disagreed with the diagnosis of the mother’s treating psychiatrist, Dr N, who considered the mother to have suffered from post traumatic stress disorder.
Ms Goldthorp of counsel for the father cross-examined Dr B. She asked[2] whether Dr B considered that any question may arise if a treating psychiatrist unreservedly accepted his patient’s evidence that the patient had been a victim of family violence. Dr B said the following –
[DR B] – Well, as those of us who are involved the [sic] court know, intervention orders are generally part of the process. Sometimes, they’re strategic. Sometimes, they occur because of beliefs that aren’t borne out under evidence. It is quite often a decision of some practicality that’s reached when someone accepts, by way of undertakings – in other words, there’s no acknowledgement. What happens is that – well, the court knows that. So, certainly, my experience is that intervention orders have become, at least quite often, a problem in that there’s nothing tested, really. They’re accepted. And then, it goes on. So if organisations like [P Organisation] and so on and so forth accept all these things, and often they’re quite relevant and accurate, but quite often, they’re not. So to simply accept it – and I understand that, as I said before, the role of the treating doctor is to accept what the patient says.
MS GOLDTHORPE – Right?
[DR B] – So – and it’s in that sense that there’s almost a culture that occurs whereby in accepting that, then, of course, the possibility of a diagnosis of PTSD arises. Whether or not that’s so in this case, you know, I think is open to debate.[3]
[2] T 332.
[3] T 332 – T 333.
Dr B was asked whether in his opinion a danger existed where the treating psychologist accepted the patient’s version of events that family violence actually occurred in the way the patient told the treating psychiatrist. To that Dr B said the following –
[DR B] – You know, I think that’s a danger, really. I think it’s a cause for concern. And insight orientated psychotherapy is something that we were all trained in years ago. And, you know, I’m getting towards the end of my career, but it was certainly something that was based on not accepting everything. But it I (sic) continued to work with the patient’s vulnerabilities and also certain beliefs, and challenging them. Now, I’m not sure whether that has been happening in that process. And if a doctor identifies himself as supporting victims of abuse as their rationale, then I think that, you know, that’s what carries the day. Certainly, the diagnosis of PTSD is something in this matter that I didn’t reach. And I don’t consider it’s a tenable diagnosis. But as I say, the two processes are different.[4]
[4] T 333 L 10 – 19.
For the mother, her treating psychiatrist Dr N made an affidavit on 7 February 2022.
Dr N’s report 20 September 2021
Dr N deposed to his qualifications as a consultant psychiatrist. His curriculum vitae recorded that he obtained his undergraduate qualifications in Country Q. He obtained a further qualification in the United Kingdom. He moved to Melbourne in 2012. He later obtained qualifications from the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. Between 2013 and 2017 Dr N was a consultant psychiatrist with various health services. Between 2017 and 2020 Dr N was in a senior position in the adult psychiatry unit at R Hospital. He holds a diploma in another field, obtained in 2018. He has been practising as a consultant psychiatrist since 2013, according to his curriculum vitae.
In his report Dr N stated that the mother was referred to him in May 2021, and that he first saw her in July 2021, two months prior to his report following which he saw her seven times over that two month period. In his 20 September 2021 report, Dr N offered the following opinions –
(a)the mother does not present with ongoing features of a personality disorder or delusional disorder;
(b)he agreed with the views of Dr J, Dr K and Dr S in that regard;[5]
(c)the mother’s mental state revealed features consistent with ongoing depressive and anxiety symptoms of mild severity and were a direct response to various stressors in her life over the last several years and were akin to a PTSD-like response from events over the last few years;
(d)the stress arose from the conflict with the father and his controlling behaviour and unpredictability due to intermittent drug use;
(e)the mother is insightful and remorseful about her behaviour recorded in a skype telephone call in December 2018;
(f)Dr N said the mother’s behaviour as depicted in the skype conversation was not properly diagnosed as being a personality disorder;
(g)no evidence existed of ongoing emotional or behavioural dysregulation;
(h)he was of the view that the mother’s current health condition did not impact upon her ability to care for her two children;
(i)he stated that the mother’s mental health would benefit significantly from reunification with her children; and
(j)he supported therapeutic intervention.
[5] None of those doctors gave evidence in this case.
Dr N’s report 7 February 2022
Dr N provided a second report, this one subsequent to Dr B’s 11 November 2021 report. By the time Dr N had provided his second report in February 2022, he had treated the mother for a little over six months. In his second report, Dr N stated –
(a)by reason of oversight on his part he omitted to refer in his earlier report that he had read and considered Dr B’s report;
(b)the broad statements made by Dr B in his 11 November 2021 report about the nature of psychotherapeutic treatment provided to the mother were made without discussions with Dr N;
(c)Dr B’s statement in his 11 November 2021 report that the mother suffered from a personality disorder in partial remission was given without adequate explanation;
(d)the mother has never met the criteria for a diagnosis for delusional disorder;
(e)the mother has exhibited a great deal of resilience to stress;
(f)Dr N considered it essential in the therapeutic process that the mother narrated her blame of the father for her past behaviour; and
(g)such conduct is common in victims of family violence.
Dr N’s report 15 August 2022
In this report Dr N diagnosed the mother as having anxiety disorder and complex PTSD. Among the more important matters that arose from the 15 August 2022 report were the following –
(a)Dr N’s aim in his report was to paint a picture of the external reality being faced by the mother in her relationship with the father;
(b)to describe her beliefs and actions at the time as persecutory in nature with delusional intensity is completely inaccurate and it overlooked the impact of family violence;
(c)the mother engaged in mediation in 2018 which is uncharacteristic of someone with delusional disorder;
(d)he vehemently dismissed the diagnosis of delusional disorder;
(e)he said the mother does not suffer from a personality disorder;
(f)it is not possible for a person suffering such personality disorder to starkly accept, as she has, the reality of her life and its impact on others;
(g)the mother has been erroneously diagnosed by other professionals as suffering from a personality disorder; and
(h)in his opinion, the mother’s current[6] emotional and mental state does not pose any direct risk to her ability to manage and care for the children.
[6] This was current as at August 2022.
Dr N’s cross-examination
Dr N was cross-examined by Ms Goldthorp. The following were the more important matters that emerged from Dr N’s cross-examination –
(a)he described the mother as a family violence survivor;
(b)he accepted the mother’s information she gave to Dr N that the mother was in fact a survivor of family violence;
(c)he admitted he relied heavily on what the mother told him;
(d)he accepted her allegations that she is a survivor of family violence;
(e)he described PTSD and said it was not a lifelong condition;
(f)he admitted that the conditions of PTSD and the personality disorder exist on the same spectrum yet the personality disorder is a lifelong condition whereas PTSD is not and a personality disorder is beyond a traumatic experience, usually involving a significantly negative sense of oneself;
(g)Dr N said that delusion was something that is out of normal human experience; and
(h)he agreed that if an event which the mother told Dr N occurred, yet that event did not in fact occur, the mother’s behaviour would not be delusional if she endeavoured to acquire some secondary gain.
Mr Gardiner for the ICL also cross-examined Dr N. The following were the more important matters that arose from Mr Gardiner’s cross-examination –
(a)a personality disorder can co-exist in a person along with PTSD;
(b)a person with a personality disorder is more likely to be vulnerable to developing complex PTSD; and
(c)a personality disorder is a very pervasive condition which generally has an onset in early teenage years.
In view of the diametrically opposed views taken by Dr B and Dr N about the mother having a personality disorder, I asked Dr N a collection of questions, all without objection. In response, Dr N said the following –
(a)it is possible for two eminent psychiatrists to consider the same set of circumstances and reach polar opposite views about a patient having or not having any of PTSD, personality disorder or delusions;
(b)as a starting point most medical practitioners generally accept the accuracy of the history as given to them by the patient;
(c)nothing adverse emerged from the information he obtained from the mother’s mother; and
(d)Dr N said that a psychiatrist must be truly convinced of the correctness of the diagnosis over a period of time before diagnosing delusional behaviour and a personality disorder.
I asked Dr N whether a person diagnosed with any of –
(a)a personality disorder;
(b)complex PTSD; or
(c)delusional behaviour;
can successfully discharge the responsibilities of parenthood. Dr N’s response was not entirely easy to follow. He said the following –
HIS HONOUR – Finally, forgive me if this has been a bit inquisitorial, but in any of the three circumstances that we’re talking about: [a] personality disorder, delusional behaviour, and complex PTSD, do all three or none of the three have a bearing on the person who you diagnose successfully interacting and behaving in a manner consistent with proper discharge of obligations towards parenting?
[DR N] – So I may break it down - - -
HIS HONOUR – Please do?
[DR N] – - - - conditions so, I guess, in persons with [a] personality disorder, if they’re having what we call as an emotional crisis or a situational crisis, that may render their ability to be a parent temporarily difficult. In complex PTSD, if – similarly if somebody has been in a situation where they have been triggered, and that has then, you know – and they’ve not been able to manage their trigger, and that led to a situation where they’re in an emotional state, for the duration that they’re in the emotional state, that can make it difficult for the person to parent, and contrasting this with somebody with a delusional disorder, really depend on the nature and the content of the delusion and whether that involved their children or not in the delusional system.
HIS HONOUR – Assume it did?
[DR N] – I guess, it really depends on, you know, the delusional content. I’m not avoiding your answer, again, I think I have seen a patient who believed their child was, you know, son of Jesus, so they took extra care for that person, and made sure they were, you know, extra nice to them and so forth. So I guess it really depends on that, versus if they believe there was something seriously wrong with their child and so forth. So it’s not the broad nature of delusional disorder per se, but the phenomenology of their delusions that would determine whether that person is at risk of not being able to be a good parent.[7]
[7][7] T 319 L 17 – 42.
Ms C
Ms C, a psychologist with T Psychology, provided two family reports, one dated 9 December 2019 and an updated report dated 23 July 2021. She exhibited those to her affidavit made 28 July 2021. Ms C also gave viva voce evidence and was cross-examined. It is necessary to address aspects of each family report and her evidence given in the witness box.
Ms C’s report 9 December 2019
When the children were aged 6 and 4 respectively, Ms C prepared a family report by which time the case was being managed by her Honour Judge Stewart. The more important matters that emerged from Ms C’s first family report were the following –
(a)in October 2019 Dr B had expressed the opinion that the father presented with an adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood in partial remission and that the mother presented with delusion disorder (persecutory type) and a personality disorder;
(b)the father impressed as being calm, and warm with an attuned style of engagement with the children;
(c)conversely, Ms C stated that if the mother’s diagnosis as a personality disorder was accurate, volatility and instability in relationships coupled with poor emotional regulation is a prominent symptom posing a risk to the children;
(d)Ms C took the view that the mother was a psychologically and emotionally unsafe parent;
(e)limiting her time with the children would likely limit her influence; and
(f)the father should continue as primary carer.
Ms C’s report 23 July 2021
At my request Ms C prepared an updated family report dated 23 July 2021 when this proceeding was to be heard on 9 August 2021. The more significant issues that arose from her updated report may be recorded as follows –
(a)the parties remained polarised and conflicted;
(b)the parents had been embroiled in a lengthy dispute over an intervention order sought by the mother against the father;
(c)Ms C recorded the father as being well modulated, his account of events organised and child focussed and that according to the father, the mother’s relationship with the children was unstable and unsafe;
(d)Ms C recorded that the children do not talk about the mother nor ask about her;
(e)Ms C recorded the father’s comment that co-parenting was unrealistic and that the mother’s unstable mental health will lead to ongoing risks to the children;
(f)the mother’s presentation when in the presence of the children was restricted in range, her facial expression was sombre and her dialogue was limited to brief questions;
(g)the mother told Ms C that the mother wanted shared time for the children; and
(h)the mother told Ms C that the father demonstrated an inability to facilitate a mother‑child relationship.
Ms C made a collection of recommendations. They were (consequent upon a full trial being heard) –
(a)the father to have sole parental responsibility;
(b)the children to live with the father; and
(c)the mother to spend no time with the children or communicate with them until the mother addresses her mental health issues and has been independently assessed as not posing a risk to the children.
Ms C’s cross-examination
Ms C was cross-examined by Mr Byrne and by Ms Goldthorp. In response to questions put by Mr Byrne, Ms C gave the following responses –
(a)the younger child, as had emerged prior to the trial, received a confirmed diagnosis that he suffered ADHD;
(b)Dr U, the child’s treating paediatrician, wrote to that effect in January 2023;
(c)a more cooperative parenting relationship could lead to the resumption of time between the mother and the children;
(d)ongoing parental conflict increases the risk to the younger child;
(e)the children express a wish to see their mother;
(f)the children’s wish to spend time with their mother is a separate issue to the severe dysregulation the children exhibit prior to and after their time with the mother;
(g)even if exemplary behaviour were exhibited by all, there will be periods of disruption if time is reintroduced by reason of the significant passage of elapsed time;
(h)Ms C said a risk to the children was the mother potentially undermining the role and importance the father plays in the children’s live;
(i)Ms C said she saw the mother – not the father – undermining the relationship;
(j)Ms C did not regard it as being supportive of any long term shared parental responsibility arrangement for the mother to be treated for PTSD; and
(k)it will be harmful to the elder child for her to be told that one of her parents will be cut off from that child and the same will apply to the younger child in years to come.
Ms Goldthorp of counsel cross-examined Ms C. The more important answers given by Ms C to questions put by Ms Goldthorp were as follows –
(a)at school the children exhibit dysregulated behaviour;
(b)their dysregulated behaviour may lie in the children’s historical exposure to traumatic events;
(c)when the younger child becomes dysregulated his behaviour includes oppositional behaviour, defiance and not being aware of his own safety;
(d)the mother does not have a sophisticated understanding of her stress responses;
(e)there were no changes in the elder child having demonstrated dysregulated behaviour;
(f)it is conceivable that the improvement in the behaviour revealed by the younger child is attributable to not only medication he is now on but also to having had a year’s break from spending time with the mother;
(g)the younger child’s improvement can be traced to having a sense of security in his primary care environment;
(h)if the mother’s negative beliefs about the father remained engrained, that is a good indicator of how the future will unfold;
(i)Ms C did not support an order for unsupervised time as between the mother and the children;
(j)Ms C expressed concern at the manner in which the mother’s psychiatric treatment has proceeded;
(k)the father is a competent parent who has a good understanding of the children’s inner world so he and his partner are best placed to explain the outcomes of this proceeding to the children and he will be best placed to determine whether professional support is required, say from Ms V, if the children display a strong grief reaction; and
(l)Ms C supports there being orders for no time between the mother and the children.
Mr Gardiner asked Ms C whether by now, the detriment to the children would have manifested itself. Ms C explained that detriment of which she spoke was the loss of a potential relationship. Ms C said the children will not know their mother has not been involved in their childhood and that the children, when adults, may regard that as detrimental.
In answer to some questions from me, Ms C gave still further evidence. It was to the following effect –
(a)by reason of the parents’ history of enmity between one another, their scope for cooperation was poor and Ms C predicted that posed a risk to the children;
(b)Ms C did not believe that the mother was capable of supporting unsupervised time with the children;
(c)whether the mother is shown to have complex PTSD, a personality disorder or delusional disorder, Ms C’s opinions remain unchanged; and
(d)Ms C’s recommendation in respect of the father having sole parental responsibility for the children strengthens.
SOME OBSERVATIONS FLOWING FROM THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE
A very substantial amount of time, effort and cost in this case was devoted to establishing on the balance of probabilities whether or not the mother was and remains afflicted by one or more psychological or psychiatric conditions.
It was said by the father that the evidence of Dr B supported a conclusion that the mother is affected by a personality disorder and delusional disorder. In resisting that proposition, it was put on behalf of the mother that the mother is not affected by a personality disorder or by delusional disorder and that instead at one time the mother was affected by complex PTSD.
Various reasons were advanced on behalf of the parties why I should make findings of fact about the state of the mother’s historical and current mental health issues. It seemed to me that it may be unduly prejudicial to the mother if I were to find, proof positive, that as a concluded fact the mother in fact and for all purposes is to be taken as suffering a personality disorder or delusional disorder. It must not be overlooked that a body of medical evidence existed in this case that was not called and so the opinions of Dr J, Dr U and Dr K were not fully canvassed before me nor were their opinions tested. Precisely why that body of medical evidence was not called went unexplained.
Instead, I was left with the medical evidence of Dr B and Dr N.
It cannot be denied that Dr B is an extremely highly credentialed psychiatrist having obtained membership of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists over 40 years ago. Since then Dr B has held accreditation in child psychiatry training and earlier, Dr B was a registrar in psychiatry in Country W. He has practised extensively in psychiatry since 1980 or thereabouts. By contrast, Dr N has practised psychiatry for over 10 years. By reason of their specialist training in psychiatry, there can be no dispute that each is to be taken at law as being an expert.[8]
[8] Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588, Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 and Honeysett v R (2014) 253 CLR 122.
I am willing to proceed on the basis that each of Dr B and Dr N has the requisite specialist education and training and professional practical experience to give evidence about a personality disorder, delusional disorder and complex PTSD. That said, it is likely that by reason of his substantial number of years in practice, Dr B has had greater exposure to patients having a personality disorder, delusional disorder and complex PTSD.
Further, I accept that as with most fields of sophisticated professional endeavour, especially in the learned profession of medicine, reasonable minds may differ in diagnosing a particular condition, particularly where no bright line exists to differentiate one condition from the condition held by another specialist. Here, Dr N told me that each condition – the personality disorder, delusional disorder and complex PTSD – are all on the same spectrum. He gave that evidence after Dr B gave his evidence and Dr B was not recalled so that such a proposition could be put to him. As a consequence, I was not favoured with Dr B’s version of Dr N’s proposition about the three conditions he mentioned being on the same spectrum.
That may have been significant because Dr N gave evidence that the personality disorder and delusional disorder were lifelong conditions whereas PTSD (even complex PTSD) was more likely less permanent.
It must be acknowledged that Dr B’s many reports in evidence in this case proceeded on an extremely searching and detailed examination. The first report included the histories of the mother and father, addressing in respect of each, their medical history, their interests, activities and hobbies, past psychiatric histories, previous relationships, personal histories, education, work histories, their emotional states, their specific psychological symptoms, their mental states in examination, their diagnoses, a summary and Dr B’s opinion. Dr B’s supplementary report was briefer. Dr B’s 11 November 2021 report provided an update of the mother’s assessment in considerable detail.
That is to be contrasted with Dr N’s reports, the first of which was dated 20 September 2021, and, as has already been observed, was prepared about two months after Dr N saw the mother for the first time. The background obtained by Dr N was perfunctory, to say the least. In the short time since seeing the mother and based on such a comparatively limited consideration of information, Dr N provided the unqualified opinion that the mother did not then present with a personality disorder or delusional disorder. Relevantly for this parenting proceeding, Dr N also expressed the view that the mother’s mental health condition did not impact on her ability to care for her two children. He made no mention of the recorded skype conversation that occupied a considerable amount of attention in this case.
To my mind, Dr N’s first report was superficial and devoid of depth as to context or explanation of his process of reasoning at which he arrived at the conclusions he did.
Dr N’s report dated 15 August 2022 was more sophisticated than was his first. In it Dr N persisted in his opinion that the mother had complex PTSD but that she did not have delusional disorder or a personality disorder. Dr N addressed specifically aspects of Ms C’s report, stating that four psychiatrists had refuted Ms C’s reliance upon the accuracy of the mother’s diagnosis of a personality disorder. That particular focus given by Dr N to Ms C’s report served to underscore one aspect of Dr N’s evidence that caused me very considerable concern.
Dr N told me that he accepted that the mother was a survivor of family violence. Most expert medical witnesses take histories from their patients and use it for diagnostic purposes or for treating purposes. Dr N’s characterisation and acceptance of the mother’s status as a survivor of family violence presumed not only the existence and perpetration of family violence but also that the mother had “survived” that family violence. In this case the phenomenon of family violence having been perpetrated by the father was a significant fact in issue. It was a disputed fact, especially in relation to the mother’s assertion that the father attempted to kill the mother while he was driving a motor vehicle. Rather than approaching the mother’s contentions about family violence as being her assertions only, Dr N accepted those assertions as being true and that the mother had nevertheless “survived” any such family violence. Dr N was cross‑examined on point. He took no steps to test the information imparted by the mother. Instead, he unreservedly accepted the truth of her statements about the father’s perpetration of family violence and proceeded to offer psychiatric opinions premised on the phenomenon that the mother was a survivor of family violence.
To my way of thinking, Dr N’s objectivity in his opinions and recommendations was thereby compromised. He became something of an advocate for the mother’s cause. I construed the evidence of Dr N as being less than objective. He is the mother’s treater. One can infer that he seeks a favourable outcome for the mother. I was not persuaded that he gave his evidence objectively, “warts and all”. Conversely, Dr B did.
That left the psychiatric evidence in a state of fluidity. It may be summarised in the following manner –
(a)Dr B gave consistent, unchanged evidence in his report and in his viva voce evidence that the mother suffers from a personality disorder and delusional disorder but not PTSD;
(b)Dr N rejected the mother’s diagnosis of a personality disorder or delusional personality disorder, asserting instead that the mother suffered from complex PTSD;
(c)Dr B firmly disagreed with the mother’s diagnosis of complex PTSD;
(d)Dr N said each of the personality disorder and complex PTSD are on the same spectrum;
(e)Dr N’s examination into the mother’s parenting capacity having complex PTSD was superficial;
(f)Dr B’s assessment of the mother was that her personality disorder and delusional disorder rendered her a risk to the children by reason of her unregulated behaviour; and
(g)Ms C said no matter which diagnosis was held to apply to the mother, the mother posed a risk to the children and that the mother should have no time with the children.
It is of the highest importance to recognise that the mother remains in need of ongoing psychiatric help and that she has taken no step to avail herself of that help beyond consulting Dr N.
In my view, Ms C provided a rational, logical, measured and considered assessment of the issue of parental responsibility and time for each parent with the children. In her viva voce evidence she was not much concerned by the psychiatric characterisation of the mother’s emotional fabric, whether as complex PTSD, personality disorder or delusional disorder. Ms C said in unmistakable terms that the father should have sole parental responsibility for the children and that the mother should have no time with the children as she poses a risk to them. Her assessment on both issues accords with, but is not determinative of, my own assessment that, based on the totality of the evidence and the matters canvassed below, the mother poses risks to the children.
Dr M’s evidence
Dr M is a consultant forensic psychologist. She made two affidavits, the first on 5 November 2020 and the second on 17 December 2020. Both formed part of the joint court book which became agreed exhibit 1.[9] She was not required to attend for cross-examination. She exhibited to her affidavits the following reports –
(a)9 December 2019;
(b)28 August 2020;
(c)21 September 2020;
(d)8 October 2020; and
(e)16 December 2020.
[9] CB 203 to CB 232.
Dr M stated in her curriculum vitae that she holds a tertiary qualification, she is a doctor of psychology, she holds a postgraduate qualification in psychology and relevantly, she is a member of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law. She stated that she provides services to children, adolescents and adults from a range of cultural and religious backgrounds who present with a range of psychological vulnerabilities. She said she has practised since 2004.
Dr M’s 9 December 2019 report
Dr M met the children on 7 December 2019. Dr M observed from that meeting that –
(a)the elder child loves both parents;
(b)even though the elder child does not live with the mother, the elder child wants to tell the mother she (the elder child) loves the mother;
(c)the elder child acknowledged that the she gets nervous, worried and scared prior to seeing the mother;
(d)at times, the elder child is confused about seeing the mother;
(e)the elder child explained that her worry and fear of her mother was based on observing the mother getting angry at the father lots of times;
(f)the elder child told Dr M that it made the elder child sad to see her parents fight; and
(g)the elder child said she gets nervous before seeing her mother because she thinks her mother will fight with her father.
Dr M’s 28 August 2020 report
Dr M provided a short report on 28 August 2020 subsequent to her 9 December 2019 report. In it Dr M reported that in January 2020 the children were relaxed. In January 2020 the children had no contact with their mother. When contact with the mother was restabilised, the children’s behaviour deteriorated to the extent that the elder child altogether refused to see the mother. In August 2020 the elder child refused to attend a visit with the mother. Dr M reported that the most positive change for the children occurred in January 2020 when they maintained no contact with the mother. Dr M recommended that the current contact between the children and their mother be put on hold so that the children could experience less distress and dysregulation.
Dr M’s 21 September 2020 report
In that report Dr M responded to several questions posed by the father’s solicitors. In précis form, Dr M recommended –
(a)the video calls with the mother be put on hold;
(b)supervised time should also be put on hold until completion of this litigation;
(c)Dr M’s engagement continue;
(d)the children’s distress and dysregulation tells of the events that are occurring around the children;
(e)it is too early to say whether the children’s behaviour has stabilised; and
(f)establishing regular visits with the mother is likely to see the undoing of the progress made by the children with the resurfacing of their distress and dysregulation.
Dr M was not cross-examined. Her evidence was unmistakable – if the mother’s involvement returned to the children’s lives, they were likely to again become distressed and dysregulated.
To my mind Dr M’s evidence provided a very sound basis, when undertaking the predictive exercise about risk of harm, that the children are likely to suffer distress and dysregulation if the children interact again with their mother. Dr M made it perfectly plain that the children’s distress and dysregulation corresponded closely (if not exactly) with the time they spent with the mother. Dr M recommended the cessation of work of the supervisor as the contact between the children and their mother ignited distress and dysregulation in the children.
ASSESSING THE PARENTS GENERALLY
Before addressing the details of the evidence each gave on various contested matters, it is utile to record my findings about the father and the mother generally which are relevant to the determination of issues in the parenting proceeding. To this I now turn.
The father
In my view the father was and remains a devoted father. He has repartnered with a woman who has the best interests of the children uppermost at heart. Together they provide a stable and loving environment for the children, free from the chaos and relentless hatred that permeated the relationship between the children’s parents.
The father is not particularly ambitious in his career and has taken a large amount of time in unpaid leave to care for the children. When giving evidence he presented as retiring and softly spoken. At times he was difficult to hear. I formed the view that he has been ever present in the children’s lives even in the face of trenchant criticism of him by the mother. He has endured a long history of the mother’s unrestrained vociferous and withering campaign to publically humiliate him for being a person given to family violence. In like manner, he has endured relentless accusations by the mother that he takes drugs, a point he has repeatedly denied. While I was unimpressed with his communications with Dr N, it made no real difference in my determination of this case. Further, when closely questioned he gave answers that were responsive, not argumentative, making appropriate concessions and at no stage did I detect prevarication by him.
The mother
Of the mother I took a different view. In making the comments that follow I have carefully applied the reasoning in Galea v Galea[10] in which the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales provided guidance on the assessment of credit. As I observed in Gerber & Beck[11] –
182.During the course of the trial I had the opportunity of carefully observing the father and the mother and their demeanour in the witness box especially. The mother and father were cross examined for a number of days. Consequently, I was able to observe not only what they said but how they said what each said. As the trial judge I enjoyed all the benefits to which Kirby ACJ averted in Galea v Galea. There, his Honour held that the advantages enjoyed by the trial judge were as follows –
a)hearing the evidence in its entirety;
b)hearing and seeing all evidence in context, chronologically and logically advanced;
c)having time during adjournments and during the running of the case to reflect upon the evidence and to weigh it against all other evidence while fresh;
d)hearing and seeing interruptions, hesitations and delays in the giving of testimony; and
e)observing body language, sometimes important for interpreting communication.
[10] (1990) 19 NSWLR 263.
[11] [2020] FamCA 210.
Sir Richard Eggleston also made observations on the assessment of credit where two persons who are witnesses to the very same event give divergent accounts of their evidence. In his seminal textbook on evidence on point, the following was said –
What are the factors that a judge takes into account when deciding whether a witness is telling the truth? They may be listed as follows –
1)The inherent consistency of the story: if the evidence of the witness contains internal contradictions, it cannot be accepted as a whole. The question may be which part to reject.
2)Consistency with other witnesses: this, of course, involves making an assessment also of the other witnesses, which in turn requires consideration of the factors here set out in relation to those witnesses also.
3)Consistency with undisputed facts: these include documentary evidence (if not subject to attack), facts admitted by the parties, or matters of common knowledge or experience.
4)The ‘credit’ of the witness: in addition to the observation of his performance in the witness-box, this will include ... evidence of bias against a party; or evidence of a general reputation for mendacity.
5)Observation of the witness: this includes physical manifestations of truthfulness or mendacity, or of uncertainty, and also characteristics observable in the witness-box or capable of being tested there (hearing and eyesight, capacity to judge distance or height) ...
6)The inherent probability or improbability of the story.[12]
[12] Sir Richard Eggleston, Evidence, Proof and Probability (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2nd edition, 1983) 192-193.
The mother was an argumentative witness. She fought with the cross-examiner rather than answering straightforward questions put to her which were capable of simple response. She frequently volunteered responses that were not pertinent to the question being asked of her. Further, I took the view that in many responses to questions put to her she answered only so much of the question as she perceived to be purposeful to her own position in the case. In other words, I formed the view that she did not answer with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Her approach in responding in that manner meant that she fell short of her duty as a witness, as was canvassed by the High Court of Australia in Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd.[13] Further, when asked questions that were perfectly capable of a response, the mother often feigned an inability to answer and requested the question to be repeated differently.
[13] (2011) 243 CLR 361.
In order to make good those observations it became necessary to go to specific issues from her cross-examination. However, before going to that it is relevant to point out that the father made three recordings of interactions with the mother which Ms Goldthorp conceded[14] were inadmissible, as a likely contravention of s 11 of the Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic), and Ms Goldthorp sought leave to admit those recordings relying on my decision in Gin v Hing[15] as well as the general permissive enabling feature reposed in s 138 of the Evidence Act where the probative value of admitting the evidence outweighs the prejudicial influence of refusing admission of the recording. After a break during which Ms Goldthorp assembled her submissions that she had not previously assembled,[16] Ms Goldthorp conceded a contravention of s 11 of the Surveillance Devices Act yet she submitted that the exception in s 11(2)(b)(ii) was applicable. The “lawful interests” that the father was attempting to advance by introducing the recordings in evidence was his defence of the mother’s accusations that he had perpetrated family violence against the mother as well as the father’s separate interest that he acts in the best interests of the children.
[14] Transcript 30 January 2023 T 46 L 19.
[15] (2019) 63 Fam LR 258.
[16] Transcript 30 January 2023 T 48 L 28-47.
During debate with Ms Goldthorp it occurred to me that a large number of witnesses had been shown the impugned video and that those witnesses had based their own evidence, in whole or in part, on the contents of those videos, even though the events depicted in the videos dated back to 2018. The exchange unfolded in the following manner –
HIS HONOUR –…There’s a major temporal gap here which has to be addressed in some shape or form, but the thought crossed my mind that, given that so many people have provided evidence based on this document – electronic document, that is – at a time when its status was unknown, probably wrongly, therefore if I rule against you on the admissibility, so too would all other people who have given evidence based on the admissibility of the document also have to come out. Would it not?
MS GOLDTHORP – Yes, your Honour. That would follow.
HIS HONOUR – It’s a – it’s a highly presumptuous position to adopt to send a USB of illegally obtained information to other witnesses asking them to accept the truth of it and then inviting them to comment on it when the status of that evidence is not yet assured. It still is not known until I rule on the point. There may be all sorts of costs consequences in adopting that approach.
MS GOLDTHORP – Your Honour - - -
HIS HONOUR – What do you ask me to do?[17]
[17] T 53 L 26-45.
Mr Byrne for the wife opposed the receipt of the recordings. Mr Gardiner for the ICL submitted that Dr B had used the information in the recordings on which to base his opinions about the mother’s psychiatric state.
I ruled that the recordings were in fact admissible.[18] The mother was cross-examined on aspects of those recordings as is recorded below. Returning to the mother’s cross-examination, the more important matters that arose from her cross-examination may be narrated in précis form as follows –
[18] Mornony & Nicolle (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC1F 31.
(a)the mother undertook a course of study through Z University;[19]
[19] T 168 L 34-35.
(b)she was, in February 2023, actively seeking work and had been for six months to then;
(c)she paid $8 a week for both children;
(d)after late 2018 (described by the mother as “the car incident”) the mother formed the view that the paternal grandparents were not appropriate persons to look after the children because the actions of the father’s father were not in the children’s best interests;[20]
[20] T 173 L 37.
(e)the mother said that the paternal grandfather’s question to the mother about what she did to investigate the car incident represented actions that were not in the best interests of the children;[21]
[21] Ibid.
(f)the mother said the paternal grandparents were not supportive of her after the parents’ separation because the paternal grandparents did not look after the children when the mother requested them to do so;[22]
[22] T 175 L 35.
(g)the mother admitted that it was bizarre that she parked and remained in her car in the driveway of the paternal grandparents’ home in mid-2018 for two and a half hours;[23]
[23] T 177 L 32.
(h)the mother agreed that in early 2019 she attended the family home with the younger child when the father and the elder child were present when the mother walked through the house, searching through boxes and yelling hysterically at the father stating that the father needed to do a drug test;[24]
[24] T 177 L 41-45.
(i)the mother agreed that it was highly inappropriate for the children to be exposed to that;[25]
[25] T 178 L 15.
(j)she said she wished she had handled that differently;[26]
[26] T 178 L 41.
(k)she did not recall calling police;[27]
[27] T 179 L 13.
(l)the mother is one of five children and she has multiple step siblings and half siblings;
(m)as a consequence of a telephone conversation between the mother and Ms AA, who the father retained to support the children in relation to a change of the children’s residence, in November 2019 the mother communicated with Ms AA after which Ms AA’s involvement ceased;[28]
[28] T 191.
(n)the mother objected to Ms AA’s involvement because the mother was not involved from the beginning;[29]
[29] T 192 L 23-25.
(o)the mother agreed that during the mother’s counsel’s opening it was stated that the mother no longer pursues concerns about the father’s drug use;[30]
(p)the mother agreed she has required the father to do drug screening before she will let the father have time with the children;[31]
(q)the mother agreed that it was humiliating for the father to be required to do that testing at Suburb BB Police Station on the side of the road;[32]
(r)all but one drug screen was negative yet the mother posted a facebook entry stating “Dear world, [Mr Mornony] has done two positive drug tests so we will be divorced in two weeks”;[33]
(s)the mother agreed she took down that facebook post because she felt humiliated;
(t)she agreed that it was inappropriate for her to put up the facebook post;
(u)the mother agreed[34] that she would not have left her children with a drug user;
(v)the mother did not know if she used words to Ms CC, in reference to the father “He’s incompetent, a buffoon. It’s hard to see him as malicious”;
(w)despite the mother alleging that the father sexually assaulted her in mid-2018, the mother was unable to say whether she divulged that to Ms CC;[35] and
(x)the mother requested SOCIT not to pursue any allegation of sexual assault allegedly suffered by her in mid-2018.[36]
[30] T 194 L 3-7.
[31] T 197.
[32] T 197 L 26.
[33] T 198 L 33.
[34] T 201 L 13.
[35] T 204 L 35.
[36] T 205 L 10.
The mother was cross-examined about the car incident that she alleged occurred in late 2018. The mother admitted that she alleged that she described the event as the father attempting to kill her. On behalf of the father, Ms Goldthorp pursued the mother with some vigour on point. In answer to the question whether the mother still held the belief that the father attempted to kill her, the mother said variously –
(a)she was terrified at the time;[37]
(b)she did not know what the father meant to do;[38]
(c)she believed that the father was a person capable of killing the mother;[39]
(d)that is not now her view;[40]
(e)in 2018 and 2019 when the mother saw Dr B, she held the view that the father had attempted to murder her by running her over;[41]
(f)the mother considered that such a view was rational;[42]
(g)the mother agreed the police declined to pursue any charges;[43] and
(h)after the father allegedly attempted to kill the mother she nevertheless continued to interact with the father over spending time with the children.[44]
[37] T 206.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Ibid.
[42] Ibid.
[43] Ibid.
[44] T 207 L 20-23.
The mother was questioned about her hostility towards the father and its impact on the children. She said –
(a)she was concerned that the children are not supported in loving their mother;[45]
(b)she “regrettably” (her word) would pick up a telephone and “blast” (her word) the father in messages;[46]
(c)the mother admitted engaging in behaviour that led the elder child to feeling worried and scared at seeing the mother by reason of the mother’s constant anger at the father;[47]
(d)the mother agreed that it was concerning that the elder child had tried to stop the mother from saying negative things about the father but that the child’s attempts had not worked;[48] and
(e)the mother had done and said things she regretted.
[45] T 209 L 1-2.
[46] T 209 L 27.
[47] T 210 L 40.
[48] T 211 L 9.
The mother was asked about her interaction with various health professionals. The following is an extract of some of her more relevant information in that regard –
(a)the mother admitted that she had difficulty in engaging with Dr M;[49]
[49] T 211 L 38.
(b)the mother objected to her being described as a patient of Dr M and that was the reason the relationship with Dr M broke down;[50]
[50] T 214 L 43.
(c)the mother said she did not register as a patient of Dr M because she did not understand why she was being required to do so;[51]
[51] T 215 L 25.
(d)the mother informed a prospective psychologist for the children that they were affected persons on an intervention order because (so the mother said) the giving of that information provided context to the prospective psychologist;[52]
[52] T 219 L 42.
(e)when pressed why the mother considered such context was necessary, the mother said “because the kids are experiencing things that maybe are confusing”;[53]
[53] T 220 L 25.
(f)the mother agreed[54] that she should have told Ms AA that Dr B had diagnosed the mother with a personality disorder and that Dr B had expressed concerns about the children’s safety when in the mother’s care;[55]
(g)the mother disagreed that she did not wish to abide by the procedures of Dr M, the children’s treating psychologist;[56]
(h)the mother agreed she had a disagreement with Dr M leading to Dr M threatening to telephone police unless the mother left Dr M’s rooms;[57]
(i)the mother said she did not know whether her behaviour in Dr M’s rooms was of such concern that Dr M would have to call police unless the mother left;[58]
(j)the mother said she asked Dr M why Dr M was calling the police to which the mother said she (the mother) asked Dr M why Dr M saw the mother via Medicare (her words);[59]
(k)the mother said she may have come across as very persistent about trying to understand when Dr M had seen her children;[60]
(l)the mother admitted that her behaviour depicted in the video on 27 December 2018 was appalling;[61]
(m)the mother admitted she was verbally abusive and that the children were afraid;[62]
(n)the mother admitted that the messages in which she wrote “kill me” four times were unhinged, appalling and verbally abusive;[63] and
(o)the mother denied she deliberately had a picnic in a park near the father’s home in the hope that she would cause the father to breach the intervention order that forbad him from being 10 metres from the mother.
[54] T 220 L 45.
[55] T 221 L 2.
[56] T 222 L 37.
[57] T 223 L 38.
[58] T 223 L 41.
[59] T 224 L 27.
[60] T 224 L 37.
[61] T 225 L 41.
[62] T 226 L 25.
[63] T 230.
The mother said she took the view that Dr B was partisan.[64]
[64] T 238 – T 239.
The mother said she had been subjected to what she called “structural violence” yet she admitted she did not know what that phrase meant.[65]
[65] T 243.
The mother was asked questions about her interaction with the supervisor Ms DD. The more important issues from the mother’s evidence on point were as follows –
(a)despite the mother being told to remain at all times within eyesight and earshot of the supervisor, the mother communicated with the children in other languages which the mother said was an oversight;[66]
[66] T 246 L 28.
(b)the mother told Ms DD that the father had limited parenting capacity;[67]
[67] T 247 L 31.
(c)the mother agreed that it was not appropriate for her to talk with Ms DD at the first supervision session in the presence of the children about the mother’s co-parenting relationship with the father;[68]
[68] T 248 L 29.
(d)the mother admitted she told Ms DD that she, the mother, had been the victim of family violence;[69]
[69] T 249 L 2.
(e)the mother admitted that Ms DD told the mother to be mindful of what the mother said in front of the children after which the mother’s demeanour towards Ms DD changed abruptly and the mother blamed Ms DD;[70]
[70] T 251.
(f)the mother admitted to telling Ms DD that she (the mother) was a victim of family violence, that she had been raped by the father, that the father had almost killed the mother and that the father had a history of drug use;[71]
[71] T 252.
(g)the mother said she thought it gave context to Ms DD’s role as supervisor for the mother to tell Ms DD those things;[72]
[72] T 252 L 40.
(h)the mother recalled another supervisor being involved whose name was Ms EE;[73]
[73] T 258.
(i)the mother said she became frustrated with Ms EE when Ms EE told the mother that the mother was not permitted to climb on equipment;[74]
[74] T 258 L 30.
(j)the mother admitted to using Ms EE’s name when Ms EE had asked the mother not to;[75]
[75] T 259.
(k)the mother admitted that Ms EE told the mother during a supervision session that unless the mother stopped being challenging the supervision session would end;[76]
[76] T 260 L 15.
(l)the mother admitted she was non-compliant towards Ms EE;[77]
[77] T 261 L 33.
(m)the mother admitted that the supervision in January 2020 was difficult;[78]
(n)the mother denied she used her phone to film Ms EE but the mother recalled taking out her phone in an attempt to call Ms DD;
(o)the mother did not answer a question put by Ms Goldthorp that Ms EE had stated that the mother continually challenged the process, that the mother was defiant and that the mother caused risk and harm to the children without remorse;[79]
(p)the mother said Ms EE was lying about aspects of her evidence;[80]
(q)the mother agreed to having sent 18 text messages to Ms EE between a particular Friday and Saturday morning;[81]
(r)the mother was upset with Ms EE and as no other supervisor was available, the mother ended supervision with FF Contact Centre;[82]
(s)the mother agreed that GG Contact Centre commenced in June 2020;[83]
(t)GG Contact Centre ceased its involvement in August 2020, the mother agreed;[84]
(u)Ms V thereafter commenced as supervisor, the mother agreed;[85] and
(v)the mother agreed that Ms V ceased her work because the risk to the children was too great although the mother disputed that after spending only nine hours with her and the children that Ms V’s recommendation was fair.[86]
[78] T 262.
[79] T 264.
[80] T 266 L 17.
[81] T 266 L 46.
[82] T 268 L 15.
[83] T 269 L 45.
[84] T 270 L 15.
[85] T 271 L 20.
[86] T 273 L 40.
The mother agreed that Ms V told the mother that the children needed a break from spending time with the mother.[87]
[87] T 278 L 44.
Despite that, the mother admitted to attending a venue in November 2020 in order to see the children,[88] although the mother denied ignoring a court order when attending the venue, saying that “I thought it would be good for me to be present”.[89]
[88] T 279 L 3.
[89] T 280 L 8.
In answer to questions put by Mr Gardiner of counsel for the ICL, the mother gave evidence of the matters set out below. They included the following –
(a)the car incident occurred prior to the video recording;
(b)the supervisor at FF Contact Centre was inappropriate;
(c)the mother admitted to ceasing supervision with GG Contact Centre thereafter;
(d)the mother said Ms VV did not have information from the mother’s psychiatrist;
(e)the mother said she considered Ms EE inappropriate because Ms EE wore stiletto shoes to the contact visit, she held a door wide open when the younger child went to the toilet and she said she could write what she wanted and the mother would have to deal with it;[90]
(f)the mother agreed that Ms V ceased her work because she determined that the benefit to the children was far outweighed by the detriment;
(g)despite several professional witnesses saying that the mother should have no more time with the children, the mother said she pressed her application for shared care;
(h)the mother said that in her view it was important for the children to have their mother in their lives;[91] and
(i)the mother admitted that by that statement the mother was saying “it’s about me”.[92]
[90] T 292.
[91] T 297 L 30.
[92] T 298 L 44.
Having carefully read the mother’s trial affidavit material, observed the mother and listened to her when she gave viva voce evidence and having carefully read the transcript of her evidence, I have been able to make a variety of findings in relation to the mother. Those views bear upon my determinations in this case on parenting issues. It is utile to record them below, although not in any particular order of importance. Those views include the following –
(a)the mother holds an extremely deep seated dislike for the father;
(b)her unwillingness or inability to behave cooperatively with the father demonstrated the unlikelihood of any prospect of cooperative shared parenting;
(c)the mother adopts an unrealistic approach when asserting that she believes the children should have their mother in their lives while concurrently ignoring that any such belief has at its core her own interests but not the children’s best interests;
(d)the mother’s interaction with professional persons was very poor, requiring Dr M to demand for the mother to leave Dr M’s premises or the police would be called and in the cases of Ms DD, Ms EE and Ms V cessation of support mostly by reason of the mother’s poor conduct and disobedience of their recommendations;
(e)despite being told not to engage with the children, the mother nevertheless attended an event to see the children after the mother was told by some employee of the children’s school (who did not give evidence) that doing so was permissible;
(f)the mother’s reasoning for terminating Ms EE’s services was irrational when based on her wearing stiletto shoes and not closing a toilet door;
(g)the mother maintained an unshakeable view that the father was a drug user;
(h)the mother’s seemingly relentless prosecution of the father over intervention orders;
(i)the mother’s behaviour as depicted in the videos of the skype recording in December 2018 was beyond inappropriate – it revealed appalling conduct by the mother and such conduct occurred in front of the children; and
(j)the mother behaved in an uncooperative manner with Ms DD, Ms EE and Ms V in circumstances where each was attempting to assist the mother and the children.
I find that the mother holds an unshakable belief that she is a victim of family violence committed by the father and she took the view that it was essential for her to tell all and any professional that she had been subjected to family violence, because, so she said, it was necessary to give context to her circumstances.
Further, the mother in most instances did not provide responsive evidence and instead used questions as an opportunity for her to make a speech about some point or another she wanted to advance. The following is an illustration, derived from Mr Gardiner’s cross-examination of the mother[93] –
[93] T 294 – T295.
MR GARDINER – All right. Why did you raise the issue of – when I asked that question a moment ago, why did you raise the issue of the IVO? See, what - - -?
[MS NICOLLE] – It was on that day that contact stopped because [Mr Mornony] said he - - -
MR GARDINER – But why was it necessary to say that? See, all the way through these proceedings you’ve raised all these issues constantly and not answered questions. You’ve taken the opportunity to effectively raise things about what – [Mr Mornony’s] conduct without answering the actual question that was asked. Why do you do that?
[MS NICOLLE] – I am answering the question and providing context.
MR GARDINER – See, you still – you still to this very day can’t cope with [Mr Mornony] in any way whatsoever, can you?
[MS NICOLLE] – I can. I think it would be important to have an intermediary like [Ms V].
MR GARDINER – All right. And the reality is you still – well, I will take you top age [sic] 863 of the court book, please. It’s [Dr B’s] report. This is the second report, s it’s the update report, effectively. The paragraph at the top, it says “Talk”. About four sentences down, it starts, “Her presentation”. All right? It says:
Her presentation on this occasion was more contained to that when I first assessed her but involved elements of the same issues in regard to [Mr Mornony], perceiving him as an abusive drug-taker, a husband who was unsupportive, who had deprived her of contact with her children.
MR GARDINER – Correct?
[MS NICOLLE] – Yes.
MR GARDINER – All right. So your view hasn’t changed, really, has it? That’s exactly how you perceive [Mr Mornony]. Just answer the question yes or no. It’s simple?
[MS NICOLLE] – No.
MR GARDINER – All right. How is it different?
[MS NICOLLE] – I think we can work towards the kids having both of us in our lives.
MR GARDINER – How could you possibly work towards the children together when you even – when there’s a contact changeover outside a police station, you seek to have him breached – have the intervention order breached. It’s at a police station. What did you think he was going to do at a police station? What did you think he was going to do on that day?
[MS NICOLLE] – Sorry, on which day?
MR GARDINER – The day that you breached him at the police station. It was a contact changeover, and you then – that was a breach. That was one of the breaches you had him charged with; correct? It was at the [Suburb BB] Police Station?
[MS NICOLLE] – Yes, there was a changeover at [Suburb BB] Police Station.
MR GARDINER – Yes, and that – on that day you said that if – I can’t remember the exact words. I think he was within 10 metres of you, so – and that’s at a contact changeover outside a police station. What did you think he was going to do at a police station? Was he going to hit you over the head with a hammer or something at the police station?
[MS NICOLLE] – No, but the [Suburb BB] Police Station said that their procedure was different. We would come into the station and then one parent - - -
MR GARDINER – No, that’s not the question I asked. What was he going to do? What did you think he was going to do? How was he – what was he – what was his conduct going to be that you were so frightened of that you had to report him for a breach at a contact changeover in front of the children?
[MS NICOLLE] – I didn’t report him in front of the children.
MR GARDINER – I’m going to ask the same question again, if you don’t want to answer it I will presume that you haven’t got an answer for it. What did you think he was going to do? It’s not a hard question, is it?
[MS NICOLLE] – I don’t know.
[9/3/18, 2:00:12 pm] Mr Mornony: There have been lots of good nights
[9/3/18, 2:00:26 pm] Ms Nicolle: Emotional support is paramount to my fucking health and stability
[9/3/18, 2:00:47 pm] Ms Nicolle: It has been deteriorating for years
[9/3/18, 2:01:11 pm] Ms Nicolle: [Country JJ] I took a big hit
[9/3/18, 2:01:23 pm] Ms Nicolle: Since rainbow, I have little hope left.
[9/3/18, 2:01:42 pm] Ms Nicolle: Since last night, I don't know why you're still with me if you find me so fucking repulsive.
[9/3/18, 2:02:00 pm] Ms Nicolle: I am more comfortable removing myself from you.
[9/3/18, 2:02:30 pm] Mr Mornony: I don’t find you repulsive at all
[9/3/18, 2:02:42 pm] Ms Nicolle: You don't fucking act like it
[9/3/18, 2:04:16 pm] Mr Mornony: I’m sorry, I really love you
[9/3/18, 2:04:25 pm] Ms Nicolle: You are not sorry
[9/3/18, 2:04:45 pm] Ms Nicolle: You keep salting the wind and make it deeper.
[9/3/18, 2:04:56 pm] Ms Nicolle: Wound*
[9/3/18, 2:05:17 pm] Mr Mornony: I’m trying to make things better, I really am
[9/3/18, 2:05:18 pm] Ms Nicolle: You do and say everything to make it worse.
[9/3/18, 2:07:27 pm] Ms Nicolle: Sitting up to counseling is the only way I see you are trying.
[9/3/18, 2:07:36 pm] Ms Nicolle: Showing*
[9/3/18, 2:07:44 pm] Ms Nicolle: I am tired.
[9/3/18, 2:07:52 pm] Ms Nicolle: I am tired of feeling worthless.
[9/3/18, 2:09:41 pm] Mr Mornony: You’re not worthless, not at all
[9/3/18, 2:10:13 pm] Ms Nicolle: Please stop regurgitating my words. I know mine have meaning when they come from Me.5. 21 April 2018
[21/4/18, 7:55:32 pm] Mr Mornony: I’m going to the restaurant. I’d love you to join
[21/4/18, 7:55:41 pm] Ms Nicolle: Bullshit.
[21/4/18, 7:55:45 pm] Ms Nicolle: I'll call you an escort
[21/4/18, 7:56:01 pm] Ms Nicolle: I'm sure their much better company
[21/4/18, 7:56:10 pm] Ms Nicolle: And more deserving of your try
[21/4/18, 7:56:22 pm] Ms Nicolle: And your communication
[21/4/18, 7:56:25 pm] Mr Mornony: There’s not, I love you and you’re who I want to try for
[21/4/18, 7:56:29 pm] Ms Nicolle: I'm the fucking problem
[21/4/18, 7:56:41 pm] Ms Nicolle: I don't want to ruin your night
[21/4/18, 7:56:49 pm] Ms Nicolle: (said you, NEVER)
[21/4/18, 7:57:00 pm] Ms Nicolle: You have never fucking tried
[21/4/18, 7:57:08 pm] Ms Nicolle: Tonight, case in point.
[21/4/18, 7:57:17 pm] Ms Nicolle: Tell the kids I love them.
[21/4/18, 7:57:24 pm] Ms Nicolle: Tell [Mr PP] we broke up.
[21/4/18, 7:57:36 pm] Ms Nicolle: I'm sure he'll have some ass for you, just like old times.
[21/4/18, 7:58:36 pm] Mr Mornony: Please try to come and try again. I think it’s worth it
[21/4/18, 7:58:46 pm] Ms Nicolle: YOU TRY
[21/4/18, 7:58:56 pm] Mr Mornony: And me, yes of course
[21/4/18, 7:58:56 pm] Ms Nicolle: I think the food is worth it.
[21/4/18, 7:59:01 pm] Ms Nicolle: Not sure you are.
[21/4/18, 7:59:11 pm] Mr Mornony: So come for thAt
[21/4/18, 7:59:35 pm] Mr Mornony: And maybe I’ll be worth it too
[21/4/18, 7:59:52 pm] Ms Nicolle: So I'm a cheap bitch you can buy dinner and fuck?
[21/4/18, 8:00:07 pm] Ms Nicolle: And not be held accountable?
[21/4/18, 8:00:15 pm] Ms Nicolle: And not try for?
[21/4/18, 8:00:19 pm] Mr Mornony: I just want to make you happy
[21/4/18, 8:00:21 pm] Mr Mornony: And try
[21/4/18, 8:00:25 pm] Ms Nicolle: Bullshit.
[21/4/18, 8:00:28 pm] Ms Nicolle: BULLSHIT
[21/4/18, 8:00:41 pm] Ms Nicolle: I don't even know the fucking name of the place
[21/4/18, 8:00:55 pm] Mr Mornony: [QQ Restaurant]
[21/4/18, 8:01:00 pm] Ms Nicolle: Enjoy.
[21/4/18, 8:01:04 pm] Mr Mornony: Just past [RR Street]
[21/4/18, 8:01:05 pm] Ms Nicolle: I'll call you an escort.
[21/4/18, 8:02:04 pm] Mr Mornony: I’d much rather have a nice night with you and try to make things better (me try)
[21/4/18, 8:02:17 pm] Ms Nicolle: You just told me things will never get better
[21/4/18, 8:02:30 pm] Ms Nicolle: You just told me you can't have a nice night with me
[21/4/18, 8:02:47 pm] Ms Nicolle: You're a liar too?
[21/4/18, 8:03:12 pm] Mr Mornony: No just upset
[21/4/18, 8:03:16 pm] Ms Nicolle: Fuck that
[21/4/18, 8:03:22 pm] Ms Nicolle: You have no right to be upset
[21/4/18, 8:03:41 pm] Ms Nicolle: I've put my everything into you and this fucking relationship
[21/4/18, 8:03:47 pm] Ms Nicolle: You couldn't care less
[21/4/18, 8:04:00 pm] Ms Nicolle: As evident by your lack of trying
[21/4/18, 8:04:25 pm] Ms Nicolle: Do you prefer blonde, red head, or brunette?
[21/4/18, 8:04:34 pm] Mr Mornony: Please come for dinner. I’ll try s I want things to be good with us
[21/4/18, 8:04:37 pm] Mr Mornony: Please
[21/4/18, 8:04:57 pm] Ms Nicolle: You are full of empty fucking promises
[21/4/18, 8:05:24 pm] Ms Nicolle: Only way I'll come is if you tell your family & friends how fucked up you've been.
[21/4/18, 8:05:42 pm] Mr Mornony: Ok sure
[21/4/18, 8:05:47 pm] Ms Nicolle: BULLSHIT
[21/4/18, 8:06:08 pm] Ms Nicolle: Write it now. Show me the draft for Big Ws and Facebook
[21/4/18, 8:06:58 pm] Mr Mornony: Please come and sit down and we can figure it out
[21/4/18, 8:07:07 pm] Ms Nicolle: See
[21/4/18, 8:07:10 pm] Ms Nicolle: You're full of shit
[21/4/18, 8:07:21 pm] Ms Nicolle: Eat your face off, [Mr Mornony].
[21/4/18, 8:07:34 pm] Mr Mornony: Thanks
[21/4/18, 8:07:44 pm] Ms Nicolle: Send me a fucking draft
[21/4/18, 8:08:12 pm] Ms Nicolle: Book another counseling session
[21/4/18, 8:08:26 pm] Ms Nicolle: I don't want the kids to be hurt in our break up.
[21/4/18, 8:09:18 pm] Mr Mornony: Whatever you want
[21/4/18, 8:09:28 pm] Ms Nicolle: It's never whatever I want
[21/4/18, 8:09:40 pm] Ms Nicolle: You have yet to send me a draft of your public humiliation
[21/4/18, 8:10:26 pm] Mr Mornony: I’m sorry about earlier
[21/4/18, 8:10:41 pm] Ms Nicolle: You're full of shit.
[21/4/18, 8:10:44 pm] Mr Mornony: I made a mistake
[21/4/18, 8:10:45 pm] Ms Nicolle: Enjoy your dinner.
[21/4/18, 8:10:50 pm] Mr Mornony: I didn’t mean to put you down
[21/4/18, 8:10:56 pm] Mr Mornony: I’m sorry
[21/4/18, 8:11:02 pm] Ms Nicolle: You do it all the fucking time.
[21/4/18, 8:11:38 pm] Ms Nicolle: I was advised most people don't sell counseling until after one partner is already checked out, and it's too late. I think that was you, in our relationship.
[21/4/18, 8:11:51 pm] Ms Nicolle: Write your fucking coming out story
[21/4/18, 8:11:56 pm] Mr Mornony: I’m present and checked in
[21/4/18, 8:12:25 pm] Ms Nicolle: You have NO self-realisation or awareness.
[21/4/18, 8:12:39 pm] Ms Nicolle: Writing that shows you don't understand a fucking thing.
[21/4/18, 8:12:49 pm] Ms Nicolle: Clear my name of slander that your have perpetuated and write a draft.
[21/4/18, 8:12:55 pm] Ms Nicolle: I'm not joining you until you do.
[21/4/18, 8:13:03 pm] Ms Nicolle: For dinner, for life.
[21/4/18, 8:13:06 pm] Mr Mornony: There is no slander
[21/4/18, 8:13:13 pm] Mr Mornony: It’s just dinner
[21/4/18, 8:13:28 pm] Ms Nicolle: "[Ms Nicolle] is upset because I forgot a bag"
[21/4/18, 8:13:35 pm] Ms Nicolle: Write it.
[21/4/18, 8:13:45 pm] Ms Nicolle: It's the rest of my fucking life, [Mr Mornony].
[21/4/18, 8:13:50 pm] Mr Mornony: [Ms Nicolle] is upset because I forgot s bag?
[21/4/18, 8:13:51 pm] Ms Nicolle: It's not just dinner.
[21/4/18, 8:13:59 pm] Ms Nicolle: Slander.
[21/4/18, 8:14:06 pm] Ms Nicolle: You have painted me petty.
[21/4/18, 8:14:34 pm] Ms Nicolle: "[Ms Nicolle] is having a rough time in Melbourne" (untrue since we returned from [Country JJ])
[21/4/18, 8:15:25 pm] Ms Nicolle: Your silence is deafening.
[21/4/18, 8:16:29 pm] Ms Nicolle: Right. So this is it, I guess.
[21/4/18, 8:16:36 pm] Mr Mornony: Please come join me
[21/4/18, 8:16:47 pm] Ms Nicolle: Write it.
[21/4/18, 8:16:55 pm] Mr Mornony: [Ms Nicolle] is having a rough time in Melbourne" (untrue since we returned from [Country JJ])
[21/4/18, 8:17:00 pm] Mr Mornony: That?
[21/4/18, 8:17:28 pm] Ms Nicolle: This
[21/4/18, 8:17:47 pm] Ms Nicolle: I will miss our children6. On 12 July 2018
[12/7/18, 12:01:47 am] Ms Nicolle: I'm a single parent at 32. Thanks. […].
[12/7/18, 8:17:41 am] Mr Mornony: […]. I’m so sorry things have been so challenging the last few months. You mean the world to me and I love you; even though you don’t think so right now. I love you. […]. I hope the next year is filled with growth and happinesses and I can play some part in that.
[12/7/18, 8:25:36 am] Ms Nicolle: I don't want to know you.
[12/7/18, 8:26:00 am] Ms Nicolle: You are emotionally retarded.
[12/7/18, 8:26:14 am] Ms Nicolle: […] I want to die.
[12/7/18, 8:26:32 am] Ms Nicolle: The only thing preventing that is my wish to protect my children from you.
[12/7/18, 8:26:38 am] Ms Nicolle: You are manipulative.
[12/7/18, 8:26:48 am] Ms Nicolle: You are financially abusive.
[12/7/18, 8:26:58 am] Ms Nicolle: You are emotionally abusive.
[12/7/18, 8:27:09 am] Ms Nicolle: You are no one that I ever want to be associated with.
[12/7/18, 8:27:35 am] Ms Nicolle: Give me the children's passports.
[12/7/18, 8:27:46 am] Ms Nicolle: And stay the fuck out of my life.
[12/7/18, 8:28:02 am] Ms Nicolle: You are a pathetic piece of shit.7. On 25 December 2018
25/12/18, 7:42 am - Ms Nicolle: You are due to have the children by 8am
25/12/18, 7:42 am - Ms Nicolle: And you don't deserve them.
25/12/18, 7:43 am - Ms Nicolle: Your family doesn't deserve them.
25/12/18, 7:43 am - Mr Mornony: Our 5 yr old did not have 2 astma attacks. Could you imagine if I took one of our kids to the ER and didn't tell you? How would that make you feel?
25/12/18, 7:43 am - Ms Nicolle: Your friends don't deserve them
25/12/18, 7:43 am - Ms Nicolle: She did, indeed, when [Mr SS] and [Ms TT] were here. I was administering Ventolin in the middle of the night and had to call in sick the following day
25/12/18, 7:44 am - Ms Nicolle: How many times have you called in sick for your family??!
25/12/18, 7:44 am - Ms Nicolle: 8am is in 15 minutes.
25/12/18, 7:44 am - Ms Nicolle: Where are her shoes, [Mr Mornony]?
25/12/18, 7:44 am - Ms Nicolle: Did you forget them at the shop?
25/12/18, 7:45 am - Ms Nicolle: Like you forgot you were happy to have [Y], then chatted with your friends, father of the year to 2, and forgot that you committed? To me? To your unborn child?
25/12/18, 7:45 am - Ms Nicolle: Where are the shoes?
25/12/18, 7:46 am - Mr Mornony: We have the most amazing son. We are so blessed to have him
25/12/18, 7:46 am - Ms Nicolle: He is named after a paedophile
25/12/18, 7:47 am - Mr Mornony: Who?
25/12/18, 7:47 am - Ms Nicolle: Didn't you know your grandfather stuck his hands up the short of your distance cousin?
25/12/18, 7:48 am - Ms Nicolle: You do not deserve the children, and you certainly do not deserve me.
25/12/18, 7:48 am - Ms Nicolle: 12 minutes
25/12/18, 7:48 am - Ms Nicolle: Where are the shoes?
25/12/18, 7:50 am - Mr Mornony: are you feeling okay?
25/12/18, 7:51 am - Ms Nicolle: Didn't you know?
25/12/18, 7:51 am - Ms Nicolle: The whole community knows
25/12/18, 7:51 am - Ms Nicolle: But you didn't want [Y] anyway
25/12/18, 7:52 am - Ms Nicolle: And you wanted me dead.
25/12/18, 7:54 am - Mr Mornony: [Y] is one the most amazing things that has ever happened to us. I am so grateful for you bringing him into the world and being the mother you are to him. You are an incredible mother and a wonderful role model
25/12/18, 7:57 am - Mr Mornony: I really don't know what you're talking about or why
…
25/12/18, 9:38 am - Ms Nicolle: It's on you.
25/12/18, 9:39 am - Ms Nicolle: You have yourself, your family, and your friends to thank.
25/12/18, 9:39 am - Ms Nicolle: I will never be alone with you.
25/12/18, 9:39 am - Ms Nicolle: Not here, not in [Country UU].
25/12/18, 9:39 am - Ms Nicolle: You would kill me.
25/12/18, 9:39 am - Ms Nicolle: You would have your mother kill me.
25/12/18, 9:39 am - Ms Nicolle: You would have someone kill me.
25/12/18, 9:40 am - Ms Nicolle: You are a scary, ugly person and I regret giving you this much of my time.
25/12/18, 9:44 am - Ms Nicolle: Should you message me again I will assume you are neglecting the children.8. On 26 December 2018
26/12/18, 9:21 am - Ms Nicolle: I will NEVER BE ALONE WITH YOU
26/12/18, 9:21 am - Ms Nicolle: Go ahead and kill me now - I'm ready!
26/12/18, 9:22 am - Ms Nicolle: Get your mother to do it, she won't be responsible!
26/12/18, 9:22 am - Ms Nicolle: Don't worry, your father will help you come it up!
26/12/18, 9:22 am - Ms Nicolle: It was only a mistake...
26/12/18, 9:26 am - Ms Nicolle: If any of your friends and family were good people they would have called me and asked what happened. They would have asked if I'm okay.
26/12/18, 9:26 am - Ms Nicolle: They wouldn't support a monster.
26/12/18, 9:26 am - Ms Nicolle: You have continued to slander me.
26/12/18, 9:27 am - Ms Nicolle: Even with friends I have chosen, that have been open to you.
26/12/18, 9:27 am - Ms Nicolle: My chosen friends are good people.
26/12/18, 9:27 am - Ms Nicolle: Look what your family has done, you pathetic piece of shit.
26/12/18, 9:27 am - Ms Nicolle: Kill me now.
26/12/18, 9:27 am - Ms Nicolle: I'm ready to die by your hands.
26/12/18, 9:29 am - Ms Nicolle: KILL ME, [MR MORNONY]
26/12/18, 9:29 am - Mr Mornony: I really truly hear you don't feel safe and secure. I get you are really angry and it's really intense. Your anger is really destructive at the moment and it's hurting me and you and our kids too. Can you remember and feel all the positiviy and love we also had in our relationship?
26/12/18, 9:30 am - Ms Nicolle: YOU are responsible for this, [Mr Mornony].
26/12/18, 9:30 am - Ms Nicolle: YOU are responsible for the death of our relationship
26/12/18, 9:31 am - Ms Nicolle: YOU are responsible for the death of our children's innocence
26/12/18, 9:31 am - Ms Nicolle: YOU are responsible for my death.
26/12/18, 9:31 am - Ms Nicolle: YOU.
26/12/18, 9:33 am - Ms Nicolle: YOU have destroyed ME.
26/12/18, 9:33 am - Mr Mornony: you blame me for everything that went wrong in our relationship which has caused us to be where we are now. I know how upsetting it is - for both of us. It take full responsibility. I want to make it up to you
26/12/18, 9:34 am - Ms Nicolle: Admit you tried to kill me.
26/12/18, 9:37 am - Ms Nicolle: Don't you ever take the children away from me.
26/12/18, 9:37 am - Ms Nicolle: Your child is screaming.
26/12/18, 9:38 am - Ms Nicolle: It is not okay. It will not be okay.
26/12/18, 9:38 am - Ms Nicolle: You tried to kill me.
26/12/18, 9:39 am - Ms Nicolle: Your child is allowed to be upset. It is normal for people to have emotions.
26/12/18, 9:39 am - Ms Nicolle: Even though you felt nothing and tried to kill me.
26/12/18, 9:43 am - Ms Nicolle: YOU did this to our children.
26/12/18, 9:43 am - Mr Mornony: I am going to go to the shops now. Let's speak later. I know how hard it is you for to talk to me and tell me how your feeling. I really appreciate that your talking to me and how difficult it is for you
26/12/18, 9:43 am - Ms Nicolle: YOU are harming them.
26/12/18, 9:44 am - Ms Nicolle: This is not about you.
26/12/18, 9:44 am - Ms Nicolle: Did you buy a new car, [Mr Mornony]?
26/12/18, 9:45 am - Ms Nicolle: I spent 6 years looking are our children and you want me to survive on a few months of part time income??
26/12/18, 9:45 am - Mr Mornony: It's [Ms VV’s] car.
26/12/18, 9:45 am - Ms Nicolle: This message was deleted
26/12/18, 9:47 am - Mr Mornony: I can't afford another car with rent and child support
26/12/18, 9:48 am - Ms Nicolle: I want to die by your hand.
26/12/18, 9:48 am - Ms Nicolle: I've changed my mind.
26/12/18, 9:48 am - Ms Nicolle: Please kill me.
26/12/18, 9:48 am - Ms Nicolle: It's sanctioned by your family and friends
26/12/18, 9:48 am - Ms Nicolle: Your mother would be very happy!
26/12/18, 9:51 am - Ms Nicolle: Your danger would be ecstatic
26/12/18, 9:54 am - Mr Mornony: If you died there would be no mother of our children to continue to raise them to be the amazing humans they are becoming. You're so great with them, I couldn't imagine you not being their role model and continue to teach them such strong values and education
26/12/18, 9:55 am - Ms Nicolle: How nice of your sister to step up and help! I've never seen your family so supportive!
26/12/18, 9:56 am - Ms Nicolle: May they feel nothing when you kill me.
26/12/18, 9:57 am - Ms Nicolle: When have you ever said these things to the friends and family around you?
26/12/18, 9:57 am - Ms Nicolle: It's bullshit
26/12/18, 9:59 am - Ms Nicolle: I am ready for you to kill me.
26/12/18, 10:29 am - Ms Nicolle: You can use [Ms VV’s] car. I'm sure she wouldn't mind.
26/12/18, 11:01 am - Mr Mornony: [Ms Nicolle] I don't want to kill you or harm you in anyway. I am really worried about the way you are taking about death. It's really upsetting me and I can't imagine how hurt you must be feeling. I want to make things better. I need you to stop being so angry and we can start talking productively again, for our kids. They will have such a better life if we can have a positive relationship.
26/12/18, 11:06 am - Ms Nicolle: I tried to be productive. I tried to be positive. I tried to work on our relationship whole you did nothing. You destroyed it. You tried to kill me.
26/12/18, 11:06 am - Ms Nicolle: I'm ready for death now.
26/12/18, 11:07 am - Ms Nicolle: I'm ready to accept that you think I deserve to die.
26/12/18, 11:15 am - Ms Nicolle: You are fighting me on child support, you sick fuck
26/12/18, 11:16 am - Ms Nicolle: Don't you know the money is for the children?!
26/12/18, 11:16 am - Ms Nicolle: Don't you know I have never done ANYTHING for myself?!
26/12/18, 11:25 am - Mr Mornony: I am deeply concerned with how you're feeling and talking about death. [Ms Nicolle] it's not okay and it's really distressing. I want things to be better between us. I'd rather we had joint bank accounts than pay child support. I don't want to fight with you. I know how much you have sacrificed for our family. I'll be forever in debt to you. I am happy to rejoin all finaces if it's possible. That would require us to work together.
26/12/18, 11:26 am - Ms Nicolle: Kill me first.
26/12/18, 11:26 am - Ms Nicolle: You haven't admitted you tried to already.
26/12/18, 11:27 am - Ms Nicolle: Then you won't have to be concerned that I would take good from your children's mouths.
26/12/18, 11:27 am - Ms Nicolle: Your are despicable.9. On 27 December 2018
27/12/18, 7:23 am - Ms Nicolle: Kill me now.
27/12/18, 7:23 am - Ms Nicolle: END MY LIFE
27/12/18, 7:23 am - Ms Nicolle: That is what you think I deserve
27/12/18, 7:26 am - Ms Nicolle: Your casual "I'm sorry, okay?" Shows no remorse
27/12/18, 7:27 am - Ms Nicolle: You fucking piece of shit.
27/12/18, 7:27 am - Ms Nicolle: You are nothing.
27/12/18, 7:27 am - Ms Nicolle: Your children deserve better.
27/12/18, 7:29 am - Ms Nicolle: I'm ready to die, [Mr Mornony].
27/12/18, 7:29 am - Ms Nicolle: All you can muster is "I'm sorry, okay?"
27/12/18, 7:30 am - Ms Nicolle: You should be grovelling at my fucking feat
27/12/18, 7:30 am - Ms Nicolle: Crawling on your hands and knees
27/12/18, 7:30 am - Ms Nicolle: Begging for forgiveness after trying to kill me
27/12/18, 7:30 am - Ms Nicolle: YOU HAVE DONE THIS
27/12/18, 7:31 am - Ms Nicolle: YOU
27/12/18, 7:31 am - Ms Nicolle: Where are the words of remorse??
27/12/18, 7:33 am - Ms Nicolle: You have made zero effort
27/12/18, 7:34 am - Ms Nicolle: Kill me.
27/12/18, 7:34 am - Ms Nicolle: Kill me.
27/12/18, 7:34 am - Ms Nicolle: Kill me.
27/12/18, 7:34 am - Ms Nicolle: Kill me.
27/12/18, 7:34 am - Ms Nicolle: My life is not worth anything to you.
27/12/18, 7:34 am - Mr Mornony: I am sorry that things are so bad and my lack of emotional communication has caused you so much pain. I see how hurt you are and you feel I am ugly. Ive hurt you. I am here and I am available to support you and make an effort. I love you and I want you to be happy
27/12/18, 7:35 am - Ms Nicolle: I want nothing to do with your love.
27/12/18, 7:35 am - Ms Nicolle: You tried to kill me.
27/12/18, 7:36 am - Ms Nicolle: You tried to kill my child.
27/12/18, 7:36 am - Ms Nicolle: You say there while your family killed me with words
27/12/18, 7:36 am - Ms Nicolle: In front of our children.
27/12/18, 7:36 am - Ms Nicolle: And you did nothing.
27/12/18, 7:37 am - Ms Nicolle: [Y] misses you. Shall I tell him you didn't want him?
27/12/18, 7:37 am - Ms Nicolle: That you were feeling "distressed"?
27/12/18, 7:37 am - Ms Nicolle: When is the apology from your father
27/12/18, 7:37 am - Ms Nicolle: This message was deleted
27/12/18, 7:38 am - Ms Nicolle: When will you admit you tried to kill me
27/12/18, 7:38 am - Ms Nicolle: You tried to kill me.
27/12/18, 7:38 am - Ms Nicolle: You wanted me dead.
27/12/18, 7:38 am - Ms Nicolle: You wanted your children to suffer.
27/12/18, 7:38 am - Ms Nicolle: You are making them suffer now.
27/12/18, 7:38 am - Ms Nicolle: We are all suffering at your hands, [Mr Mornony].
27/12/18, 7:39 am - Ms Nicolle: How is it your life is more important than mine?
27/12/18, 7:39 am - Ms Nicolle: Than your children's?
27/12/18, 7:40 am - Ms Nicolle: Where is the guilt?
27/12/18, 7:40 am - Ms Nicolle: You have none.
27/12/18, 7:40 am - Ms Nicolle: You think you are here than everyone10. On 28 December 2018
28/12/18, 8:39 am - Ms Nicolle: When will you DO anything
28/12/18, 8:39 am - Ms Nicolle: NEVER
28/12/18, 8:39 am - Ms Nicolle: FUCKING FINISH THE JOB
28/12/18, 8:39 am - Ms Nicolle: KILL ME NOW
28/12/18, 8:39 am - Mr Mornony: Hi good morning. How are you? I love you
28/12/18, 8:40 am - Ms Nicolle: YOUR CHILDREN WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITH NO MOTHER THAN WITH ME, RIGHT?
28/12/18, 8:41 am - Ms Nicolle: When can I expect death?
28/12/18, 8:41 am - Ms Nicolle: At what time will you kill me?
28/12/18, 8:41 am - Ms Nicolle: On what day?
28/12/18, 8:41 am - Mr Mornony: You are the best mother of our children I could ever want. I would never want to harm you. I adore you
28/12/18, 8:41 am - Ms Nicolle: I'll say my goodness to the children
28/12/18, 8:41 am - Ms Nicolle: You tried to kill me
28/12/18, 8:42 am - Ms Nicolle: YOU TRIED TO KILL ME.
28/12/18, 8:42 am - Mr Mornony: Do you still love me [Ms Nicolle]?
28/12/18, 8:42 am - Ms Nicolle: I want you to kill me like you intended.
28/12/18, 8:43 am - Ms Nicolle: Get your father to help
28/12/18, 8:43 am - Ms Nicolle: Or your mother
28/12/18, 8:43 am - Ms Nicolle: She'd reload it, I'm sure
28/12/18, 8:43 am - Ms Nicolle: She's wanted me dead for so long
28/12/18, 8:44 am - Ms Nicolle: And you have never stopped her
28/12/18, 8:44 am - Ms Nicolle: Nor have you ever stopped anyone
28/12/18, 8:44 am - Ms Nicolle: I had to back for EVERYTHING
28/12/18, 8:44 am - Ms Nicolle: And NO ONE HAS HAD MINE
28/12/18, 8:44 am - Ms Nicolle: Let me see the face of my killer.
28/12/18, 8:45 am - Ms Nicolle: I'm ready.
28/12/18, 8:46 am - Mr Mornony: I know it feels that way that nobody has your back. I hear you that I've fucked that up in the past and your really angry. I have your back now. Let me have your back. Let me show you. Let me be your rock and your support
28/12/18, 8:46 am - Ms Nicolle: If you had my back you would have sent me words of remorse on the hour, every hour.
28/12/18, 8:47 am - Ms Nicolle: If you had my back your father would have apologised at dropoff, at pickup.
28/12/18, 8:47 am - Ms Nicolle: You are a fucking lying piece of shit
28/12/18, 8:47 am - Ms Nicolle: YOU CAN'T EVEN PROVE ME WRONG
28/12/18, 8:47 am - Ms Nicolle: This, I mean nothing to you.
28/12/18, 8:47 am - Ms Nicolle: I mean nothing to anyone.
28/12/18, 8:48 am - Ms Nicolle: I am a fucking piece of shit unworthy of life.
28/12/18, 8:48 am - Ms Nicolle: Kill me now.
28/12/18, 8:48 am - Ms Nicolle: KILL ME, [MR MORNONY].11. On 29 December 2018
29/12/18, 11:29 am - Ms Nicolle: No, [Mr Mornony]. There is no together.
29/12/18, 11:29 am - Ms Nicolle: We are done.
29/12/18, 11:29 am - Ms Nicolle: We are over
29/12/18, 11:29 am - Ms Nicolle: I am done
29/12/18, 11:29 am - Ms Nicolle: I am over
29/12/18, 11:29 am - Ms Nicolle: You will end my life
29/12/18, 11:29 am - Ms Nicolle: Your mother will end my life
29/12/18, 11:29 am - Ms Nicolle: Your father will end my life
29/12/18, 11:30 am - Ms Nicolle: I will never feel safe around you
29/12/18, 11:30 am - Ms Nicolle: I can never unlike the family violence
29/12/18, 11:30 am - Ms Nicolle: That your have put my children through
29/12/18, 11:30 am - Ms Nicolle: That you have put me through
29/12/18, 11:30 am - Ms Nicolle: Put your life in my hands
29/12/18, 11:30 am - Ms Nicolle: And let me protect my children from you, you monster.
29/12/18, 11:31 am - Ms Nicolle: I can never unlive the family violence.
29/12/18, 11:31 am - Ms Nicolle: That you have put my children through
29/12/18, 11:31 am - Ms Nicolle: That you have put me through
29/12/18, 11:31 am - Ms Nicolle: Put your life in my hand
29/12/18, 11:33 am - Mr Mornony: [Ms Nicolle] I want to support you. I love you and I love our family. I can't change the past and how you feel. We can change the future for our children. I want us to be a family again. I am not going anywhere. I am here for you
29/12/18, 11:34 am - Ms Nicolle: KILL ME
29/12/18, 11:34 am - Ms Nicolle: You can take responsibility for the past, [Mr Mornony]
29/12/18, 11:34 am - Ms Nicolle: Put your life in my hands12. On 1 January 2019
1/1/19, 10:31 pm - Ms Nicolle: Not once did you ask about my family when you left. Not about my grandparents that we Skyped once a week for 5 years.
1/1/19, 10:31 pm - Ms Nicolle: You know what they think of you now?
1/1/19, 10:31 pm - Ms Nicolle: You know what [Mr WW] wants now?
1/1/19, 10:32 pm - Ms Nicolle: YOU SICK FUCK
1/1/19, 10:32 pm - Ms Nicolle: DO YOU WANT TO KNOW
1/1/19, 10:32 pm - Mr Mornony: I didn't give you what you asked for. I didn't know how or what it was. I've done so much work on myself to change that
1/1/19, 10:32 pm - Mr Mornony: What does he want
1/1/19, 10:33 pm - Ms Nicolle: He treated you like his own.
1/1/19, 10:33 pm - Ms Nicolle: More than your family ever did.
1/1/19, 10:33 pm - Ms Nicolle: [Mr WW] treated you like a grandchild.
1/1/19, 10:34 pm - Ms Nicolle: He offered to be your sponsor […]
1/1/19, 10:34 pm - Ms Nicolle: He didn't do that for [Mr XX], his own grandson
1/1/19, 10:34 pm - Ms Nicolle: He respected your grandmother and your parents and he treated you well.
1/1/19, 10:35 pm - Ms Nicolle: AND YOU FUCKED ME OVER
1/1/19, 10:35 pm - Ms Nicolle: YOU'RE A SICK FUCK
1/1/19, 10:35 pm - Ms Nicolle: How DARE you contact my family!
1/1/19, 10:35 pm - Ms Nicolle: How DARE you contact my friends!
1/1/19, 10:35 pm - Ms Nicolle: You're a piece of shit, [Mr Mornony].
1/1/19, 10:36 pm - Ms Nicolle: You're a pathetic coward
1/1/19, 10:36 pm - Mr Mornony: I know it upsets you and how much that was not the right thing to do. I did it because i love you and was desperate to get you back. It was wrong and desperate is ugly
1/1/19, 10:36 pm - Ms Nicolle: All I needed from you before we went into the bris was to seize my hand and say: I know how difficult this must be for you; thank you.
1/1/19, 10:37 pm - Ms Nicolle: You were desperate, and as some of my family described you, deranged.
1/1/19, 10:37 pm - Ms Nicolle: And you still are
1/1/19, 10:37 pm - Ms Nicolle: Just days ago you called it fucking romantic
1/1/19, 10:37 pm - Ms Nicolle: YOU SICK FUCK
1/1/19, 10:37 pm - Ms Nicolle: WHERE IS YOUR GROVELLING
1/1/19, 10:38 pm - Ms Nicolle: WHERE THE FUCK IS YOUR BEGGING
1/1/19, 10:38 pm - Ms Nicolle: WHERE IS YOUR REMORSE?!
1/1/19, 10:38 pm - Mr Mornony: I want to squeeze your hand right now and say the same thing
1/1/19, 10:38 pm - Ms Nicolle: I would call the police if you tried.
1/1/19, 10:38 pm - Ms Nicolle: Your a sick fuck, [Mr Mornony].
1/1/19, 10:39 pm - Ms Nicolle: You're a sick fuck.
1/1/19, 10:39 pm - Mr Mornony: Okay that's too much. I love you but I don't need to be called names
0
7
0