Ostler and Feeney
[2018] FCCA 226
•7 February 2018
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| OSTLER & FEENEY | [2018] FCCA 226 |
| Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Parenting – family violence – mental health issues – whether there is an unacceptable risk to the children if they spend time with the father – best interests – supervised time ordered. |
| Legislation: Family Law Act 1975, ss.4, 4AB, 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60CG, 65DAC, 65Y, 68B |
| Cases cited: A & A (1998) FLC 92-800 Blanchv Blanch and Crawford (1999) FLC 92-837 |
| Applicant: | MS OSTLER |
| Respondent: | MR FEENEY |
| File Number: | HBC 597 of 2015 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Baker |
| Hearing dates: | 24 – 26 August 2016, 15 – 17 March 2017, |
| Date of Last Submission: | 25 October 2017 |
| Delivered at: | Hobart |
| Delivered on: | 7 February 2018 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Ms Mooney of Counsel |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Women’s Legal Service |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Feeney in Person |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | N/A |
| Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: | Ms Ryan of Counsel |
ORDERS
The applicant mother MS OSTLER ‘the mother’ have sole parental responsibility for X born (omitted) 2002 ‘X’, Y born (omitted) 2004, ‘Y’ and Z born (omitted) 2009, ‘Z’ (‘the children’).
The children live with the mother.
The mother will hereby inform the father, as soon as is practical, of any major decisions made regarding the children’s health, welfare and/or education.
X spend time and communicate with the father, at X’s sole initiation, in such manner and at such times as are in accordance with X’s wishes.
Otherwise than as provided in Order 4, the father is restrained from initiating to spend time with and communicate with X or requesting any other person to make such attempts on his behalf.
Each party contact the Hobart Children’s Contact Centre (‘the Contact Centre’) within 30 days of the date of these orders and arrange an appointment for an assessment for suitability for Y and Z to spend time with the father at the Contact Centre, and:
(a)Attend the assessment;
(b)Comply with any appointments made by the Contact Centre;
(c)Comply with all rules of the Contact Centre; and
(d)Comply with all reasonable requests or directions of staff of the Contact Centre.
Y and Z spend time and communicate with the father as follows:
(a)At and supervised by the Hobart Children’s Contact Centre (‘the Contact Centre’) as directed by the Contact Centre and as available, and on condition that within 30 days of the date of these orders, the father attend on the Contact Centre to complete any necessary documents and preliminary interviews.
Otherwise that as provided in Order 7, the father is restrained from initiating to spend time with or communicate with Y and Z or requesting any other person to do so.
Pursuant to Section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975, the father is restrained from:-
(a)going within 200 metres of any access road, path, or driveway to the home or place where the mother, X, Y or Z are or generally living or staying;
(b)not loiter within 100 metres of any school where the children attend, visit or are enrolled;
(c)going within 100 metres of any other place where the mother and/or the children may be present.
Neither party will demean, abuse, or belittle the other party, their respective partners or members of their family, nor will they allow the children to remain in the presence of any third party doing so.
Neither party will use obscene language in the presence or hearing of the children.
The father is at liberty to request the school(s) at which the children are enrolled provide him with a copy of each of the children’s school reports.
The parties will confirm their postal addresses within seven days of the date of these orders by the father sending an email to the mother’s solicitors with that information and the mother’s solicitors sending an email the father with the mother’s information AND within 14 days of any change being made to the parties’ postal addresses they will inform the other party of the change by writing to the other party’s postal address provided.
Should any mail sent to the father be returned to the mother, the mother is not obliged to send any further mail to the father until he provides his new postal address to her.
Leave is hereby given to the mother to provide a copy of these orders to any school staff and/or school authority, child protection authority, medical and para-medical staff involved in the children’s care or sporting club in which the children are involved.
The parties have leave to provide a copy of this Judgment, the report of Mr M and these orders to the children’s (omitted) counsellor and any future treating psychologists the children or either of the parents are referred to.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer is requested to provide a copy of these Orders to the principal of (omitted) School.
The passports of the children X born (omitted) 2002, Y born (omitted) 2004 and Z born (omitted) 2009 (currently held in the Registry of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia pursuant to Order 2 made on 25 October 2017) be released to the mother.
The mother is permitted to take the children X born (omitted) 2009, Y born (omitted) 2004 and Z born (omitted) 2009 from the Commonwealth of Australia for the purpose of a visit to (country omitted) or to any other country which is signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The mother shall give the father not less than four weeks’ written notice of such travel, prior to her departure, and provide him with a return flight itinerary. In the case of a family emergency, the mother shall provide the father with at least 48 hours’ written notice, prior to departure.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.Australia is the habitual residence of the children X born (omitted) 2002, Y born (omitted) 2004 and Z born (omitted) 2009.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Ostler & Feeney is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT HOBART |
HBC 597 of 2015
| MS OSTLER |
Applicant
And
| MR FEENEY |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
This is an application for parenting orders by the mother of the children X born (omitted) 2002 (‘X’), Y born (omitted) 2004 (‘Y’) and Z born (omitted) 2009 (‘Z’) (‘the children’).
The mother also sought a property adjustment order. On 15 March 2017 a consent order was made in respect of the parties’ property.
Background
The mother is 36 years of age. She was born in (country omitted) and moved to Australia as a young adult. She lives in (omitted), Tasmania in the former matrimonial home. She is a full-time mother and receives Centrelink benefits.
The father is 38 years of age. He is unemployed. He gave evidence during his cross-examination that he lives in his car and also stays with his partner, Ms P, in (omitted).
The parties commenced their relationship on (omitted) 2001. They married on (omitted) 2002 and separated on 7 March 2014. Since separation, the children have lived with the mother. The father has spent limited time with them.
There is a history of family violence. In February 2013, a notification was received by the Department of Health and Human Services (‘the Department’) about the children calling the mother ‘a slut’ and an assault on her in late 2012.
On 14 February 2013, the Department intervened and took the children into care, subject to a voluntary agreement. The children were placed in the kinship care of the paternal grandmother, Ms M.
On 18 February 2013, an application for care and protection orders was filed by the Department. On 19 February 2013 interim care and protection orders were made in respect of all three children.
On 21 March 2013, the children were moved to foster care. Whilst they were in foster care, the mother alleged that the father pushed her to the ground and kicked her hard in her back.
In June 2013, three applications for care and protection orders were dismissed and the children were returned to the parents’ care.
There were further incidents of family violence in February 2014. The final separation occurred on 7 March 2014 after a family violence incident.
The father was convicted of two counts of assault of the mother in 2014. Between 2013 and 2015, there were numerous family violence and police family violence orders made.
The parties entered into a parenting plan on 3 November 2014. This provided that the children spend three nights per fortnight with the father, increasing to four nights per fortnight after four weeks. The parties struggled to keep to the arrangements regarding changeover after the father lost his driver’s license for drink-driving. The father refused to use the Hobart Children’s Contact Centre (‘HCCC’) for changeover when suggested by the mother.
The mother ceased the children’s unsupervised time with the father on 28 January 2015, due to his behaviour towards her and the children. After his refusal to see the children on a supervised basis at the HCCC, X has not spent agreed time with him since January 2015. Y and Z have not spent time with him since April 2015.
Proposals
The father sought a live with order at the commencement of the trial. During the trial he amended his proposal and sought limited time with the two younger children for a period of four or five days in term school holidays and one week during the summer school holidays.
The mother sought orders in accordance with those sought by the Independent Children’s Lawyer (‘ICL’), except for orders 3, 12 and 23, which were opposed. The mother essentially sought orders that the father have no time or communication with the children.
During the trial, the parties indicated agreement for an order to be made that X be entitled to choose what time he spends with the father.
In respect of the father’s amended proposal for school holiday time with Y and Z, the mother gave evidence that she opposed the time on the basis of the children’s current stability and lack of exposure to the father’s aggressive behaviour. She said that if the younger two children wish to see him when they are older, like X, then she agreed.
The ICL’s proposals are extensive and are set out in annexure ‘A’ to these Reasons. She proposed that the father have no time or communication with the children.
Issues
The amendment of the father’s proposals for time with the children meant that the issues were narrowed. The primary issue then became whether there is an unacceptable risk to the children by them spending limited holiday time with the father.
Evidence
The mother relied on:
·Her affidavit filed 8 June 2016;
·Affidavit of Mr A filed 8 June 2016 and proof of evidence filed 8 June 2016;
·Affidavit of Ms M filed 8 June 2016;
·Affidavit of Ms A filed 22 August 2016;
·Report of Mr M dated 1 April 2016; and
·Child Dispute Conference memorandum dated 24 September 2015.
The father relied on:
·His affidavits filed 20 October 2015 and 29 January 2016;
·His Notice of Risk filed 20 October 2015;
·Affidavit of Ms P filed 24 August 2016;
·Statement of Mr C; and
·Statement of Ms J (Ms J).
Ms P did not attend court to be cross-examined. I place no weight on her affidavit. Mr C did not attend for cross-examination and I place no weight on his statement.
The ICL relied on the following:
·Report of Mr M;
·Child Dispute Memorandum dated 24 September 2015;
·Affidavit of Mr H filed 22 August 2016; and
·Evidence of Dr J.
The Parties
The mother was cross-examined at length by the ICL and by the father. She was responsive and answered questions willingly. She made concessions. She agreed that she had lied to the Department during the proceedings in 2013. She admitted that she did not tell the Department that there had been another assault on her by the father when the children were in care. She thought that it was better not tell the child protection workers anything so that the children could return home.
The mother conceded that in 2013 she found it difficult to cope with three boys and said, ‘I tend to lose the plot.’ She agreed that this sometimes happened when she felt tired. She said that she did not have lots of energy for her children even when she tried.
The mother agreed that she consulted Dr J and told him that she had a sore back from falling backwards on a wood pile. She also agreed that she said the same thing in her affidavit for the child protection proceedings, but that this was not true. She said that the children were in foster care at the time and she and the father were trying to get the children back. This was the occasion when the father pushed her to the ground and kicked her hard in the back in early June 2013.
The mother admitted she told the police that everything was ‘okay’ in the relationship when it was not. She agreed that she subsequently told the Department in January 2016 that at the time of the child protection proceedings, the father was still being violent during the relationship and that he used cannabis and was drinking.
In respect of the incident which occurred in 2009, when the father hit her with a broom and caused a bruise, the mother told the Department that the father hit her in the head, but it was not very hard and it happened when she was bending down to do up her shoe laces. During cross examination, the mother said ‘it was hard, so I told them it was not hard.’
On occasions the mother could not recall incidents. I consider this is not surprising, given the number of incidents over many years. I consider that the mother’s evidence was credible.
The father asserted that the mother should be charged with interfering with a witness, Ms J. He deposed that the mother ‘has attempted to corrupt and coerce this witness by trying to make her feel guilty. Ms Ostler’s messages to this witness is also defaming me.’ Ms J gave evidence that the mother asked her to withdraw her affidavit, as she believed she may have made false accusations or statements against her character. The mother’s Facebook message to Ms C stated:
… I’m not having a go at you or anything. But you know Mr Feeney thinks I’m hurting boys which is not true. And this matter goes to court again on this Thursday. I read your statement that you made to police in April. You believe boys are hurt by me etc. I can’t remember exactly what you wrote. If you really believe that I guess I can’t really do anything about it. But if you withdrawal that statement, that’ll be great. I don’t hurt my boys…
The mother asked the witness to reconsider her statement. She accepted that if the witness believed her statement, there was nothing she could do about it. I do not accept the father’s assertion that the mother has attempted to corrupt and coerce the witness by writing this message.
The father was self-represented. I was able to observe his attitudes and behaviour as a self-represented litigant. The personality characteristics referred to by Mr M, the court expert and a clinical psychologist, were evident in his affidavit and oral evidence, and in the way he conducted his case. He exhibited a distrust and suspiciousness of the mother, counsel for the ICL, counsel for the mother, the experts, and the legal system. He said if the Court were to make orders:
On my children and me then I would account that to being placed in servitude. Now, in this country, if we are signatory to the UN’s human charter of rights, no person should be placed into servitude. .. Any order placed over me or my children would mean that I am in servitude of this court. That is tantamount to slavery… That is servitude high slavery. That is illegal in this country, as far as I know.
The father was intent on proving his claims about the mother having lied about family violence and wanting to alienate the children from him. He said that the mother ‘admitted to lying in this courtroom three times. She should be disbarred, the whole case dismissed, and my children and my house given back to me.’
Mr M was appointed to assess the parties for the child protection proceedings in 2013 and also to prepare a report in 2016 for these proceedings. He was of the view that the father minimises his assaults and family violence, although he generally believes what he asserts. This is a reflection of his personality traits.
I agree with counsel for the ICL, who submitted that the father repeatedly failed to address most of the major allegations that the mother made against him and concentrated on irrelevant issues. Mr M was of the view that this illustrates his lack of insight and rigidity in pursuing his goals, rather than addressing the relevant issues. I agree with this opinion. I consider that he demonstrated no insight into his behaviour and its effect on the children. I also agree with the submission of counsel for the mother that the father obfuscated and vacillated during his evidence.
The father’s evidence was at times not credible. For example, he said the only time he has hurt the mother and left a scar on her face was when he accidentally cut her with a sharp little fingernail when he put his hand out to brush her hair and she flinched. Another example was when he deposed:
‘I have never called her names to the children while they are in my care, this is lying, alienation and self-vicitmisation. My children know and have stated that they never hear me swear. I pride myself in not swearing and despise of it in any form.’
Yet, he admitted during cross examination that he has been a poor role model to the children, because during the relationship he swore in front of them. When it was suggested to him that the evidence in his affidavit was not true given this oral evidence, he suggested that in his affidavit he was relating to the post separation period.
He also deposed that ‘Ms Ostler claims that I have sworn and been violent towards my children. I strongly deny this… I have never yelled in anger or ever touched my children in a disciplinary way, I simply have never needed to, they are always well-behaved for me.’[1] He agreed this was not really true, but he considered that this was reasonable discipline and was not violent.
[1] Affidavit of Mr Feeney filed 20 October 2015 [50].
The father gave conflicting information about his work experience and educational qualifications, whether he owned a house in (country omitted) or was going to (country omitted) on a holiday and whether he was in a relationship with Ms P. His explanation given during cross-examination about why Ms P was not giving evidence was not credible. He gave two reasons for not calling her to give evidence. Firstly, she was looking after ‘her extremely violent, psychopathic, autistic spectrum 13-year-old son’, who had returned to live with her several weeks before. Secondly:
I’ve extracted all the information that I need… in cross-examination from Ms Ostler. Ms Ostler has already admitted to lying. She has admitted to approaching me and Ms P in public places. She is not intimidated by me or her. In fact she intimidates my partner in public.
The father’s behaviour in the Court was unpredictable. At times, he was calm and at times he was aggressive and rude. On 21 August 2017 he was particularly offensive. He was clearly affected by alcohol consumption. When asked whether he had been drinking, he said he had drunk an Irish coffee for breakfast. When cross-examined, he gave evidence that he had been drinking whisky on the previous evening. He was agitated, offensive, spoke loudly, and interrupted counsel and witnesses. He swore on at least three occasions, even though he was asked to desist. My warnings to him that his behaviour was having a detrimental effect on his case fell on deaf ears. The trial proceeded on that day only to prevent a delay in completing the evidence.
The father was sarcastic and rude to the mother. He accused her of being paranoid and said, ‘you are lying...you will say anything…let’s get into a whole bunch of lies now.’ He accused her of being trained by his mother, as well as by her lawyers and family violence workers.
He was also was sarcastic and rude to other witnesses. For example, he called his mother ‘Mumsy’, and started his cross-examination of her by speaking in what sounded like (language omitted).
He was rude to the ICL. He commented that she would be shortly disbarred. He accused her of working for the mother. He did not accept that he exhibited grandiosity and narcissism, advising the ICL that she was likely to fit the bill better than he did. He said to her:
You just lost your star witness because he is corrupt and fraudulent and sends fucking kids to the paedophile school. You are doing the same thing. Why the hell should I trust you? Why the hell are you in charge of my children?
He further said to the ICL: ‘I put it you Ms Ryan, that you have never protected my children at all; that you have your own biased best interests at heart and you don’t give a crap because you are a total feminist, who hates men.’
I consider that the mother’s evidence should be preferred to that of the father where it conflicts, unless I otherwise indicate.
Relevant law
These are parenting proceedings under Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (‘the Act’).
Section 60B sets out the objects of Part VII, and the principles which underlie those objects. They are as follows:
(1) The objects of this Part are to ensure that the best interests of children are met by:
(a) ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child; and
(b) protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and
(c) ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and
(d) ensuring that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.
(2) The principles underlying these objects are that (except when it is or would be contrary to a child’s best interests):
(a) children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together; and
(b) children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with, and communicate on a regular basis with, both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development (such as grandparents and other relatives); and
(c) parents jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children; and
(d) parents should agree about the future parenting of their children; and
(e) children have a right to enjoy their culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture).
One of the objects of the Act in relation to parenting orders is therefore to protect children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
Abuse is defined in s.4 of the Act:
abuse, in relation to a child, means:
(a) an assault, including a sexual assault, of the child; or
(b) a person (the first person) involving the child in a sexual activity with the first person or another person in which the child is used, directly or indirectly, as a sexual object by the first person or the other person, and where there is unequal power in the relationship between the child and the first person; or
(c) causing the child to suffer serious psychological harm, including (but not limited to) when that harm is caused by the child being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence; or
(d) serious neglect of the child.
Family violence is defined in s. 4AB of the Act:
(1) For the purposes of this Act, family violence means violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person’s family (the family member), or causes the family member to be fearful.
… (3) For the purposes of this Act, a child is exposed to family violence if the child sees or hears family violence or otherwise experiences the effects of family violence.
(4) Examples of situations that may constitute a child being exposed to family violence include (but are not limited to) the child:
(a) overhearing threats of death or personal injury by a member of the child’s family towards another member of the child’s family; or
(b) seeing or hearing an assault of a member of the child’s family by another member of the child’s family; or
(c) comforting or providing assistance to a member of the child’s family who has been assaulted by another member of the child’s family; or
(d) cleaning up a site after a member of the child’s family has intentionally damaged property of another member of the child’s family; or
(e) being present when police or ambulance officers attend an incident involving the assault of a member of the child’s family by another member of the child’s family.
Section 60CG provides:
60CG Court to consider risk of family violence
(1) In considering what order to make, the court must, to the extent that it is possible to do so consistently with the child’s best interests being the paramount consideration, ensure that the order:
(a) is consistent with any family violence order; and
(b) does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), the court may include in the order any safeguards that it considers necessary for the safety of those affected by the order.
Family violence is also referred to in s.60CC(2)(b) and s.60CC(3)(j) and (k).
The effect of family violence on children is detrimental to their welfare. In the decision of Blanch v Blanch and Crawford,[2] at page 85,748, Mullane J said:
His Honour’s discussion of the violence allegations appears to have largely overlooked the wide and more serious dangers that an abusive parent presents to children than the obvious danger of physical harm. In addition to that harm children can suffer insecurity, fear, unhappiness, anxiety and hyper-vigilance from witnessing abusive behaviour of a parent. Such effects present a threat to their emotional development. Probably the worst danger to children is the role model that a violent parent provides.
[2] (1999) FLC 92-837.
In this matter, Mr M gave evidence of the multiple effects of family violence on children. He said that there are issues in meeting developmental milestones; issues in terms of educational outcomes; impacts on emotional development; future vulnerability to psychological disorders such as anxiety, depression or future vulnerability to substance use; issues with attachment within the family; issues around security; and issues around trust. He also said that the effects on victims of family violence, such as a parent, are mental health issues; issues in developing future relationships; and inability to operate in the community due to fear.
The ICL’s case is that the father poses an unacceptable risk to the children, particularly with respect to emotional abuse. In matters involving allegations of physical, emotional, and psychological abuse, the nature of the risk is best expressed by the term ‘unacceptable risk’.[3] There needs to be an evaluation of the nature and degree of risk and whether, with or without safeguards, it is acceptable. The concentration should normally be upon the question of whether there is an unacceptable risk to the child. Risk covers not only physical, but also emotional harm.[4]
[3] M & M (1988) 166 CLR 69.
[4]A & A (1998) FLC 92-800.
In the decision of JG & BG,[5] his Honour Chisholm J considered the impact on children being exposed to family violence and said:
Where the violence is directed at the children themselves, it is obviously and directly relevant to their welfare. Section 64(1)(va), quoted above, expressly requires the court have regard to the need to protect the child from abuse and ill treatment. Similarly, when the violence is committed in the presence of children, it will obviously have the potential to frighten and distress them.
I do not think it can be said as a matter of law that other forms of family violence are incapable of being relevant to the welfare of the children. Violence occurring between household members, even though occurring away from the children, may have the potential to cause them distress and harm, for example where it affects the parenting of the custodial parent. Similarly, threats of violence may have an impact on the welfare of children. The nature and extent of such harm must of course be assessed in the light of the evidence and findings in each case. In some cases, the court may be assisted by expert evidence on the impact of violence on the children. Violence may take many forms and have a quite different significance in different cases. It might be, for example, a single outburst, out of character, caused by a stressful situation, for which the violent person feels immediately regretful and apologetic. It might be the result of mental instability or disease. It might stem from a person's inability to control his or her temper. It might represent a deliberate pattern of conduct through which the violent person exercises a position of dominance and power over the other. It might be associated with a particular situation, and be unlikely to be repeated in different situations, or it might be a recurrent pattern of behaviour occurring in many situations. The violent person may deny the violence, or seek to justify it, or alternatively might accept responsibility for it and be willing to take appropriate measures to prevent it happening again.
These and many other aspects of violence may be highly relevant to the court in its task of attempting to determine the relevance of the violence to the children's welfare. The court's ability to make this determination will of course depend on the evidence available to it. Violence associated with a pattern of dominance, for example, may be particularly serious. For children to grow up in a climate of a potentially violent and dominating relationship between their parents seems to me to be an unacceptable model of family relationships, and would be very likely to create a situation of stress and fear that may well be damaging over a period. It is quite wrong, in my opinion, to assume that violence can be relevant only if it is directed at the children or takes place in their presence. It is equally wrong to assume that violent behaviour will necessarily be repeated, or to assume too readily that it will harm children, or to give it excessive importance; it is of course only one factor relevant to the assessment of what the child's welfare requires, and it will be more important in some cases than in others.[6]
[5] (1994) FLC 92-515.
[6] JG & BG (1994) FLC 92-515, 81,316.
Relevantly, in the decision of Patsalou & Patsalou,[7] Baker J said:
The making of derogatory or denigrating remarks by one party to another and the inflicting of physical violence by one party on the other are, in my view, relevant matters to be taken into account in cases concerning the custody of and access to children. Any person who indulges in such behaviour, in my opinion, presents a poor role model indeed for children and his or her suitability as a custodial parent must be very much in doubt.[8]
[7] (1995) FLC 92-580.
[8] Ibid 81,752.
It is therefore relevant to consider the effect of family violence on children, even if they are not a victim or witness of violent conduct. Children who grow up in a climate of violence and dominance are exposed to an unacceptable model of family relationships.
The mother and the ICL sought orders that provide for the children not to spend time with or communicate with the father. As Tree J noted in Theophane & Hunt,[9] it is a serious matter to order that a child not spend time with a parent. Justice Tree said:
Such orders properly ought to be restricted to cases where that outcome is plainly mandated in the best interests of the child, and no other regime of orders is appropriate or workable. Such orders are commonly employed where the court is satisfied that a person poses an unacceptable risk of harm to a child, which cannot be ameliorated by supervision of time and communication between that parent and the child...[10]
[9] [2014] FamCA 1038.
[10] Ibid [55].
Section 60CA of the Act provides that when a Court is determining whether to make a particular parenting order in respect of a child, the child’s best interests is the paramount consideration. In determining the child’s best interests, the Court is guided by s.60CC, informed by s.60B.
I shall now turn to consider what orders should be made having regard to the children's best interests.
Section 60CC(2)(a)
‘the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents’.
The children have had a meaningful relationship with their father until 2015, when he chose to not spend time with them.
The children have a close and loving relationship with the mother. I consider that it will be of benefit to the children to continue to have a meaningful relationship with her. The father recently asserted that X was living with his girlfriend’s family which the mother rejected. There is no evidence that X is not living with his mother and siblings.
Section 60CC(2A)
This section requires that the consideration in subparagraph 2(b) is to be given greater weight to subparagraph 2(a).
If the children cannot be protected from risk of harm, they will not be able to have a meaningful relationship with the father.
Section 60CC(2)(b)
‘the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence’.
The mother’s and the ICL’s cases are that the children are at an unacceptable risk of psychological harm if they spend unsupervised time with the father. The mother believes that they will suffer psychological harm, due to his aggressive and volatile behaviour, which is exacerbated when he drinks alcohol or smokes marijuana. She opposes telephone, letter or email communication, as she has seen the children’s upset, confusion or feelings of guilt after having such communication with him.
Mr M assessed the parties in 2013 and in 2016. He was cross-examined by counsel for the mother, the ICL and the father. His evidence was helpful and his opinions did not alter during cross- examination. I place weight on his evidence.
The father’s mental health
Mr M gave evidence that, given the absence of any therapy of any intensity since his first assessment of the father’s personality, his assessment remains valid.
Mr M wrote in 2013 that the father’s presentation could be described as a complex post traumatic reaction as a result of sexual abuse, family violence breakdown, and loss of a relationship with male models. Psychometric assessment indicated that he had a suspicious, paranoid and sometimes hostile personality style, as well as a tendency to be sensitive and quick to feel that he has been treated inequitably.
Mr M wrote in 2016 that the father presents with a constellation of problematic personality traits, on a background of childhood trauma that caused significant difficulty for him. There are some paranoid, narcissistic and antisocial traits. He has displayed a pervasive distrust and suspicion of others, such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent. He is generally suspicious, bears grudges and is quick to perceive personal attack. He has a tendency towards some narcissism, expressing somewhat grandiose or inflated self-esteem at times. The antisocial traits that can be identified include a tendency towards irritability and aggressiveness, a degree of irresponsibility and some impulsivity.
Mr M believes the father would benefit from an ongoing therapeutic relationship with a psychologist or other professional experienced in working with individuals with trauma and personality issues. Treatment of personality issues is usually a long-term undertaking. Therapeutic approaches include dialectical behaviour therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy.[11]
[11] Report of Mr M 1 April 2016 [95]-[98].
The problematic personality traits described by Mr M are demonstrated by his preoccupation of legal processes reported by him to the Family Consultant in 2015. She noted in the Child Dispute Memorandum, dated 24 September 2015, that the father reported to her that he was suing the Department for wrongfully removing the children from the care of the parents. He reported that he was involved in legal proceedings as an advocate with other families who had similarly had their children removed by the Department. He reported that he was suing a child protection worker for incompetence. He reported that he has made a complaint to AHPRA in relation to Mr T, the family’s previous psychologist. He reported that he was suing Tasmania Police for perjury. He was seeking to reopen and overturn his conviction of assault. He reported that he was suing the mother’s solicitor. During his evidence, he disputed that he was suing Tasmania Police and the mother’s solicitor.
Mr M believes that if the father were to build a trusting therapeutic relationship and engage in therapeutic work for an extended period of time, there is some possibility there may be some improvement for him. He wrote that unfortunately, he has shown a tendency to fail to recognise these problematic traits and also have difficult relationships with treating professionals. Mr M was of the view that as result of the prognosis, any improvement must remain guarded.[12]
[12] Ibid [100].
During cross-examination, Mr M said that he was of the view that if the father did not seek intervention or assistance in challenging his behaviour and beliefs, there is a real possibility of his behaviour continuing. He said that even during the limited period of time that the father is seeking with the children, a large impact can be made on the children in a very short period of time if the behaviour is bad enough. He said that if incidents were to occur that would have a huge impact, and it may take only five minutes to make that impact, it does not matter whether the time the children spend with the father is limited.
The father accepted that he is hostile and suspicious in his relationships with others and trusts no one. He accepted that his hostility has affected his relationships. He accepted that he is a hypervigilant individual. He accepted that he is extremely sensitive. He accepted that he has told doctors that he uses illegal substances for self-medication. He accepted that he has paranoid and obsessive compulsive features. He did not accept that he is a narcissist. He did not accept that he has demonstrated elements of inflated self-esteem and grandiosity.
He agreed that he has suffered with anxiety and depression since he was 13 years old and said that this has occurred ‘since I was bullied and controlled by my mother and abused and hit and slapped and the rest of it.’ He blames his issues on women. He demonstrated during the hearing contempt for his mother and the mother.
The father gave evidence that he does not have a treating psychologist currently.
The Father’s Alcohol Abuse
During the 2013 assessment, the father admitted that alcohol had been an issue for him and he had used it in the past to help him cope. He admitted that it contributes to arguments and indicated that it is hard for him to control himself. In the family violence incidents in the past, he stated that alcohol was usually involved. He also reported being a regular cannabis user at times. Mr M noted that in 2014, Dr J referred him to Mental Health Services. The Service recommended that he attend a residential drug and alcohol rehabilitation program but ‘he has refused principally because he does not believe he has a substance misuse problem.’
Mr M was of the view that the father’s alcohol use was a significant factor in family violence and he needed to address his issues with alcohol. He recommended that he consider attending the (omitted) Programme as a day client.[13]
[13] Report of Mr M 13 June 2013 [189].
In his 2016 Report, Mr M wrote that the father may continue to be underreporting the level of substance abuse, particularly alcohol, and the impact this has on him. He recommended that he attend some form of alcohol and other substance rehabilitation, to assist in ensuring similar patterns do not occur in the future when he is placed under stress.
During his evidence, the father agreed that he has had a significant long standing issue with the misuse of alcohol and cannabis for many years. When asked whether it persists to this day he answered, ‘I’m pretty good with my alcohol. I moderate pretty well.’
The father’s alcohol problems are evidenced by his three convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol. The first offence occurred on 13 May 2008, with a blood alcohol reading of .059; the second offence occurred on 12 March 2011, with a reading of 0.118; and the third offence occurred on 17 May 2014, with a reading of 0.086. On the third occasion the father’s licence was cancelled, with a nine month disqualification and suspended sentence imposed.
During cross-examination, the father agreed that over the years his drinking alcohol has made him disinhibited. He said, ‘I should be an astrophysicist if I didn’t drink perhaps…’ He agreed that when he is disinhibited, he can become quite aggressive. He said:
You give me some aggression, I feed it back to you. I’m really good at it. It’s like some guy attacking me with the sword. Dumb idea. Sorry, I went to study sword fighting so that I could counter that move. I don’t have a weapon… You attack me with a weapon, I will use it against you. You will die.
He agreed that when he is using alcohol and becoming disinhibited, he may not read signals properly, and he reads things as being aggressive when they are not.
I have already referred to the father’s behaviour in the Court on 21 August 2017 when he was affected by alcohol consumption. This gave an insight into how concerning and alarming his behaviour can be when he is affected by alcohol.
The mother deposed that during her relationship with the father, he was a big drinker and he was often drunk. She is concerned that he will continue to drink excessively when he has the children in his care. She is worried that their safety will be put at risk. She said that it is not a happy environment to be in when he is drunk. He is negative, angry, rude and violent.
The mother gave evidence that in 2009, her friend Ms R had a birthday party for her son and invited the family. The father turned up really drunk. He was ‘loud and abusive and Ms R’s partner, Mr D, asked him to leave. Mr D also called the police because of Mr Feeney’s behaviour.’ The father remembered that incident and agreed that it had happened and he had left.
The mother gave an example of the father’s behaviour at the wedding of Mr C in around 2008. She recalls him being very drunk and seeing him argue with his youngest brother Mr B. She drove home that night because he was so intoxicated, and he was violent and abusive in the car.
Ms M also recalled that at her son Mr C’s wedding, ‘Mr Feeney was so drunk that he was going berserk. Family members were trying to keep him out of the room where the speeches and ceremony was happening; however, Mr Feeney still managed to interrupt some of the speeches.’ He was shouting a lot, and she heard him verbally abuse her son Mr B.
The mother deposed that there were many times during the relationship when the father was drunk and in the car with the children. If she was present she would make sure that she drove. She recalled one occasion when X and Y were in the back of the car. The father was in the passenger seat and she was driving. He became so abusive and loud that she had to stop the car. She asked him to get out of the car, however he reached over to the ignition and took the car keys. The mother had to telephone a friend, who told her to come to her home. The father finally gave her the car keys and they drove to her friend’s home.
The father could not remember this incident and said that he did not want to agree this could have happened.
I accept the mother’s evidence about this incident.
Ms M described the father’s behaviour when he has been drinking as very unpredictable, irrational and volatile. She deposed that:
Mr Feeney did not seem able to separate some of his inappropriate behaviours between adult and children who may be witnessing him. In particular, his excessive drinking and shouting while the children were present is something I found inappropriate. I have witnessed Mr Feeney behave in this way myself.
She deposed that she attempted to discuss these issues with him but ‘he often couldn’t recall his own behaviour…’
The mother’s partner, Mr A, who has known the father since 1999 said, ‘when intoxicated, Mr Feeney became obnoxious and violent, both verbally and physically. It was not uncommon for Mr Feeney to be intoxicated and behaving in this way.’
Mr A noted the father’s wit and ‘undeniable intelligence’ saying that he ‘quite enjoyed Mr Feeney’s company when he was sober,’ but said ‘his major and most concerning downside is his “Jekyll and Hyde” personality…where Mr Feeney after having a few drinks, can suddenly snap and become abusive, violent and reckless, verging on deadly to those around him.’
During cross-examination, Mr A said he saw this behaviour:
frequently enough to realise that it was a problem. It wasn’t a daily event. I wasn’t around the family all the time. But while I was around the family together, it was frequent – maybe one in three times…it’s hard to put a figure on it, because Mr Feeney didn’t normally drink during the day. So it would be only when I was around the family and only at night and only when Mr Feeney was drunk.
Mr A then detailed various incidents of this ‘snap’ in the father’s personality, including hitting a mutual friend in the face when he questioned the father’s assertion that he was the ‘apex of humanity’. Another incident was when he grabbed the steering wheel whilst Mr A was driving and caused ‘the car to swerve violently and to be in danger of overturning at 80-90kmh.’
During cross-examination by the father, the local police officer at (omitted), Constable A, gave evidence that the father had presented to him much as he did in the Court that day. He was ‘belligerent, and argumentative, and not willing to deal in an adult manner.’
The father had been recently involved in an altercation in a street in (omitted) when his hand was injured. The father admitted that he had been drinking at 11:30 p.m., the time of this incident. Constable A gave evidence that on the night in question, he and his fellow officer had found him asleep in his car outside his girlfriend’s home.
Constable A had observed the father to be intoxicated on some occasions when police had been called to the former matrimonial home because of family violence issues.
Family Violence
The children have been exposed to family violence. In February 2013 the Department of Health and Human Services (‘the Department’) removed them from their parents’ care for a period of four months as a consequence of their exposure to ongoing family violence between the parents. On 18 March 2013, the father filed an affidavit in the child protection proceedings. He conceded that he abused the mother in the past, but asserted that at that time he did so less frequently.
The parents separated as a consequence of Tasmania Police removing the father from the family home on 7 March 2014. He was charged with assaulting the mother. A police family violence order was issued against him at this time. He was convicted of two counts of assaulting the mother.
During Mr M’s 2013 assessment, the father admitted to episodes of family violence over the preceding five years, although he stated that the reports of the severity were overstated or exaggerated. In 2013, he had admitted to Mr M that he had kicked the mother in the head. He told him that it ‘wasn’t a powerful kick.’ He then stated it was ‘silly’ and said that ‘her and I were having a tussle and ‘I wasn’t unprovoked.’
When the father was interviewed by Mr M in 2016, he denied many of the allegations of family violence against him and claimed that the mother’s motivation was ‘retaliation’. He told him that ‘I have video evidence of her hitting the children.’ In relation to the assault charge for which he was convicted in early 2015, he said ‘I got convicted, my lawyer, she wouldn’t do what I asked.’ He maintained that he was not guilty.
He claimed that the mother ‘hits the children’, stating that she strikes them with an open hand and yells at them. He claimed she was violent towards him, she had ‘head butted’ him on one occasion as well as ‘kicking me awake’ at one point after an argument.
In 2013, Mr M believed that the mother was minimising family violence at the time and being protective of the father.
Mr M’s 2013 assessment of the parties was that there was a degree of minimisation or justification of family violence. The father made comments that he was ‘not unprovoked.’ The mother claimed that she could not recall being struck with a broom. The paternal grandmother stated she could not recall a comment to a GP that led him to note her concerns that the father might ‘kill’ the children. Mr M said it was not surprising that they were defensive, given the circumstances of the children having being removed from their care.
Mr M was of the view that in the months leading up to the children being removed from the parents, the ongoing arguments between them were causing the children distress. Reports of arguments keeping them awake and sleeping in the ‘cubby house’ were made. At that time Mr M was concerned about the possibility of a return to an environment with ongoing family violence.
He recommended that both parties continue to work on relationship issues with a psychologist. He reported that the father has attitudes that facilitate, justify or contribute to family violence occurring. These attitudes can be characterised as negative and at times misogynistic.
The assessment of the father by Mr M in 2013 was that his attitude to women and family violence should be challenged in a therapeutic setting. He wrote ‘Mr Feeney must realise that family violence is detrimental to him, his wife and his children in the short, medium and long term and as such, should choose other ways to cope with interpersonal conflict.’ He also needs to ensure that his issues with alcohol are addressed, having a history of alcohol abuse.
Mr M recommended that therapeutic work will also need to focus on the issues that arise due to the father’s past sexual abuse. ‘Consideration should be given to the role past disclosure of childhood sexual abuse, police action and court proceedings related to this may have played in contributing to the cycle of family violence.’[14]
[14] Ibid [189].
Mr M was of the view that at that time there did not appear to be significant risk of serious physical harm to the children. He said there was documentation that X may have been physically restrained in some way when he was six, but nothing since. He said the primary concern was the children being affected by exposure to family violence.
There was evidence of many incidents of family violence over many years. One incident occurred in (omitted) 2009, when the mother was pregnant with Z. The mother deposed that father was intoxicated and hit her with a broom. She called the police and a police family violence order was issued. During cross examination, the mother gave evidence that the father was rough with X and grabbed him by the arm. She intervened and hit the father, and he then hit her with a broom. She gave evidence that she tried to hit him because she was angry about him being physical with X. She grabbed the broom, but he took it and hit her on the nape of her neck causing a bruise. On (omitted) 2009, she attended Dr J and disclosed that family violence had been perpetrated by the father. He observed and noted the mother had extensive bruising to her left forearm and grazing and bruising to the nape of her neck.[15]
[15] Exhibit ICL15.
The father admitted to Mr M in 2013 that he struck the mother with a broom, but did not cause any welts or bruises. He said that she had attempted to hit him with the broom and he took it off her and pushed her to the floor.[16]
[16] Report of Mr M 13 June 2013 [41].
Another incident occurred in 2012. The mother gave evidence that the father was very drunk and was yelling at her and pushing her. She said that she was running out of the house but he caught up with her. He kicked her in the face really hard and she was in a lot of pain. She said he had ‘really heavy’ hiking boots on when he kicked her. She had a big bruise on her face and her face was swollen for days after.
During cross-examination, the father remembered that night and agreed that he was drunk. He said that they were probably yelling at each other. He could not really remember whether there was some pushing. He agreed that Y went to a neighbour’s home to get help because he was scared and the neighbour came over. The father denied that he kicked the mother in the face. He said that apart from pushing, he did not make any physical contact with her and nothing happened to cause a bruise on her face. This contradicts what he told Mr M in 2013. As already indicated, Mr M reported in 2013 that the father admitted he kicked the mother in the head in October 2012, but told him that it ‘wasn’t a powerful kick’, was ‘silly’ and that ‘her and I were having a tussle.’
During cross-examination, when asked about what he told Mr M, he maintained that the kick to the head was a silly tussle and was not a powerful kick. When he was asked how he could justify giving someone a not powerful kick in the head, he answered ‘I don’t know’.
Another incident occurred in June 2013, when the mother sustained an injury to her back after the father kicked her. She said that he was intoxicated and pushed her. She landed face down on the floor and he kicked her in the back. She went to hospital for scans and consulted Dr J. She told Dr J that she had fallen on a woodpile at that time. The father agreed that the mother could not move for a week. He agreed she was in a lot of pain. He denied that he kicked her, and said that her injuries were caused by her falling on to a pile of wood. Dr J’s notes from 26 June 2013 confirm this, noting that the mother ‘fell backwards onto a wood pile three weeks ago.’ Dr J agreed that 18 months later she presented with ‘ongoing pain- an odd feeling just to the right of the lower thoracic spine, where Mr Feeney kneed her eighteen months ago’. He did not recall connecting the two incidents.
The mother agreed that her first account to Dr J was not true. The children were still in foster care at that time.
The mother agreed that she has slapped the father or pushed him during incidents. She hit him with a broom in 2009. There is no evidence that persuades me that he suffered any injuries or was fearful of the mother. I accept her evidence that she was not the aggressor of any violence. I prefer the mother’s evidence to that of the father and consider that he has committed frequent acts of family violence against her, which has caused her injuries and to obtain medical treatment on occasion.
The evidence during this trial demonstrated that the father’s views and attitudes have not changed. His issues with alcohol have not been addressed as recommended by Mr M in 2013.
The father was referred to his evidence about having been in a number of fights with people and having assaulted people. He answered:
I’m this horrible person with a beard... I walk in a room and everyone goes, “You’re an alpha male. You’re scary. Shit.” And everyone just jumps up just because of the fact I have this beard... even my current partner says, “Gee, you walk in a room, Mr Feeney, and everyone just fucking gets on edge.” It’s just the look. I can’t help it. It wouldn’t matter if I shaved or it doesn’t matter…
He was abusive and denigrating of the mother. For example, he has posted on his Facebook such things as the mother is ‘shit’, a ‘control freak’, a ‘bitch’, a ‘lying sociopathic abuser’, a ‘sociopathic feral bogan’, ‘fucked up on drugs’, and ‘is in a sick hippy parade’.[17]
[17] Exhibit M6.
He posted to the mother, via a third party, a Victim Card advertisement which read, ‘…VictimCard is endorsed by the Family Court Judges Association, NOW and alienating parents everywhere. Victim Card Because it’s never your fault. Offer not available to fathers and noncustodial parents.’[18]
[18] Exhibit M4.
The father is contemptuous of both the mother and his mother. He accused them both of having walked over him and having controlled him. He posted on his Facebook pages that his father did not manipulate and give him a life of physical and psychological abuse that his mother did, and ‘helped teach [his] wife.’[19]
[19] Exhibit M8.
I accept Ms M’s evidence that in 2015, the father rang her on her birthday on a blocked number and told her: ‘Happy Birthday Mum, I wish you a slow and painful death.’
The father was not able to control his emotions when giving evidence or when conducting his case. He raised his voice loudly on occasion, and he was aggressive. He was unable to desist from drinking during the period of the trial and he was visibly affected by alcohol in the Court on at least one occasion. He gave evidence that he did not necessarily see that drinking alcohol in the presence of the children was a problem, although he admitted to being intimidating to others after drinking alcohol. This gives the Court little confidence that he can control his emotions when spending time with the children.
The children need to be protected from being exposed to the father’s unpredictable and volatile behaviour and from family violence.
Emotional abuse of the children
The mother gave evidence that when the children were spending unsupervised time with the father after separation, it would take a few days for their behaviour to calm down. She believes that the father manipulates them and tells them lies about her and the paternal grandmother.
The mother believes that if the father were to spend unsupervised time with the children, he would continue to undermine her to the children by calling her names, behaving aggressively towards her at changeover, and cause the children to be exposed to further family violence. She believes that he could also actively undermine her relationship with the children and encourage them to treat her in a dismissive and derogatory way.
She said that on 7 January 2015, Z spilt his drink and Y said to him ‘fuck you cunt’ and pushed him against the wall. That day Z also said to Y, ‘your mum is a bitch.’
I accept Ms M’s evidence that she has heard the father say to the children in front of her, ‘don’t trust (omitted), don’t trust your mum, don’t trust any woman’ and ‘(omitted) is a liar, all women are liars.’
Y has told Ms M that his father said, ‘mummy doesn’t love you. (omitted) doesn’t love you either. If they loved you they would let you live with me.’
In December 2014, the mother overheard the father say things to the children on the telephone such as ‘I care about you more than she cares about you…if you want to run away from mum you can come here, alright?’
The father wrote a letter to X for his birthday in (omitted) 2015. He wrote, ‘your mum’s controlling all of us and the house’ and ‘you would not be alive without me, I have saved your life.’
Ms M gave evidence that in 2014 after the parties separated, she went to the father’s place where he was living with a friend, (omitted), to collect the children. The father started shouting at X, ‘you don’t want to live with your mother, you want to live with me.’ She deposed that X looked frightened. He went pale and tried to defend himself verbally, but he could not speak. The father started screaming at him. X was holding his breath and looked afraid. Ms M tried to calm him down. (omitted) also told him to stop ranting and raving. The father started yelling at (omitted) to mind his own business. Ms M was frightened. Y and Z could hear and Y started to cry. Ms M left with the children in the car as quickly as she could.
X did not say anything until about 15 minutes later when he started breathing and said ‘that was so awful, that was really scary.’
Ms M deposed that X’s behaviour towards his father changed after this incident. He told her that he did not want to spend time with him.
In respect of this incident, the father admitted that he disciplined X. The father also agreed that when X was about six or seven years old, he raised his voice and yelled at him. He said that he had a ‘slightly elevated voice.’
He considered this appropriate parental discipline and said, ‘I’m a pretty fucking nice father’. He agreed that he was justified by swearing at X because he was an adult, although he objected to X swearing. ‘I’m allowed to discipline my children under the law of Tasmania however I see fit.’ He also agreed that he may have held X down on the ground once.
In February 2016, the father approached the mother’s partner, Mr A, and Z at the (omitted) and tried to take Z, which resulted in a verbal dispute in his presence. The father said he would not call the incident an argument. He could not remember saying to Mr A, ‘stay the fuck out of my life cunt… fuck off…choose how you want to die or I will choose for you.’[20]
[20] Affidavit of Mr A filed 8 June 2016 [55]-[56], [62].
When I asked the father whether he said those words, he answered ‘not to my knowledge, no. Z was there’. Then he said ‘no, I didn’t say those words’.
I accept Mr A’s evidence about this incident. I do not accept the father’s denial about swearing at Mr A in Z’s presence.
I also accept Ms M’s evidence that Z told her, ‘I put my arms out for Mr A because Daddy was grabbing me.’ Z said, ‘the other people said it wasn’t okay and it stopped.’
Mr M considered that this incident would have induced fear and anxiety in Z.
Mr A said that he heard the father abuse the mother, calling her names such as ‘slut’, ‘mole’, ‘stupid’ and ‘useless’. He agreed this abuse occurred in the presence of the children. He reiterated that he was not always abusive, saying that he would ‘get more abusive as he got more drunk.’
Mr A gave evidence that when he commenced his relationship with the mother in (omitted) 2014, he heard X and Y refer to the mother as ‘bitch’, ‘slut’ and ‘cunt’ once or twice a week when arguments got heated. He said that they hardly ever use these words about her now. He has observed the children becoming calmer and more positive since he began his relationship with the mother.
Ms M has noticed positive changes in the children since separation. She has noticed an improvement in the way X speaks to his mother or about her. She has noticed him becoming more caring, rather than antagonistic, towards his younger siblings and mother. She described Y as much calmer, relaxed and happy. She considers Z is ‘still a bit emotionally regressed.’
I accept Mr M’s view that there is a very real possibility that the father will continue to discuss issues of conflict with the children and speak negatively of their mother to them:
The father may attempt to gather information from the children, may be overly focused on his former wife or her current partner’s circumstances, inappropriately share aspects of court proceedings and – or the conflict between parents and involve his children in his general suspicious attitudes towards the court, government agencies and other authorities.
I consider that if the children have unsupervised time with the father, there is a risk that he will denigrate the mother. There is a risk of him involving the children in the conflict.
The children need to be protected from risk of psychological harm by the father subjecting them to emotional abuse and from being exposed to family violence.
I do not consider that there is a risk of physical abuse to the children by the father. However, there is a risk that he may drive with the children in a motor vehicle whilst intoxicated, which could put the children at risk of injury.
The father’s allegations about the mother
The father contends that the mother lies to the children and alienates them from him. He deposed:
The longer Ms Ostler lies to our children and alienates me to and from them the greater the long-term psychological and social negatives on their lives. This has and will include a natural harboured resentment toward Ms Ostler for getting away with violence, lies, abuse and me from being almost powerless to stop her.
I am not persuaded by the evidence that the mother has ‘alienated’ the children from him. After separation, she facilitated unsupervised time for the children with him. She ceased such time due to the behaviour of the father. She agreed for the children to spend supervised time with him. During cross-examination from the father, she responded to his proposal for school holiday time by stating ‘I don’t agree at all… When they are mature enough but not now. Have a nice stable life and I don’t want a risk it… You get aggressive, your attitude when you lose your temper...’
I agree with the submission of counsel for the mother that despite the father’s convictions for assault on the mother, his drink driving convictions, numerous family violence orders and the consistent views of Mr M about him, he continues to deny that his behaviour has caused upset and trauma to the children and the mother, and he continues to blame the mother for this.
Section 60CC(3)(a)
any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child’s maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views
When Mr M asked X if he wants to have contact with his father, he told him ‘yes and no.’ He does not want to see him at the contact centre and he would like a choice as to when he would see him.
The mother gave evidence that X is a well-adjusted teenager and she respects his wishes. She said he is mature boy and he is able to make good decisions for himself.
Y was asked if he would like to see his father and he responded ‘I guess; I haven’t seen him much.’
When looking at photographs in May 2016, Z told the mother, ‘I want daddy.’ The mother believes that he wants to see his father, but he is confused by his behaviour. The mother said that Z says to her that he likes daddy, but he calls her a bitch. He has said ‘daddy is naughty because he gets drunk. He drinks beer and calls you bitch.’
The children had a meaningful relationship with the father until he stopped seeing them in early 2015. It is likely that the children are missing spending time with him.
Section 60CC(3)(b)
the nature of the relationship of the child with:
(i) each of the child’s parents; and
(ii) other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child)
The children have been living with the mother since separation in March 2014. They have close and loving relationships with her. They have a good relationship with her partner Mr A.
The children had a close relationship with the father until he ceased spending time with them.
The children have a close relationship with their paternal grandmother. They have good relationships with the paternal grandmother’s partner, paternal uncles and cousins.
Section 60CC(3)(c)
the extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity:
(i) to participate in making decisions about major long‑term issues in relation to the child; and
(ii) to spend time with the child; and
(iii) to communicate with the child
After separation the mother agreed to and implemented a parenting plan involving overnight time. She was unable to continue to facilitate time due to the husband’s aggressive behaviour.
The children are not spending time with the father. X has not spent time with him since January 2015. Y and Z have not spent time with him since April 2015. They currently do not have a relationship with him.
The Family Consultant recommended supervised time for the children with the father in September 2015. He chose not to exercise such time.
Section 60CC(3)(ca)
the extent to which each of the child’s parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent’s obligations to maintain the child;
The mother is responsible for maintaining the children. The father does not pay child support.
Section 60CC(3)(d)
the likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:
(i) either of his or her parents; or
(ii) any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living
The children will continue to live with the mother, so there will be no change in their living arrangements.
The father told Mr M that he would refuse to use the contact centre as ‘it reminds them of the CPS, the trauma of that… travel and trauma is unnecessary and I shouldn’t have had to pay…’ It would be ‘an admission of wrongfulness’ on his part.[21]
[21] Report of Mr M 1 April 2016 [76].
During cross-examination, the father gave evidence that he talked to the children about the HCCC and they did not want to attend there. He agreed that the controlling behaviour by the mother is one of the biggest reasons he did not want to see them there.
During cross-examination, he agreed that the HCCC is nowhere near the location of the offices of CPS. He said although X would definitely not want to attend there, he would take up the option to use it ‘these days.’
Section 60CC(3)(e)
the practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis
There is no practical difficulty of time being spent with the father on an unsupervised basis, unless he does not obtain suitable accommodation.
If supervised time is ordered, the practical difficulty is that it is likely that such time cannot continue indefinitely.
Section 60CC(3)(f)
the capacity of:
(i) each of the child’s parents; and
(ii) any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs
The father alleged that the mother has mental problems, has committed family violence and has a lack of basic parenting knowledge, which means that her capacity to provide for the children’s needs is affected. During the trial, the father amended his case from a live with application to an application to spend limited holiday time with the children. I infer from this that he has no real concerns about the care of the children by the mother.
The evidence of Mr M was that the mother does not have a mental illness or display any behaviours or traits indicative of a personality disorder.
The children are doing well at school and are settled in the mother’s care. She has provided for their needs without assistance from the father for several years. She attends school events and parent-teacher meetings.
I consider that the mother has the capacity to provide for all the children’s needs.
The father’s mental health and alcohol abuse have impacted upon his capacity to parent. He has a lack of insight into the effects of family violence on the children. He has problematic personality traits that cause significant difficulty for him. He is unable to place the children’s psychological and emotional needs above his own. He has not demonstrated insight into his behaviour and the effect this has on the children. He does not have the capacity to provide for their emotional needs. The father needs to undertake treatment as recommended by Mr M.
This is sad and unfortunate for the children and the father, as he has been an involved father during the relationship and undertaken enjoyable activities with them.
The mother deposed that the father is interested in their education and he would try to teach the children things at home, such as how to use tools and make things. He would also teach the children about gardening.
Ms M deposed that the father has imparted fabulous life skills to the children.
Section 60CC(3)(g)
the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child’s parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant
The mother was born in (country omitted). She is teaching the children about (nationality omitted) culture and language.
The father has had a close association with (country omitted). His father has lived in (country omitted) since the father was the age of 12. The father has always encouraged the children’s language and education in the traditions of (nationality omitted) culture and language.
Section 60CC(3)(h)
if the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child:
(i) the child’s right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture); and
(ii) the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right
This subparagraph is not relevant.
Section 60CC(3)(i)
the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents
The mother is currently demonstrating a responsible attitude to parenting. In the past she was irresponsible by failing to report family violence during and after the children had been removed from her and had returned. She remained in a relationship with the father, despite family violence concerns. She minimised the family violence to authorities and professionals.
The mother has since separation acted protectively and is meeting the children’s needs.
Due to the father’s attitude towards the mother and women generally, he is not a responsible role model for his children. I accept Ms M’s evidence that he presents a very negative perception of all women as stupid and untrustworthy.
Mr H, the Principal of (omitted) School also gave evidence about the father’s attitude to women. He deposed that he observed the father interacting differently with staff depending on their gender. He said that he was generally more amicable and treated him and the male staff members as equals. ‘With our women staff his demeanour is subtly intimidating. While he has been opinionated with me, he is very much more so with women on staff.’ Mr H also gave evidence about the father becoming more forceful and acting in a manner which is intimidating, if he did not like what Mr H has said to him. He described him as at times becoming agitated in discussions if he does not get the answer he is wanting. Mr H’s evidence was not challenged.
The father swears a lot and did so in front of the children. The mother deposed that the children used to swear a lot using the same words as the father. Ms M also gave evidence that she has witnessed the father swearing, using inappropriate language and shouting both at the children and other people in the children’s presence.
The father was irresponsible by sending X a birthday card in (omitted) 2015, the contents of which were emotionally abusive. He was irresponsible by sending Y letters around the same time, encouraging him to catch the school bus to (omitted) and get off with his partner’s daughter and follow her home.
An example of the father’s irresponsible parenting was when he waited for the children to arrive home from school at the bottom of the mother’s driveway on four occasions in 2015. He did this after attending the school on 1 July 2015 to collect the children, but they did not want to go with him. The mother also drove them to school several times because he waited at the bottom of the driveway. The children did not catch the bus to school because they were becoming distressed and wanted to avoid seeing him. The mother applied successfully for a variation of a family violence order to prevent the father from coming to the bottom of the driveway.
Another example was when he collected Z and Y from school on 5 May 2015 and took them to the police station to be interviewed. He accused the mother of hitting Z. The father did not take the children to school on 6 May and they returned to the mother’s care on 7 May 2015. Y told the mother that the father lied to the police about her hitting Z. No action was taken against her.
Sections 60CC (3)(j) and (k)
(j) any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family;
(k) if a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child’s family—any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order, taking into account the following:
(i) the nature of the order;
(ii) the circumstances in which the order was made;
(iii) any evidence admitted in proceedings for the order;
(iv) any findings made by the court in, or in proceedings for, the order;
(v) any other relevant matter
Between 2009 and 2016, there have been numerous family violence orders made between the parties, only one of which has been made to protect the father. This was a mutual order.
After a contested hearing of two charges of assault against the father and a family violence order application, he was found guilty, after pleading not guilty, of two counts of assault on 27 October 2014. A final family violence order was made.
On 9 April 2015, the father applied for a restraint order alleging the children needed protection from the mother. The application was heard ex parte and an interim restraint order was made against the mother naming all three children as persons to be protected. That order was revoked on 21 April 2015 on the mother’s application. On 11 August 2016, the father’s restraint order application against the mother was dismissed at his request.
On 29 August 2016 the father pleaded guilty to 31 breaches of the family violence order. Two charges were dismissed after the father pleaded not guilty and no evidence was tendered. The father was ordered to serve a term of imprisonment of two months, which was wholly suspended on condition that for a period of three years he not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment, he be on good behaviour, and he not commit any breach of the Family Violence Act 2004.[22]
[22] Exhibit ICL8.
On 29 August 2016 a family violence order was made against the father and will remain in force until 29 August 2021.[23]
[23] Exhibit ICL9.
Section 60CC(3)(l)
whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child
It would be preferable for the parties’ three children to make an order that would least likely lead to the institution of further proceedings. This may not be possible given the father’s attitude to orders. There may be further proceedings if orders are contravened.
Section 60CC(3)(m)
any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant.
The father’s attitude to the Court and to orders was demonstrated when he said:
‘I have access to my children whenever I want. I see them in the street… So what are you going to do about it Ms Ryan? I get to see my kids when I want... I get to see my kids whether this court likes it or not. I am seeing Y… Who is about to turn 13… The youngest one Z, I have not seen since January… So that’s all we are here about… My youngest son
I would like Y to be able to see Mr M and told that he is able to see me of his own volition and instigation when he feels like it… He will be 13 and he can ignore any court orders he likes…
When the father was corrected about this he answered, ‘actually, it is, in my world… My children will… find their father when they want to anyway.’ In a raised voice he said, ‘I’m going to be seeing my children whenever I like, whenever I ask to and there is not a god damn thing you can do about it Ms Ostler.’
His dismissive attitude to the Court was evidenced when he acknowledged that he threw away three copies of Mr M’s report on the day before his cross-examination commenced.
The father was denigrating to the mother’s lawyers and about the justice system. He agreed that he wrote on Facebook, ‘we live in a corrupt, nepotistic society that favours the mother having children’ – he said this is pretty well acknowledged. He wrote: ‘her lawyer rubs with the most corrupt ministers in the country. Knowing corrupt lawyers, ministers and judges in the system will run its course.’ He stood by this statement and said ‘you only have to pick up the newspaper.’
He agreed he wrote a letter to the mother’s lawyer saying ‘your ongoing parental alienation is unlawful, disgusting and intolerable… failing your duties… as a lawyer.’ He agreed he wrote ‘the lawyer is one of the most corrupt, clever acts in the business.’
He agreed he wrote on Facebook ‘my biggest problem is dealing with a corrupt system that doesn’t like me because I exposed a lot of shit the last couple of years.’
Travel
Section 65Y of the Act provides that if a parenting order is in force, a party to the proceedings must not take the child concerned from Australia unless there is written consent or a court order.
In the amended initiating application filed 8 June 2016, the mother sought an order that she:
…can take the children to (country omitted) or any country that is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction on one occasion per year for up to an eight week period by giving the respondent father four weeks’ notice on providing him with a return flight itinerary.
In her case summary filed 21 August 2016, the mother sought orders in accordance with the orders sought by the ICL. It was submitted in the written closing submissions ‘Ms Ostler may wish to have an extended visit with family in (country omitted) with the boys of some months duration so the boys can experience said (nationality omitted) culture. Paragraphs 22 and 24 combined appears to provide for this.’ This reference is to Order 22 proposed by the ICL that provides, ‘subject to order 23 below, the children are permitted to leave the Commonwealth of Australia for the purpose of a visit to another country, including (country omitted).’ Order 23 provides for four weeks’ notice to the father of any intended travel unless it is for emergency in which case not less than 48 hours’ notice.
The father opposed the children travelling to (country omitted) with the mother for visits. He believes that there is little or no certainty that she would return with them.
The mother deposed that she left (country omitted) when she was 18 years old and has been living in Australia for all her adult life. She has no intention to move to (country omitted) permanently. She wants the children to grow up in Tasmania. The children attend school in Tasmania and she does not want remove them from their friendships and relationships with family. The children speak to the mother’s extended family on the telephone occasionally. Her parents and sister send gifts and letters to the children. They met the children when the mother visited (country omitted) in 2010. Her mother and sister came to visit her in Tasmania in 2011.
I consider that the mother is bona fides about wanting to take the children to (country omitted) to see her family. She wants them to experience (nationality omitted) culture. The children have a right to enjoy and experience the country of their mother’s birth and spend time with her relatives. Overseas travel is also likely to widen their experience.
I do not consider that there is a risk that the mother may not return the children. She owns property in Australia, she has lived here since she was a young adult, and the children have lived here all their lives. The children are settled in their school and community.
I consider that future travel to (country omitted), and any other country which is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (‘Hague Convention’), is in the children’s best interests. I consider it is appropriate for the father to be given four weeks’ notice and an itinerary, and in respect of an emergency he be given 48 hours’ notice, prior to travel.
Parental responsibility
The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility does not apply, as there are reasonable grounds to believe that family violence has occurred in this family.
An order for equal shared parental responsibility requires consultation by the parents in relation to any relevant major long-term issue and requires that the parties ‘make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision’.[24]
[24] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s.65DAC(3)(b).
Situations where courts have ordered ‘sole’ parental responsibility have generally involved intractable conflict between the parents, where ongoing communication and ‘genuine’ consultation on long‑term issues affecting a child is unlikely. This may be the result of previous violence or abuse, or the ongoing fear of such abuse and/or violence.
The mother is unable to communicate with the father without being at risk of being abused. The communication with him broke down because of his rudeness and aggression. Communication via text message, communication book or even through lawyers did not work.
Having regard to the high conflict relationship between the parties and an inability to communicate, I consider that an order for sole parental responsibility in favour of the mother is in the children’s best interests. I consider that an order should be made that the mother informs the father, as soon as practical, of any major decisions regarding the children’s health, welfare and/or education in accordance with paragraph 3 of the ICL’s proposals.
I consider that it is in the children’s best interests to live with the mother, with whom they have a close and loving relationship. She has provided them with a stable environment.
The father has demonstrated a lack of insight into the effect of his behaviour on the mother, as primary carer of the children, and on the children. He has minimised family violence perpetrated by him and has blamed the mother. He has continued to drink alcohol and behave aggressively. His demonstrated attitude to the mother is abhorrent.
I consider that there is an unacceptable risk of psychological harm to Y and Z, if the father has unsupervised time with them, even for the short periods of holiday time proposed by him. The risk of emotional harm to them of being exposed to his volatile and aggressive behaviour, and to his negative attitude of the mother, is unacceptable. The father needs to undertake the extensive treatment recommended by Mr M, before unsupervised time could be considered in the future.
I consider that supervised time is the only means to ameliorate the risk of harm to Y and Z. The father gave evidence that he would now take up the option to spend supervised time with the children. I consider that the children should spend such time with him.
Having regard to the father’s attitude and personality, it is possible that he may not exercise the time ordered. However, I will give him the opportunity to do so, if he enrols at the HCCC within 30 days. If he does not do so, such time will not occur.
There are difficulties with long-term supervision. There are decisions which indicate that long-term or indefinite supervision at a children’s contact centre is undesirable. (TF & JF & Children’s Representative,[25] W & W,[26] and Moose & Moose.[27])
[25] (2005) FLC 93-227.
[26] (2005) FLC 93-235.
[27] (2008) FLC 93-375.
In TF & JF & Children’s Representative,[28] May J stated that whilst the evidence may support an order for long-term supervised time, ‘the necessity for contact to be supervised apparently indefinitely leads to the need to finely balance what is in the children’s best interests…’[29] Her Honour held that the evidence supported a view that the children were at an unacceptable risk if they spent time with the father on an unsupervised basis. However, her Honour stated that, ‘whilst supervised contact in this case will protect the children from any potential physical harm, the effect on their emotional well-being cannot be ignored.’[30]
[28] (2005) FLC 93-227.
[29] Ibid 79,755.
[30] Ibid.
The Full Court has accepted that it is within the proper exercise of a trial judges’ discretion to make such an order.[31] There needs to be a ‘mechanism for moving forward’ so that the parent seeking to remove the supervision requirement will have the opportunity to meet the ‘changed circumstances’ test in Rice & Asplund.[32]
[31] Champness & Hanson (2009) FLC 93-407.
[32] (1979) FLC 90-725.
The only means of moving this forward will be for the father to undertake treatment recommended by Mr M. If he were to do this successfully, he may be able to establish a significant change in circumstances.
The parties have agreed to an order that X spend time and communicate with the father, at X’s sole initiation, in such manner and at such times as are in accordance with his wishes. I consider such an order is appropriate and is in X’s best interests. He is 16 years old in (omitted) and is old enough to remove himself from any potential harmful situations.
I consider it is in the children’s best interests and appropriate to their welfare, that otherwise, the father be restrained from initiating spending unsupervised time with and communicating with X, Y or Z or requesting any other person to make such attempts on his behalf. I do not consider that telephone or written communication between the children and the father is in their best interests.
I consider the injunctive orders proposed by the ICL at paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 are appropriate for the welfare of the children and I will make them.
In respect of the orders sought in respect of the passports of the children, the father has handed them into the Registry. I will make orders for their release to the mother. In respect of orders sought for new passports to be issued without the consent of the father, I do not consider that order is necessary having regard to an order being made for sole parental responsibility in favour of the mother.[33]
[33] Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) s 11(5).
I certify that the preceding two hundred and thirty two (232) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Baker
Date: 7 February 2018
Annexure ‘A’
Independent Children’s Lawyer’s Proposals
THAT the applicant mother MS OSTLER ‘the mother’ have sole parental responsibility for X born (omitted) 2002 ‘X’, Y born (omitted) 2004, ‘Y’ and Z born (omitted) 2009, ‘Z’.
THAT X, Y and Z live with the mother.
THAT the mother will hereby inform the father, as soon as is practical, of any major decisions made regarding the children’s health, welfare and/or education.
That the respondent father, MR FEENEY, ‘the father’ is permitted to send to each child for their respective birthdays via the mother’s postal address, by means of Australia Post or courier service, one photograph, present and birthday card or letter, and one photograph, present and card or letter at Christmas each year, provided that the mother may inspect and veto any photograph, card, letter or gift which objectively could be seen as inappropriate for the relevant child to read or receive.
That otherwise as provided in Order 4, the father’s time and communication with Y and Z is suspended until they attain the age of eighteen (18) years respectively.
That X spend time and communicate with the father, at X’s sole initiation, in such manner and at such times as are in accordance with X’s wishes.
That otherwise as provided in Order 6, the father’s time and communication with X is suspended until X attains the age of eighteen (18) years.
That otherwise as provided in Orders 4 & 6, the father is restrained from attempting to spend time with and communicate with X, Y or Z OR requesting any other person to make such attempts on his behalf.
That pursuant to Section 68B of the Family Law Act, the father is restrained from:-
(a)going within 200 metres of any access road, path, or driveway to the home or place where the mother, X, Y or Z are or generally living or staying;
(b)not loiter within 100 metres of any school where X, Y and / or Z attend, visit or are enrolled;
(c)going within 100 metres of any other place where the mother, X, Y or Z may be present.
That neither party will demean, abuse, or belittle the other party, their respective partners or members of their family nor will they allow the children to remain in the presence of any third party doing so.
That neither party will use obscene language in the presence or hearing of the children.
That the father is at liberty to request the school(s) at which the children are enrolled provide him with a copy of each of the children’s school reports by such means as the school deems best, noting it may be more convenient for the school to email the reports to the father.
That the parties will confirm their postal addresses within seven days of the date of these orders by the father sending an email to the mother’s solicitors with that information and the mother’s solicitors sending an email the father with the mother’s information AND within 14 days of any change being made to the parties’ postal addresses they will inform the other party of the change by writing to the other party’s postal address provided.
That should any mail sent to the father be returned to the mother, the mother is not obliged to send any further mail to the father until he provides his new postal address to her.
That leave is hereby given to the mother to provide a copy of these orders to any school staff and/or school authority, child protection authority, medical and para-medical staff involved in the children’s care or sporting club which the children are involved in.
That these Orders shall serve as an authority to permit the principal and staff of the school which the children attend to not communicate with the father.
That the parties have leave to provide a copy of this Judgment, the single expert report of Mr M and these Orders to the children’s (OMITTED) counsellor and any future treating psychologists the children or either of the parents are referred to.
That the Independent Children’s Lawyer is requested to provide a copy of these Orders to the principal of (omitted) School.
That within seven days of the date of this Order the father will deliver the children’s passports to the Hobart Registry of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia for collection by the mother AND should the father fail to do so the mother will report to the Australian Passport Office that the children’s passports are missing and need to be cancelled.
That the children X born (omitted) 2002, Y born (omitted) 2004 and Z born (omitted) 2009, ‘the children’ be allowed to be issued an Australian passport, without the consent of the Father, by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
That parental responsibility is hereby given to the applicant mother, MS OSTLER, to apply to the Australian Passport Office for passports to issue or the reissuing of passports for the children X born (omitted) 2002, Y born (omitted) 2004 and Z born (omitted) 2009, ‘the children’, without first obtaining the consent of the children’s father, MR FEENEY.
That subject to Orders 23 below, the children X born (omitted) 2002, Y born (omitted) 2004 and Z born (omitted) 2009, ‘the children’ are permitted to leave the Commonwealth of Australia for the purpose of a visit to another country, including (country omitted).
That by method of registered post to the father’s last provided postal address, the mother will provide the father with not less than four weeks’ notice, prior to her departure, of her intention to cause the children to travel out of the Commonwealth of Australia UNLESS IT IS FOR EMERGENCY TRAVEL in which case the mother will cause a professional process server to attempt to serve the father with written notice at his last provided postal address as soon as is practicable and not less than forty-eight hours from their departure.
That THE COURT NOTES Australia is the habitual residence of the children X born (omitted) 2002, Y born (omitted) 2004 and Z born (omitted) 2009.
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
0
2
2