Partlett & Partlett (No 2) - [2021] FedCFamC1F 288

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Partlett & Partlett (No 2) [2021] FedCFamC1F 288

File number(s): WOC 777 of 2014

Judgment of: ALTOBELLI J

Date of judgment: 10 December 2021

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Risk of harm – Whether the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the children due to allegations of family violence and threats of filicide and familicide – Order that child live with the mother – Order that mother have sole parental responsibility for the child – Order that the father spend no time with the child – Personal protection orders under s 68B imposed in protection of mother and child.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA, 67ZA, 68B.

Cases cited:
Hiu and Ling [2010] FamCA 743

Molina and Sanchez [2021] FamCA 84

Oates v Q (2010) FLC 93–451; [2010] FamCAFC 202

Olsen & Rigby [2020] FamCA 885

Oscar & Traynor [2008] FamCAFC 158

Re W: Publication Application (1997) FLC 92–756; [1997] FamCA 8

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 187

Date of last submission/s: 16 August 2021

Date of hearing: 19–23 July 2021

Place: Sydney (via videoconference)

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Hill

Solicitor for the Applicant: Inner West Solicitors Pty Ltd

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Cook

Solicitor for the Respondent: Bowral Legal

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer Ms De Vere

Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer Legal Aid NSW
ORDERS

WOC 777 of 2014

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MR PARTLETT

Applicant

AND:
MS PARTLETT

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

ALTOBELLI J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 DECEMBER 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.All previous parenting orders are discharged.
2.The Respondent have sole parental responsibility for X born in 2009 and Y born in 2012 (“the Children”).
3.The Children live with the Respondent.
4.The Children spend no time with the Applicant until they each attain the age of 18 years.
5.Pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the Applicant is restrained by injunction from:
(a)Approaching the Children or either of them, or attending upon or being within 100 metres of the Children’s place of residence or employment, school or extracurricular activity location;
(b)Dwelling in or frequenting the locale of the Children’s place of residence, employment, school or extracurricular activity;
(c)Contacting or communicating with or attempting to communicate with the Children or either of them, by any means, including by third party, or by telephone, electronic platform such as SMS, iMessage, Facebook, Skype, Instagram or other social media;
(d)Removing or attempting to remove the Children or either of them from the care of the Respondent or the Respondent’s nominee, including by third party; and
(e)Taking the Children or either of them into his care or having the Children or either of them in his care.

6.Pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the Applicant is restrained by injunction from:
(a)Approaching the Respondent or attending upon or being within 100 metres of the Respondent’s place of residence or employment;
(b)Dwelling in or frequenting the locale of the Respondent’s place of residence or employment; and
(c)Contacting or communicating with or attempting to communicate with the Respondent by any means, including by third party, or by telephone, electronic platform such as SMS, iMessage, Facebook, Skype, Instagram or other social media.

7.Pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the Applicant is restrained by injunction from:
(a)Approaching the Maternal Grandparents or either of them or attending upon or being within 100 metres of the Maternal Grandparents place of residence (noting their current place of residence is YY Street, Suburb ZZ NSW) or employment;
(b)Dwelling in or frequenting the locale of the Maternal Grandparent’s place of residence or employment; and
(c)Contacting or communicating or attempting to communicate with the Maternal Grandparents or either of them, including by third party, or by telephone, electronic platform such as SMS, iMessage, Facebook. Skype, Instagram or other social media.

8.The Respondent shall be at liberty to change the names of the Children and in this regard attend upon any Births, Deaths and Marriages office and make such sole application on behalf of the children X born in 2009 and Y born in 2012 without the need to consult with the Applicant.
9.The Respondent is at liberty to travel outside of the Commonwealth of Australia with the Children or either of them.
10.Leave is granted to the Applicant to provide a copy of the Family Report prepared by Dr B dated 16 September 2018 to the Applicant’s treating psychologist and treating psychiatrist.
11.Leave is granted to the Respondent to provide a copy of the Family Report prepared by Dr B dated 16 September 2018 to the Respondent’s treating psychologist and treating psychiatrist and to the Children’s treating psychologist and treating psychiatrist.
12.All other extant applications are dismissed.
13.Pursuant to s 65DA(2) and s 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist to adjust and comply with an order are set out in the attached Family Law Courts fact sheet entitled “Parenting Orders – obligations, consequences and who can help”, and those particulars are incorporated in these orders.
14.A sealed copy of this order, a certified copy of the reasons for judgment delivered this day, and any other documents which may be considered relevant be referred to the chambers of the Chief Justice of this Court for referral to the appropriate authorities, being BF Organisation’s HR Office and the NSW Office of the Children’s Guardian for its own assessment of risk of the Applicant’s employment.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.The above Order 5 pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) is an injunction made for the personal protection of the Children to which s 68C would apply and accordingly any police officer made aware of these orders and who on reasonable grounds believes that such orders and injunctions have been breached by the Applicant, by either harassing, molesting, talking to or physically harming or threatening to harm the Children or either of them, may arrest the Applicant without warrant.
B.The above Order 6 pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) is an injunction made for the personal protection of the Respondent to which s 68C would apply and accordingly any police office made aware of these orders and who on reasonable grounds believes that such orders and injunctions have been breached by the Applicant, by either harassing, molesting, talking to or physically harming or threatening to harm the Respondent, may arrest the Applicant without warrant.
C.The above Order 7 pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) is an injunction made for the personal protection of the Children and the Respondent and Maternal Grandparents, to which s 68C would apply and accordingly any police officer made aware of these orders and who on reasonable grounds believes that such orders and injunctions have been breached by the Applicant, by either harassing, molesting, talking to or physically harming or threatening to harm the Children and/or the Respondent and/or Maternal Grandparents, may arrest the Applicant without warrant.
D.The purpose and intent of the order vesting sole parental responsibility in the Respondent is to permit her to make major issues decisions for the Children without the need to consult with the Applicant and, further, for the purpose of obtaining a passport for the Children, namely X born in 2009 (or as he may otherwise be known) and Y born in 2012 (or as he may otherwise be known), and renewing those passports from time to time without the need for the Applicant’s consent and thus the order is intended to also operate as an order for sole parental responsibility for the purpose of s 11 of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth).

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Partlett & Partlett has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ALTOBELLI J:
INTRODUCTION

This case is about two children, X, who is 11, and Y, who is nine (“the children”). The children currently live with their mother, the respondent in this case, and spend no time with their father, the applicant in this case. These reasons for judgment explain why the Court has ordered, amongst other things, that the father should not spend time with the children.
BACKGROUND
The facts set out in this section of these reasons are drawn from the comprehensive chronology prepared by the Independent Children's Lawyer as contained in her case outline filed 15 July 2021. At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the parents conceded that the chronology contains a fair summary of the matters contained in the column entitled “Event” in the said chronology. The entirety of the chronology becomes Schedule A to these reasons. The Court expresses its appreciation to the Independent Children's Lawyer for preparing this comprehensive chronology, and to counsel for making the concessions about factual matters.
The applicant father (“the father”) is 48 years old and lives in a rural township on the outskirts of Sydney. The respondent mother (“the mother”) is 44 years old and lives at an undisclosed location. They commenced their relationship in 2003 and cohabitated from May 2005, when they moved to a rental property in a western suburb of Sydney.
The mother alleges that the father’s violence towards her commenced as early as 2006, when the father threw a vase from a table, smashing it. In 2007, the mother deposes that whilst the father was driving, he commenced speeding and swerving, pulled over, told the mother to “shut the fuck up, you fucking princess”, and then got out of the car and walked away.
In 2007, the mother was diagnosed with anxiety and depression, a condition that she continues to suffer, but which is managed by her general practitioner.
There were further incidences of the father’s aggression and anger in 2008, including in the lead up to their marriage in 2008.
In 2009, the mother was diagnosed with retinitis pigmentosa. On 15 September 2009, whilst the mother was six months pregnant, the mother deposes to the father returning from a jog in an agitated and furious state of mind. He told her that he confronted the driver of a motor vehicle, placed his hands around the driver’s neck, and shook him. When the mother questioned him about his actions, he became extremely angry, yelled abuse at her, and stormed out of the house. When he returned four hours later, he was drunk and threatened to kill himself.
X was born in 2009, and in May 2010, the parents purchased their first property in a town located in the New South Wales D Region.
In 2011, the mother deposes to two further incidents involving the father’s aggression, anger and abuse, including driving dangerously, and damaging an iron. In 2011, the father was charged and convicted with driving with a low-range prescribed concentration of alcohol. He was placed on a bond for 12 months and ordered to pay Court costs.
Y was born in 2012. In December, the mother deposes to an incident which involved the father hearing persons running through their backyard and up their driveway. The father gave chase. When he returned, he said to the mother, “I ran after the guys with a machete, trying to catch them, but I couldn't so I came home and called the police.”
In 2013, the father and mother attended marriage counselling. At this time, it is clear to the Court that the relationship was in difficulty and this, no doubt, added to the challenges of raising two young children. The parties separated on a final basis in August 2013, with the mother continuing to be the primary carer for the children, a matter that continues today. The father moved to the residence of the paternal grandmother, where he lives today. The mother agreed to the father spending time with the children whilst he was residing at the paternal grandmother’s home, on the basis that the children would also be in her care.
Late in 2013, the father commenced engagement with a number of professionals. He was referred to Dr S, a psychiatrist, and Mr T, a psychologist, in relation to the father’s aggression and emotional abuse. A mental health care plan was prepared. He was prescribed medication, and seems to have engaged with his psychologist diligently in 2013. The father was spending time with his children, including overnight time. This time was not uneventful, and the mother deposes to both the children and herself being exposed to the father’s aggression at changeovers.
In December 2013, the mother was granted an interim Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (“ADVO”) by Suburb AB Local Court, and the father was charged with malicious damage and common assault, after one of the incidents that the mother deposes to, and which is summarised in the chronology. The father’s aggressive, indeed often uncontrolled, behaviour is a recurrent theme of the mother’s evidence not just at this time but later. Even after the ADVO was granted, there continued to be incidents between the parents, sometimes in front of the children. The mother persisted in facilitating the children’s time with the father. By February 2014, X was having nightmares attributable to the father.
On 19 March 2014, the father attended Suburb AB Local Court and consented, without admissions, to an ADVO protecting the mother. He also pleaded guilty to two charges of malicious damage and common assault and a 12 month good behaviour bond was imposed, as well as a final ADVO for 12 months.
In 2014, the father took the children without the mother’s consent, refusing to return them. As will be seen there were later instances where he attempted to see, or take the children. Changeovers become increasingly fraught and tense, and the children were exposed to this.
By October 2014 the mother’s retinitis pigmentosa had progressed to the point where she could not hold a driver’s licence, and her condition became understood as a genetic disease generally associated with progressive deterioration.
In 2014 this litigation commenced in the Federal Circuit Court (as it was then known) at Wollongong before myself. Orders were made for the children to spend time with the father. The parents attended a Child Dispute Conference on 19 January 2015. By 2015 the children were manifesting aggressive behaviour. With the benefit of hindsight, and having regard to the totality of the evidence before the Court, this Court comfortably finds that this was, more likely than not, attributable to exposure to the father’s aggression and behaviour, and the parental conflict around the parenting arrangements. The mother became increasingly concerned about the father’s noncompliance with the terms of the ADVO. The father’s aggressive behaviour expanded to include the schools and childcare centres that the children were attending.
On 11 October 2015 there was a violent incident between the father and his mother, the paternal grandmother. He physically assaulted her and destroyed her mobile telephone. He told his mother: “I’ll do away with myself, but you’ll come with me.” He obtained a 30 centimetre knife. The police arrived a short time later. Their records indicate that the paternal grandmother told them not to go inside the house as the father was going to kill her, or harm the police. Numerous police arrived and established a perimeter. The father refused to leave the premises for several hours, but then came out without incident. He was arrested and eventually charged and convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and destroy or damage property. During cross-examination, this incident became known as “the siege”.
Two further significant events took place on 20 and 21 December 2015, several years after separation. On 20 December the father attended the mother’s home at a time when she had a friend over for dinner. The father came to the door, ostensibly to return children’s toys. The father, in effect, confronted the mother about who her visitor was and asked, according to the mother: “Are you sleeping with him – got a new lover, have you?” The mother asked the father to leave. He started crying uncontrollably and said words to the effect of: “I can’t handle this. I need to go for a walk.” He once again took the children and started walking off with them under each arm. The children were returned by the father about an hour later.
The next morning, on 21 December 2015, the mother was awoken by the father’s loud knocking on her bedroom window. The father wanted her to come outside. She called the police. The father rang the doorbell over and over. By the time the police arrived, the father was gone. The mother observed the father outside her home again later that morning. He rang the doorbell over and over. The police were called again. He spoke with the mother’s friend, Mr AC. The father eventually left the property. The mother eventually obtained an ADVO. Later that day, when the mother took the children to preschool, the child Y pointed to his father’s new home, a unit above a shop directly opposite the preschool. The father arrived out the front of the preschool and stared at the mother. The director of the preschool in effect placed the centre in lockdown. The father started ringing the doorbell of the preschool asking to be let in.
The father was eventually taken to Suburb AV Hospital by the preschool chaplain and was scheduled that day as a mental health patient, until 23 December 2015.
While at Suburb AV Hospital, the father disclosed to the assessing clinician that he had thoughts of and intended to get a gun to shoot his children and himself, to get revenge on the mother prior to Christmas. When asked if he had a gun he said no but indicated that he knew how to get one. Whilst he was scheduled the hospital records indicate that there was no evidence of psychosis during the assessment. Nonetheless, the hospital notified Suburb AV Police in relation to a future potential risk to the family when he was discharged.
These incidents will be discussed in more detail below.
With the benefit of hindsight, and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Court can confidently say that the father’s attendances at the mother’s home, his attendance at the children’s preschool, and his admission to Suburb AV Hospital and the threats that he made, represent the nadir of the father’s mental health, and the zenith of the mother’s concerns about his mental health and what risk he presented to the children.

The father was later served with an interim ADVO and initially made a statement whilst in hospital confirming that he had threatened to kill the mother and children, but then recanted on that statement a few days later.
On 29 December 2015 the mother filed an urgent Application in a Case seeking to discharge the orders previously made for the father to spend time with the children, and a number of injunctions.
On 6 January 2016 the Suburb AB Local Court made a final ADVO for two years naming the mother as the protected person and restraining the father from approaching her or the children.
On 8 January 2016, I made orders at the Federal Circuit Court (as it was then known) in Wollongong suspending the existing orders for the father to spend time with the children. For all practical purposes the children have not seen their father since then.
In the years that followed a family report was obtained, and subsequently a single joint expert report prepared by Dr B. Both the mother and the father continued to engage with the professionals assisting them. Significantly, the father reengaged with Mr T, his psychologist.
In March 2016, the father was sentenced at Suburb PP Court for the charges relating to his own mother. He received a community service order for 150 hours and a section 9 bond. The father was formally diagnosed as suffering from depression by his treating psychiatrist, Dr S.
The parents resolved issues about their property settlement. On 3 October 2018, interim s 68B orders were made protecting the mother and the children, and the matter was transferred to the Family Court of Australia (as it was then known).
I heard the matter for five days commencing 19 July 2021. The father was represented by his counsel, Mr Hill who, the Court records, said everything that could possibly be said on behalf of the father. The mother was represented by her counsel, Mr Cook. The children were represented by an experienced Independent Children’s Lawyer, who briefed an equally experienced family law counsel, Ms De Vere.
THE COMPETING PROPOSALS
The father’s proposal, which is reproduced in Schedule B to these reasons, acknowledged that the children would live with their mother, who would have sole parental responsibility. He proposed that he spend time with the children on the following basis. For nine months he would spend time with them for two hours each calendar month supervised by BK Services at their centre. Thereafter, for a period of 12 months, it would be four hours per fortnight supervised by the private supervised contact service known as AD Services, but not limited to a supervised contact centre. Thereafter, it would be for six hours per fortnight unsupervised. The supervision would be at the father’s cost. Changeovers would be at a contact centre, unless the parents agreed otherwise. The father agreed to a number of injunctions.
The mother’s proposal, also reproduced at Schedule B to these reasons, provided for the mother to have sole parental responsibility, for the children to live with her, and for the children to spend no time with their father until they each attain the age of 18 years. The mother also sought a range of other injunctions that are set out in the order.
When the hearing commenced on day one, the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s tentative, and broad view, was to express concerns about the father’s behaviour, and in particular his ability to control his behaviour. The Independent Children’s Lawyer was concerned that on the basis of the evidence before the Court, the father had not displayed sufficient insight into the historical behaviours which created risk for the children, and thus would not be able to persuade the Court about risk issues in the father’s care. By the close of the evidence, however, counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer indicated that the Independent Children’s Lawyer adopted the mother’s proposal, and hence there would be no time between the father and the children.
It is clear from the competing proposals, and the evidence summarised above, that the issue for the children is whether, and to what extent the father presents a risk of harm to his children and, if so, how they should be protected.
THE EVIDENCE
In support is his case, the father relied on the following documents:
(1)His Initiating Application filed 7 November 2014;
(2)His Notice of Risk filed 7 November 2014;
(3)The Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum dated 7 April 2021;
(4)His Affidavit filed 20 May 2021;
(5)Medical Report and Supplementary Report of Dr S dated 7 June 2016, tendered and marked as exhibit A1;
(6)His Medicare Report as at 16 June 2021, tendered and marked as exhibit A2;
(7)Article of Amy Baker “The Long-Term Effects of Parental Alienation on Adult Children: A Qualitative Research Study”, tendered and marked as exhibit A3; and
(8)Documents produced by the Resilience Centre of mother’s engagement, tendered and marked as exhibit A4.
In support of her case, the mother relied on the following documents:
(1)Her Amended Response filed 10 February 2017;
(2)Her Affidavit filed 9 July 2021;
(3)Affidavit of Mr AF filed 9 July 2021;
(4)Affidavit of Ms V filed 12 July 2021;
(5)Expert report of Dr B released 16 September 2018;
(6)NSW Criminal Record of the father, tendered and marked as exhibit R1;
(7)Medical Report of Dr S dated 7 June 2016, tendered and marked as exhibit R2;
(8)Dr S’s letter to Dr W dated 26 April 2016, tendered and marked as exhibit R3;
(9)Extract from NSW Criminal History Report of the father, tendered and marked as exhibit R4;
(10)Mental Health Assessment of the father, tendered and marked as exhibit R5;
(11)Mr T’s letter to Dr S dated 25 September 2013, tendered and marked as exhibit R6;
(12)Email correspondence with C Pre School, tendered and marked as exhibit R7;
(13)C Pre School file note, tendered and marked as exhibit R8;
(14)File note of R School, tendered and marked as exhibit R9;
(15)Email from father to R School dated 17 July 2015, tendered and marked as exhibit R10;
(16)File note of R School dated 3 June 2015, tendered and marked as exhibit R11;
(17)Clinical notes of U Psychology in respect to the father dated 9 April 2016, tendered and marked as exhibit R12; and
(18)Clinical notes of U Psychology in respect to the father and his lawyers, tendered and marked as exhibit R13.
In support of their case, the Independent Children’s Lawyer relied on the following documents:
(1)Family report of Ms XX dated 18 February 2016, tendered and marked as exhibit ICL1;
(2)Report of Dr B dated 16 September 2018, tendered and marked as exhibit ICL2;
(3)Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum of Family Consultant Freedman dated 29 March 2021, tendered and marked as exhibit ICL3;
(4)Father’s letter to the HR Office of BF Organisation dated 20 January 2021, tendered and marked as exhibit ICL4; and
(5)Incident – Negative Behaviour Report, Suburb PP High School Report, NSW Department of Education Case Note Report re Incident at Suburb PP High School, tendered and marked as exhibit ICL5.
THE APPLICABLE LAW
The applicable law is found in Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (hereafter referred to as “the Act”). In determining parenting matters under Part VII of the Act the Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration: s 60CA.
The objects and principles of Part VII are set out at s 60B:
60B Objects of Part and principles underlying it
(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).
(3)For the purposes of subparagraph (2)(e), an Aboriginal child’s or Torres Strait Islander child’s right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture includes the right:
(a)       to maintain a connection with that culture; and
(b)       to have the support, opportunity and encouragement necessary:
(i)to explore the full extent of that culture, consistent with the child’s age and developmental level and the child’s views; and
(ii)       to develop a positive appreciation of that culture.
At the very core of Part VII of the Act is the creation of a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in s 61DA. Section 61DA provides:
61DAPresumption of equal shared parental responsibility when making parenting orders
(1)When making a parenting order in relation to a child, the court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.
(2)The presumption does not apply if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent of the child (or a person who lives with a parent of the child) has engaged in:
(a)abuse of the child or another child who, at the time, was a member of the parent’s family (or that other person’s family); or
(b) family violence.
(3)When the court is making an interim order, the presumption applies unless the court considers that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances for the presumption to be applied when making that order.
(4)The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that satisfies the court that it would not be in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.
If the presumption applies, the Court is required to consider certain things:
65DAA Court to consider child spending equal time or substantial and significant time with each parent in certain circumstances
Equal time
(1)Subject to subsection (6), if a parenting order provides (or is to provide) that a child’s parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, the court must:
(a)consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child; and
(b)consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents is reasonably practicable; and
(c)if it is, consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order) for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents.
Substantial and significant time
(2)      Subject to subsection (6), if:
(a)a parenting order provides (or is to provide) that a child’s parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child; and
(b)the court does not make an order (or include a provision in the order) for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents; and
the court must:
(c)consider whether the child spending substantial and significant time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child; and
(d)consider whether the child spending substantial and significant time with each of the parents is reasonably practicable; and
(e)if it is, consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order) for the child to spend substantial and significant time with each of the parents.
(3)For the purposes of subsection (2), a child will be taken to spend substantial and significant time with a parent only if:
(a)       the time the child spends with the parent includes both:
(i)        days that fall on weekends and holidays; and
(ii)       days that do not fall on weekends or holidays; and
(b)the time the child spends with the parent allows the parent to be involved in:
(i)        the child’s daily routine; and
(ii)occasions and events that are of particular significance to the child; and
(c)the time the child spends with the parent allows the child to be involved in occasions and events that are of special significance to the parent.
(4)Subsection (3) does not limit the other matters to which a court can have regard in determining whether the time a child spends with a parent would be substantial and significant.
Reasonable practicality
(5)In determining for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) whether it is reasonably practicable for a child to spend equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the child’s parents, the court must have regard to:
(a)       how far apart the parents live from each other; and
(b)the parents’ current and future capacity to implement an arrangement for the child spending equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the parents; and
(c)the parents’ current and future capacity to communicate with each other and resolve difficulties that might arise in implementing an arrangement of that kind; and
(d)the impact that an arrangement of that kind would have on the child; and
(e)       such other matters as the court considers relevant.
Because s 65DAA refers to the best interests of the child the Court must then go back to consider s 60CC which specifies how the Court must determine what is in a child’s best interests.
Determining child's best interests
(1)Subject to subsection (5), in determining what is in the child's best interests, the court must consider the matters set out in subsections (2) and (3).
Primary considerations
(2)      The primary considerations are:
(a)the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents; and
(b)the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
Note:Making these considerations the primary ones is consistent with the objects of this Part set out in paragraphs 60B(1)(a) and (b).
(2A)In applying the considerations set out in subsection (2), the court is to give greater weight to the consideration set out in paragraph (2)(b).
Additional considerations
(3)      Additional considerations are:
(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;
(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);
(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;
(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;
(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;
(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;
(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;
(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;
(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;
(i)the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child's parents;
(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;
(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;
(m)      any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant.
OUTLINE OF THESE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The Court will discuss the expert evidence of the Family Consultant, Ms XX, found in her report dated 18 February 2016, together with the single joint expert report of Dr B dated 16 September 2018. The report of Ms XX was admitted without objection and she was not required for cross-examination. Dr B’s report was likewise submitted without objection, but he was extensively cross-examined.
It is convenient to deal with the independent and expert evidence before considering the other evidence in this case. That is not because these reports necessarily have a particular cogency or persuasiveness above and beyond other evidence. Nonetheless, these reports are the only truly objective, independent and expert evidence before the Court. In any event in discussing this evidence there will be opportunity to consider the reports in the context of the other evidence presented before the Court. The advantage of this is that the expert evidence provides a lens through which to understand the other evidence, and the other evidence provides a context and a lens for better understanding the expert evidence.
THE FAMILY REPORT OF MS XX
Ms XX recommended that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children, that they live with her, and that there be no contact or communication of any sort between the children and their father.

Ms XX made a number of observations about how the father presented in his interview with her. At [70], for example, she described him “to be self-focused and to take no responsibility for his controlling and aggressive behaviour both over the years and more recently”. Elsewhere she described the father as being focused on satisfying his own emotional needs, and not understanding the needs of the mother or his children, particularly in the context of the various incidents to which she refers in her report (and which are summarised in the Background section of these reasons).
At [62] Ms XX emphasised that the father’s threats of filicide must be taken extremely seriously. She referred to the factors identified in research which are regarded as antecedents in cases of paternal filicide, including the father’s mental health, a history of prior violence, unemployment, access to weaponry, revenge against an ex-partner who has ended the relationship, and issues of alcohol or drug abuse.
The issue of the father’s insight into his historical behaviours is an important one in this case. At [17] Ms XX states:
Mr Partlett (aged 42 years) Mr Partlett presented as a well dressed, somewhat nervous man. He spoke about "making the biggest mistake of my life", referring to the events leading up to and including his threat to shoot himself and his children. However he refutes that he has a problem with anger or has engaged in controlling or coercive behaviours and suggests that some of the details written about him by the police in December 2015 are incorrect and need to be addressed. Mr Partlett said that some people may see his behaviour as "coming from jealously", but he sees his behaviour as his wanting to be protective of and helpful to Ms Partlett and the children. He also said that he is "still in love with Ms Partlett" and wishes that they still had their marriage. He said that he never wanted to be separated and that the separation was Ms Partlett's choice.
The father’s denials of his own behaviour and objections to the police records about him became a recurrent theme of his evidence. The Court finds it disconcerting that over three years after separation, and notwithstanding the critical events that took place in that period, the father still considered himself in love with the mother and wished that they still had their marriage.
Ms XX records at several paragraphs (including at [20]) that the father was observed to become visibly distressed and was heard to sob. This was also a feature of his presentation at the hearing. At [20] he also indicated that “he had never been in trouble with police except with speeding offences” which is inconsistent with the objective evidence before the Court. Whilst Ms XX did not describe this behaviour as minimisation, it is a convenient term to describe a range of behaviours manifested by the father in his evidence. Another common theme was not being able to look reflectively and objectively at past events. Another example is found at [23] where Ms XX records what the father said about the incident between his own mother and himself at her home in AH Town. He told Ms XX that: “…there was a scuffle”, and that “…mum’s face was bleeding from a skin cancer”. Once again, this is plainly inconsistent with the objective evidence from the police records. It was a gross minimisation of what had in fact occurred.
In relation to the father’s mental health admission and filicide threat Ms XX records at [29]:
According to Mr Partlett, when he attended the appointment with the Pastor and the pre-school Director at 1 pm that day, they offered to take him to AV Mental Health Care Team at Suburb AV Hospital, to which he agreed. When Mr Partlett was interviewed by the clinician, he said he told her "I need help, I'm a wreck, I don't have a wife, I have no money and don't know if my life is worth living". As Mr Partlett explained this, he sobbed loudly in interview. He went on to say that, although it was "dumb", he had told the mental health worker that "I want to shoot myself and shoot the boys to get back at her". He said the worker told him that she would need to report this, and that soon after he was transported to Z Town Hospital, was seen by a psychiatrist and was scheduled. Mr Partlett said that he "never intended to do this, but said it out of frustration".
The Court accepts the evidence of Ms XX. Quite apart from the fact that it was unchallenged, it is consistent with the remaining evidence before the Court. The Court makes no criticism of the father’s case for not seeking to cross-examine Ms XX. The report of Ms XX was largely overshadowed by the report of Dr B.
REPORT OF DR B
Dr B is a consultant psychiatrist, and child adolescent and family psychiatrist. His report is dated 16 September 2018.
Dr B’s recommendations are summarised at [684]–[690]:
684.The mother have sole parental responsibility for the children.
685.The children live with the mother.
686.If the court findings are in accordance with my view that the risks of recommending child/father time are significant, and outweigh the limited benefits that might result from the same, then the children have no contact with the father, during the period until the children are aged 18.
687.If the court findings are in accordance with my view that the children face indirect risk through paternal disruption of maternal wellbeing, security and agency, the management of this risk take priority over paternal freedoms or sensibilities, and even over the promotion of the father-child relationship.
688.Protective orders be put in place about the father not contacting the mother or children in any way, and not approaching the mother, children, or their locale of residence, or their school and other institutions or places of regular activity or engagement, should he become aware of the same.
689.I am uncertain of the possible reach of protective orders, but, it would be beneficial for the children’s and mother’s welfare and wellbeing, if the father was restrained from dwelling in or frequenting their locale of residence and schooling [with the exception of a circumstance where the mother would initiate a move into the father’s pre-existing locale].
690.The protective orders recommended in the above two paragraphs be extended also to include the persons and locale of the maternal grandparents.
At [699], Dr B could not recommend limited contact or communication between the children and the father.
At [701], Dr B acknowledged that the father did have something to offer the children:
701.In my view, the father may have something to offer the children during their adult life if they choose to engage with him at that time, in terms of what may be his character strengths in areas of non-intimate engagement with aspects of life such as his prosocial pastimes, skills and abilities, and capacity to maintain long-term friendships. But, in my view, even at that time, such engagement would be a precarious and complex process requiring an independent sense of self and strong personal boundaries, which the children would be most equipped to handle if they have had an undisrupted upbringing.
It is, of course, necessary to understand the basis upon which Dr B reached his conclusions. Dr B met with both parents, and then consulted with a number of their treating professionals and family members as outlined below:
(1)The children;
(2)The maternal grandmother and grandfather;
(3)The father’s then-partner and her three children;
(4)The paternal grandmother;
(5)Ms V, clinical psychologist to the mother;
(6)Ms AA, clinical psychologist to the children and mother as a parent;
(7)Dr S, psychiatrist to the father;
(8)Mr T, psychologist to the father; and
(9)Ms BB, psychotherapist to the parents collectively and the mother independently.
An important issue in this case is family violence, and in this regard Dr B states at [180]–[196]:
Family violence within the parental relationship: overall comments
180.In my view, the issue of the nature and extent of any pattern of family violence within the parental relationship is central to this case, both indirectly through the impact of family violence upon the mother’s wellbeing and function and hence her parenting capacity, and directly in terms of any direct impact of past family violence upon the children and in terms of any paternal personality dysfunction, incapacity in parenting, and risk to the children in paternal care.
181.My impression is that there has been a pattern of family violence perpetrated by the father against the mother over time. My impression is that significant aspects of this pattern were present from the beginnings of the parental relationship (2004/5), becoming more prominent from 2009 in the context of the needs of X, then further from 2012 in the contexts of the added needs of the infant Y.
182.At parental separation in August 2013, the pattern of family violence escalated to a more severe and impactful level, with increased harm and risk of harm to the mother and children, and persisted in an escalated state until the father’s threats of filicide in December 2015.
183.Since late December 2015, the father has not had contact or communication with the mother and children. This absolute separation has prevented the enactment of any potential for family violence that may persist in the attitudes, dispositions and behavioural patterns of the father.
184.It is important to note that in using the term “family violence” I am not suggesting that the father has necessarily been physically violent to the mother, though the mother describes two incidents where he drove his car in such a way as to place her in immediate physical danger.
185.I am using this term as it is commonly used in clinical practice and in the clinical and social sciences literature (interchangeably with the term “domestic violence”) to denote a pattern of behaviour within a family relationship that is coercive, intimidating, disrespectful, and harmful to the other.
186.This family violence has been at the severe end of the spectrum, in terms of emotional abuse of the mother, and coercive, threatening, intrusive, and disrespectful paternal behaviour towards the mother, including misrepresenting circumstances to third parties so as to elevate himself and denigrate or undermine the mother, involvement of the children in coercive and partisan processes, threats to his own life, and direct or indirect threats to the mother’s life, and (in December 2015) a direct threat to kill the children.
187.Unfortunately, it appears that these coercive paternal behaviours were reinforced by their success during the relationship then particularly post-separation, in that the mother felt coerced, and fearful of the consequences of “crossing” the father, such that she would accommodate to paternal behaviour despite experience of abuse and despite a clear desire to set boundaries and despite in some contexts there existing legally enforceable boundaries.
188.I note that whilst the father held back from actual physical violence towards the mother or children over time [though I think it likely that the father did on a number of occasions drive dangerously whilst the mother was in the car or standing beside the car with the door open], the father’s threatening, intimidating, or contingent words or behaviour led her to fear paternal retribution towards her, including fearing physically violent retribution. The mother held such fears even prior to the father’s threat of filicide in December 2015.
189.The most full expression of this pattern of family violence and its impacts was articulated in the maternal narrative, as presented in her court documents (which attach statements made to police), and to the family consultant in January 2015 then February 2016, and to myself at interview. My impression of the mother was that she presented this narrative in an earnest, considered, measured, and truthful way.
190.The father in his court documents and at interview with the family consultant in January 2015 then February 2016, with his psychiatrist and psychologist since 2016, and at interview with myself admitted to some elements of this narrative of family violence, took some responsibility, and expressed some regret regarding his past behaviours.
191.But, I observe that the father overall was minimising or denying of the extent of such behaviours, and minimising or denying of the intrusive, coercive, threatening and disrespectful nature of such behaviours, and minimising or dismissing of their impacts upon the mother.
192.I observe that the father presents an alternative narrative of himself as an earnest, altruistic and gallant husband and father, wrongly and disingenuously represented as violent and dangerous by the mother, who had acted impulsively and unwisely on a few occasions in response to stress imposed by the mother, and who had made a single impulsive threat of filicide, without intention or associated risk.
193.The mother presented herself, the children and the child/mother relationships as having been profoundly negatively impacted by the father’s behaviour over time, such that considerable time, effort and therapy had been required to enact repair, such that she remained personally and emotionally vulnerable to cues associated with past paternal abusive behaviour, and such that she felt cautious and reticent about the possible negative impact of any restoration of paternal parenting and co-parenting roles.
194.The father presented himself as having had a positive impact upon the children over time, and no or minimal negative impact upon the mother and child/mother relationships. He presented the maternal narrative of impact, risk and concern as disingenuous, and did not perceive barriers to a return to a paternal parenting and co-parenting role, extending to “50/50” care and a collaborative parenting approach with the mother.
195.I found that the documents attached to each of the parents’ affidavits and the subpoenaed documents and my telephone interviews with professional third parties were confirming of the maternal narrative, and that they challenged the more dismissing and gallant paternal narrative.
196.I found that my observations of the mental state of each parent at interview and of the other persons who attended interviews were consistent with the maternal narrative, and challenged the paternal narrative.
Under the heading of ”Father’s deliberate cultivation of maternal fear, to achieve maternal compliance”, Dr B’s impression was that over time the father was conscious and deliberate in his use of aggressive, coercive, threatening and contingent behaviour in order to achieve and maintain compliant and submissive behaviour in the mother. He refers to the father’s account of an incident that occurred during a car journey in March 2011 which the mother refers to in her affidavit.
At [226]–[231], Dr B records:
226.The father recalls that the parents were late to the maternal aunt’s engagement party, and the mother was “screaming in [his] ear for full on 15 minutes”.
227.The father writes, “I said I’d walk… you did dare me… I did (I like a dare game)… I drove the car off the road… skidded on the soft, dry and dusty gravel with the hand brake on for the last 4 to 5 metres”. The father likens his actions to a Bollywood movie, then references “that Bollywood party you went to and slepted [sic.] with that guy in Melbourne”, then “25 minutes later when I returned you were calm, it was nice, I enjoyed the drive to the party because we never spoke haha… we had a real great time… [until we were] onto the footpath, then you had a sudden mood change [and] went off at me (I was asking myself, ‘when is this full moon going to end?’)… we went] back to your parents’ [and] you changed back into the good Ms Partlett again… [that night] you were very cold in bed”.
228.I observe that in this narrative the father lends no legitimacy to maternal responses, with a reference to maternal insanity and with no empathic connection to the mother’s experience. There is an undermining aside about alleged maternal promiscuous behaviour.
229.My impression is that the father is here deliberately raising and recounting an event where his own past aggressive and contingent behaviour has led to maternal compliance in the past, in order to reinforce his demand for maternal compliance in the present.
230.The father ends this narrative with the statement, “can you be that happy Ms Partlett for the boys’ sake and be more child-focussed, I don’t want any dramas”. In the light of the father’s preceding narrative about his own past aggressive and dramatic responses to the mother shifting away from “the happy Ms Partlett”, I interpret this statement as a contingent threat.
231. My impression is that this process was ongoing…
Under the heading of ‘Father’s threats of violence to self and to others, including suicidal, homicidal and filicidal threats, and associated menacing behaviour’ Dr B states at [235]–[251]:
235.The mother reported at interview and in her court documents that the father made threats of suicide, and of physical harm to herself and her family, over time. He also made non-specific threatening statements.
236.In her affidavit of November 2014, the mother states that in December 2013, the father asked the mother whether a friend had told her about the “ropes in the garage”.
237.In her affidavit of 27th December 2015, the mother states that the father has threatened to hang himself, shoot himself, to kill members of her family and to kill herself, in the past.
238.In her statement to police of February 2015 [at Annex I to the mother’s affidavit of February 2017] the mother reports that on 30th November 2014, the father had said to her, “if you turn up to court on Wednesday, you’ll fucking live to regret this”, and “I’m not threatening you, I’m warning you”.
239.The narrative provided by the paternal grandmother to police on 11th October 2015 [as contained within the police COPS record] describes the father making verbal threats and behaving in threatening and menacing ways towards the paternal grandmother, in a manner consistent with the mother’s narrative about his words and behaviour towards her over time, and consistent with the filicidal threats made by the father in December 2015.
240.During this incident, after the father had verbally and then physically assaulted the paternal grandmother, taken her phone by force, and broken it, the father made threats and engaged in further threatening and menacing behaviour.
241.The paternal grandmother reported that the father said, “words similar to, ‘I’ll do away with myself but you’ll come with me’”. This was a threat of murder/suicide, made directly to a loved family member.
242.The father then went to the shed at the rear of the property, and returned “about 5 minutes later hiding something under his shirt”. When the paternal grandmother exited her room “after a short while”, she “looked up near the hallway door and saw a 30cm blade with a handle on top of the door way. This concerned the victim and she wasn’t sure what he’d do with it”.
243.My impression is that the father’s retrieving and displaying the blade was at minimum a deliberately menacing act on the father’s part, with the specific objective of inducing fear in the paternal grandmother that he would enact his verbal threat to “do away with” himself and herself. The father’s actions in retrieving this weapon from the shed increased the risk of planned or impulsive serious violence. I cannot exclude the possibility that the father’s actions carried lethal intent.
244.With regard to inducing fear in the paternal grandmother, the father appears to have achieved his objective. When police arrived, the paternal grandmother “told police not to go inside as the accused was going to kill her or harm police”. Police were concerned enough by the paternal grandmother’s presentation to “[wait] at the front of the address awaiting extra resources”. Subsequently, “Numerous police arrived and a perimeter was set up”.
245.When the father exited the home “after some hours”, the police sought an urgent AVO because “the victim is fearful of the accused”.
246.The father at interview with me admitted to making a filicidal threat on 21st December 2018, when being interviewed by the Suburb AV Mental Health Service, but denied having claimed access to a firearm. The police notes [which I understand are quoting directly a communication from the assessing clinician] state that the father “disclosed to the assessing clinician [name withheld] that he had thoughts and intended to get a gun to shoot his children and himself, to get revenge on his wife, prior to Christmas. When asked if he had a gun, he said no, but that he knew how to get one”.
247.This is a concerning disclosure as the father has disclosed thoughts of filicide/suicide, an intention to carry the same out, planning in terms of a means and a timescale of action within the next four days, and access to means. There is a parallel with the father’s threats of murder/suicide during the incident in October 2015. On both occasions there were threats and menacing behaviour, and on both occasions there was at a minimum an intention to project power and create fear. In my view, there was a significant likelihood that the father had been carrying at least some consideration and/or intention of carrying through with this filicidal act in the period leading up to this disclosure.
248.The specific issue of past, current and future filicidal risk is dealt with below under specific heading.
249.I observe the paternal statements reported by the ICL to the parents’ representatives by letter {at Annex A to the mother’s affidavit of May 2017] and to Community Services. When the ICL told the father that she remained concerned about the father’s past threats despite a recent report from Dr S, the father is reported to have said that the ICL and the family report writer “were the reason men were on bridges with their kids”, and to have said, “Ms Partlett’s boyfriend hasn’t seen his kids in 2 years and he is seeing my kids. Why’s that then? Look at what you’re doing. You’re the reason why fathers go and kill people”.
250. The father confirmed at interview with me that he had said these things.
251.These statements to the ICL are consistent with the mother’s narrative that the father would make threatening intimations if she did not comply with his wishes, including threatening intimations about suicide and homicide, and that he would hold her accountable for any negative outcome that might arise from the same.

Under the heading “Father’s violent behaviour, including a conviction for assault of the paternal grandmother”, Dr B records at [252]–[262]:
252.Whilst the mother reported recurrent paternal behaviour that led her to fear that he would physically harm or even kill herself or others, the mother did not report any paternal direct bodily physical violence towards her such as hitting or kicking.
253.The mother did report that the father had often been violent to property, and some examples of the same are provided above. His actions in that regard in December 2013 led to a conviction for “Destroy or damage property”, with a penalty of a twelve month bond and a requirement for compensation for damage done.
254.The mother reported incidents where the father’s aggressive actions were physically intrusive and/or placed her at immediate physical risk. An example is the incident where the father skidded the car off the road into gravel in 2011.
255.In her affidavit of February 2017, the mother describes an incident in November 2013, when the father initially cancelled his time with the boys, then sent a text to the mother saying that he would be there to collect them in 30 minutes. The mother was away from the home at the time with the boys. When she arrived home, the father was enraged about the delay. Whilst the mother was standing beside the open car door in order to assist with putting the children in the car, the father reversed, and the door pushed up against her.
256.Whilst the father has not been directly and bodily physically violent to the mother, he has been directly and bodily physically violent to the paternal grandmother, resulting in a conviction for “Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm”, and an order for 150 hours of Community Service.
257.This assault occurred on 11th October 2015. The father’s threatening and menacing words and behaviour during that incident are discussed above. I will here discuss the father’s verbal aggression towards the paternal grandmother, and the escalation of the same into physical aggression and violence.
258.The paternal grandmother told police on 11th October 2015 [as contained within the police COPS record] that after she challenged the father about inviting a person to her home to use her computer without asking her first, the father “become angry, [and called] the victim selfish and an old bitch”. After this, “the accused was working himself up and continually calling her names. The victim got up from her chair and walked past the accused. The accused grabbed the victim in a bear hug like move and kept calling her an old bitch. The accused walked outside momentarily and the victim decided to grab her mobile phone in an attempt to record the argument. When the accused walked back inside, and saw that the victim had her phone. The accused attempted to grab the phone from the victim, however, the victim held on tightly. The accused has stood in front of the victim, grabbed her face with both of his hands and squeezed her face. Due to the victim face being squeezed, her glasses started to fall of her face and a lens of the glasses popped out and caused a small laceration to her face. The victim told the accused that she won’t call the police (however she already had). This made the accused release his grip and snatch the phone away”.
259.I observe that the father initially physically assaulted the paternal grandmother with a “bear hug move” whilst continually to verbally abuse her, then later “grabbed her face with both of his hands and squeezed her face”, causing a laceration to her face, and not desisting until the mother had spoken up to say that she would not call police.
260.This physical assault of a loved family member as an escalation from “ordinary” family interactions, associated with suicidal and homicidal threats and deliberate and menacing obtaining and display of lethal means, is a serious matter, and increases the risk of future paternal assault of family members, including the mother and the children.
261.I note also the mother’s report that the father had pulled a man from his car and acted to strangle the man, in 2009, in response to an incident where the father was a pedestrian.
262.In terms of violence to self, the father denies having acted to harm himself. But, he told Dr S [as noted in Dr S’s report of 7th June 2016 at Annex C to the father’s affidavit of May 2017] and Mr T [as recorded in his notes of 2nd August 2013] that he had one occasion practiced tying a noose. Such partial enactment of suicidal behaviour is a risk factor for future suicide attempt.
Under the heading “Father’s violent reaction to other’s efforts to record or keep ‘proof’ of the father’s aberrant behaviour”, Dr B states at [270]:
270.This pattern of paternal behaviour is concerning. The father appears to have been unwilling to be accountable for his actions within intimate or family relationships, and to consider attempts to hold him to account for the same to be “betrayal”. He has intervened with violence to destroy evidence that might demonstrate his aberrant behaviour or might challenge his self-image or reputation. Such processes have been perpetuating of family violence through disrupting both accountability in the father and appropriate help-seeking/ boundary-setting in the mother and the paternal grandmother.
Under the heading of “The father’s minimising, self-evaluating and other – reducing personal narrative”, Dr B states at [271]–[274], [277]–[281], and [285]–[287]:
271.The father in his communication with the mother, with other relatives, and with the broader community [and it would appear, in his own conscious mind], has maintained a personal narrative that is minimising of his own failings or wrongdoings, elevating of self and reducing or denigrating of the other.
272.In assertively putting forth this narrative, the father has demonstrated attitudes and behaviours typical of family violence perpetrators, these being Superiority, Externalisation of Responsibility, Selfishness and Self-Centredness, Denial, Minimization and victim-blaming, Manipulativeness, and Contradictory statements and behaviours. Reference: List based on a literature review in Bancroft L, Silverman J & Ritchie D (2012) The Batterer as Parent 2nd Edn. SAGE: Los Angeles].
273.In my view, this process has been emotionally abusive of the mother in particular but also of the paternal grandmother.
274.I observe that the father presented a very different “face” to those outside the parental relationship, than that experienced by the mother.
…
277.The mother made reference to the gap between her private experience of the father and his public persona, and to the father’s pattern of presenting a narrative of past events that assertively protected himself and painted himself in a positive light, and laid blame on the other. The mother referred to the father’s “ability to put on… the charming show, and then… twist stories to make… [sigh]”. The mother elaborated, “when the first AVO happened, my next door neighbour was a witness… he was sending her messages, telling her she was lying”, and “the car incident… where he skidded on the road, and left us on the freeway… he got back in the car, and it was my fault… I’d made him do that”.
278.The mother added, “I realise now, how manipulative he can be… I didn’t realise it at the time”.
279.An example is that father’s narrative to his own family, to the mother’s family, to professionals (including myself) and to the mother over time about the issue of unfaithfulness within the parental relationship has been proactively self-serving, minimising of his own unfaithful behaviour, denigrating of the mother, and also disingenuous considering that the only established unfaithfulness during the parental relationship was his own.
280.The father has merged this narrative about the mother’s unfaithfulness prior to separation with a narrative about maternal “promiscuous” [his word, to Dr S, in April 2016] behaviour post-separation, which he then used to justify intrusive behaviour towards her during the years post-separation.
281.I note that in what appears to have been a rare and frank exception to the above disingenuous narrative [perhaps prompted by the fact that referral to Mr T had come from Ms BB, thus the father may have perceived that this information had already been passed on], the father told psychologist Mr T on 10th August 2013 that “he had an affair with a neighbour but it was not sexual”, and that he had been “hoping for a blow job”. He reported that he had agreed to stop the affair and to have relationship counselling when the mother found out, but had “continued behind [the mother]’s back”. When the mother found out, he had moved to the paternal grandmother’s home.
…
285.The family consultant in February 2016 noted that at interview with her, the father made “a number of serious and derogatory allegations regarding Ms Partlett’s promiscuous behaviour post-separation”.
286.I am here using the example of faithfulness/ unfaithfulness within the parental relationship to highlight the issue of the father’s self-serving and other-diminishing distortion of the narrative of interpersonal events, and the mother’s associated insecurity and felt need to record and keep “proof” of events. I am not focussed upon the issue of unfaithfulness per se. Extra-relationship “affairs” are relatively common and are not necessarily markers of significant personality dysfunction or of disrupted parenting capacity or risk.
287.The father at interview with me was globally diminishing of the mother at the expense of elevating of himself, and I observe the same in his communications with the mother contained within the court documents. At interview and in those documents I observed the father to shift between showing a condescending and compensatory largesse towards the deficient mother, and being critical or denigrating of the deficient mother.
Under the heading “The father’s intrusive, entitled and possessive behaviour towards the mother, failure to enact the parental separation, and failure to respect her personal boundaries” Dr B reports at [303]–[308]:
303.At paragraph 272 above, in discussing the father’s personal narrative, I listed associated attitudes and behaviours demonstrated by the father that were typical of family violence perpetrators, derived from a list based on a literature review in Bancroft L, Silverman J & Ritchie D (2012) The Batterer as Parent 2nd Edn. SAGE: Los Angeles.
304.I would add that in his behaviour towards the mother post-separation, the father has shown additional attitudes and behaviours from this list, these being Entitlement, Control, Possessiveness, and Confusion of Love and Abuse. [I have now identified that the father is described by all items on the list].
305.I found it easy to forget when reading communications between the father and the mother, or communications between the father and other persons about the mother, during 2014 and 2015, and extending into the father’s communications with Dr S and Mr T in 2016 and 2017, that the mother had made a clear and unequivocal decision to end the parental relationship in August 2013, and had communicated that decision to the father in a clear and unequivocal way at that time, and without subsequent ambivalence or “mixed signals”.
306.I observe that the mother from soon after separation interacted with the father in a respectful but pragmatic way, and sought clear and pragmatic boundaries with the minimum of required interaction, and without intrusion upon or expectation of the other, beyond the required arrangements.
307.In my view, the father showed a profound disrespect for the mother in failing to respect [in his attitudes or behaviour] her decision to end the parental relationship, and her associated need for personal boundaries.
308.The father showed what Bancroft and Silverman call Confusion of Love and Abuse, as the father repeatedly post-separation made professions of love for the mother and expressed a desire for reunion with her, but then utilised that “love” to explain or justify intrusive behaviour. An example was that the father told the family consultant in February 2016, in refuting allegations that he had a problem with anger or had been controlling or coercive, that he had been “wanting to be protective of and helpful to [the mother] and the children”, and was “still in love with Ms Partlett”.
Dr B observed the father’s minimising, denial and externalising behaviour in relation to his own coercive, threatening and violent behaviour. At [363]–[364] he records:
363.At interview with me, the father repeatedly made the statement, “I am not a violent man”. He denied any past violence. He also denied on specific questioning ever having made threats of violence, or ever having a problem with temper.
364.Later in the interviews, when I challenged the father with specific incidents from police or other records, the father conceded exceptions to the above statements, but minimised or contextualised the same.
Moreover, at [373]–[379], Dr B records:
373.Mr T told me at telephone interview that the father reported that he had never said aggressive or threatening things directly to the mother or the children, and that the allegations made by the mother against him are untrue.
374.The father’s denial of violence appears to have extended to his engagement in the “CC” Men’s Behaviour Change Program during 2017. The father told Mr T in May 2017 that he had challenged the group with a view that their violence towards their partners had created disadvantage in the family court system for men such as him who had never acted in such a way.
375.The father made a similar comment to me about a news report on the morning of our interviews that a man had killed his own child. The father did not appear to recognise that his own threats might have carried any risk of resultant violent action.
376.When I asked the father why he had done the “CC” programme, he said, “just to prove… that at the end of the day, I’m not a monster… I’ll go to any lengths [to do that]”.
377.The father’s thesis put to me and to his treating professionals Dr S and Dr T consistently over time is that his problem is limited to a problem with verbal impulsivity. He wrote in his letter to me dated 5th June 2018 (and expressed to me similar statements at interview) “When I made these comments, I was upset and when I am upset I sometimes make impulsive and inappropriate statements. My impulsivity comes out in inappropriate comments, not violent behaviour”.
378.I note that the father does make some statements in his affidavit of May 2017 where he acknowledges his past “destructive behaviour” and its “impact on other people”, and states that he has learnt from the “CC” course “how Domestic Violence can impact upon families”, and “what it means”, but I did not observe that these comments connected with his mental state on review by myself or with his broader narrative at interview with me or in any other context but that affidavit.
379.Overall, I am concerned about the father’s profound denial and minimising of his own past history of violence, and of coercive, threatening and intimidating behaviour.
(As per the original)
At [380], Dr B expressed impression was that paternal predisposition to family violence persists, and can be seen in the father’s continuing attitudes, dispositions and relation and behavioural patterns.
Dr B was particularly concerned about the father’s relationship with his own mother. At [381]–[401] Dr B reports:
381.The relationship between the father and the paternal grandmother has been ongoing over recent years, and thus I had the opportunity to appraise at the present time how the dyad and each of them conceptualised and had adapted to past episodes of family violence.
382.I am aware of two episodes of family violence perpetrated by the father against the paternal grandmother. The first was an incident in 2008, when the father slammed the paternal grandmother’s fridge door in anger. Of particular concern was the incident in October 2015 which (according to the paternal grandmother’s narrative of the same to police at the time discussed at paragraphs 239-245, and 256 to 260, above) involved paternal violent, threatening and menacing behaviour, and resulted in the father being convicted of assault.
383.When I met with the father on 14th May 2018, he said to me of the incident in October 2015, “Mum and I had a bit of a tiff, a little bit of an argument… we look back, and [ironic smile]… mum’s very embarrassed about it too”.
384.The father then gave a long narrative of the events of the day, which commenced with examples of himself having intended to assist the paternal grandmother and a friend and the paternal grandmother being unreasonably reactive to the same, and did not incorporate any paternal violence or threats of violence. The father told me that he had gone to the shed to do some work, and had not retrieved or displayed a knife. He did not perceive that day as an example of his own temper.
385.In response to my questions about his own role in the events of that day, the father said to me, “My mum’s constantly apologised to me about that… when my sister saw [the consequences of the paternal grandmother calling the police], she went off at my mum”.
386.The father attended the initial interview alone, but told me that the paternal grandmother had wanted to speak to me, and that he would like me to speak with her, also. He told me that the paternal grandmother in part wished to speak to me so as to explain the true nature of the above incident.
387.I wrote to the paternal grandmother (letter enclosed), offering a date that she could attend for interviews, if she wished to do so. The paternal grandmother accepted this offer.
388.When I saw the paternal grandmother she spoke positively of the father’s behaviour towards herself, the mother and the children, and negatively of the mother’s attitudes and behaviour.
389.I asked the paternal grandmother whether she had ever carried concern about paternal anger, aggression or threatening behaviour. The paternal grandmother had not held such concerns, but did comment that “there was an incident”. The paternal grandmother described the incident prior to the parental wedding when the father slammed the fridge door. The paternal grandmother blamed the mother for this incident, saying “well… Ms Partlett used to needle him… even me, [I’d be thinking], ‘if she says another thing, I’ve got to get up and walk away’”. I put to the paternal grandmother’s the mother’s report that many of her collected magnets had smashed. The paternal grandmother minimised the same, saying “they’re just little things… I think two fell off… it didn’t matter… it didn’t perturb me… ‘OK, he’s done his lolly’”.
390.I challenged the paternal grandmother about any other concerning incidents. She could not recall any such incidents. I asked whether the father had ever threatened to harm himself, or her. The paternal grandmother initially said, “No”, then when I again asked the question, she appeared coy, and said, “Mr Partlett and I did have a very bad day, one day… I over-reacted… I’ll do everything in my power to rectify that with Mr Partlett”. The paternal grandmother continued, “I’m sorry I did it… I wanna take that hurt away… because I had the police come”.
391.I asked about the incident. The paternal grandmother said, “It was a normal Sunday morning… Mr Partlett was doing things in the paddock… then the neighbours… their daughter had to go to court, and they wanted to use my computer and printer… I was saying, ‘she’s had weeks… why now?’, and [the father] was saying [pleasant, pleading tone] ‘don’t be so mean, mum’… I was screaming at him, ‘why do people have to… why does it have to be me?’…it was like, ‘I’m suffering in pain, now people want this from me’… then [the father] said, [pleasant, calming tone] ‘quieten down, mum’, and he put his arms around me, and I knocked my glasses off”.
392.After that, the father “went up the backyard… he was talking to the neighbours”, then “he said, ‘do you want some lunch, mum?’, and he got some lunch”.
393.The paternal grandmother recalled calling the police, but could not put that decision into any logical context.
394.After the paternal grandmother had provided the above narrative, I went through with her the narrative that she had provided on the day, and challenged her with the same. As I did so, the mother did not contradict the original narrative, either confirming the same, or using language such as “yes, that might have happened”. I observed this to be a very awkward process for the paternal grandmother, during which she did not shift from her stance of taking full responsibility upon herself, and absolving the father.
395.The paternal grandmother confirmed that her telephone had been smashed. “maybe” her face had been squeezed, “maybe” she had feared the father… that he might hurt the police or herself. “Yes”, the father had obtained and displayed the knife, and “maybe” he had threatened to kill himself and the paternal grandmother. The paternal grandmother sighed, and said, “I brought it on myself”.
396.I was concerned that the paternal grandmother appeared not only to be minimising the father’s violent and threatening behaviour during the October 2015 incident, but also reconstructing the event to present herself in the wrong in contrast with a gallant father, and taking active and complete responsibility for the incident.
397.I observe that after this incident, the police took out an AVO protecting the paternal grandmother, and the father moved out. The father told Mr T in February 2016 that he was “not having contact with [the paternal grandmother] after she changed her mind about not going to court [regarding the AVO and charges against the father]”. This comment suggests to me firstly that the father had elicited from the paternal grandmother an agreement that she would not cooperate with charges against him, and secondly that when the mother had stepped back from such an agreement he had cut off contact with her.
398.A few months later in May 2016, the father told Dr S that he was “close to [the paternal grandmother]… he took her over to W.A.”. It appears that the relationship had repaired at that time.
399.I carry a concern that the father/paternal grandmother appears to have stabilised around the father as gallant contributor and provider for (and protector of) the paternal grandmother, and the paternal grandmother as appreciative and idealising mother. Part of that process has been the paternal grandmother enacting denial of past paternal violence, then when challenged enacting an active process of minimising the same and taking full responsibility herself for any violence that did occur.
400.There may have been a coercive and contingent process of the father withdrawing connection, affection and [required] practical assistance when the paternal grandmother cooperated with police to hold the father to account for his violence, then resuming connection, largesse and assistance when the paternal grandmother returned to an idealising denial.
401.These current relational processes in my view perpetuate and have not acknowledged or sought to address, the father’s propensity to family violence. In addition, these relational processes appear to support active and collusive denial and secrecy about any further family violence that may have occurred within the dyad, thus I cannot be confident that the same has not occurred, or may not occur undetected and unaddressed in future.
(As per the original)

25 Jan 2016 Mother takes the children to the local Police Station to discuss the need for her and the children to be safe and protected at her new address and she asks the police to help her with this. Mother tells the children they have to leave AJ Town because, ‘daddy lives thee and his is not well.’ She also tells them, ‘daddy has made some bad choices and done the wrong thing which makes him unsafe to be around, so even if you see daddy you are not able to go close to him at the moment until mummy says its ok.’ M para 124

Jan 2016 X commences year 1 at a new school. M para 126

Jan 2016 Father commences seeking treatment. F May P24

6 Feb 2016 Father sees Mr T. He tells counsellor he needs to learn to live his life without his children. Counsellor also tells him he needs to work on his impulse control and mood regulation. Counsellor gives him examples. Father agrees to treatment goal of impulse control and mood regulation. He agreed to maintain his citalopram and to complete the bi polar self assessment on the black dog institute website. S8 Mr T, U Psychology

8 Feb 2016 Police serve ADVO on the father. ADVO to expired on 5 January 2018. S10 NSW
Police COPS

12 Feb 2016 SDM Family Risk Assessment Decision Report completed of mother’s circumstances by FaCS. Family risk level ‘low’. Noted that mother has removed the children from the premises and has relocated so father does not know where she is. S2 FaCS

18 Feb 2016 Family Report prepared by Ms XX.

19 Feb 2016 Orders made in Chambers by the Court’s own motion for the Family Report to be released to the parties.

29 Feb 2016 Y commences at a new day care centre two days per week. M para 127

12 March 2016 Father sees Mr T. Father is due to go to court for criminal charges about his mother. He is upset with his mother because she said she would come to court to support him. Five days later she changed her mind. Father also tells counsellor about being contacted by the police. Father told by police someone slashed Ms Partlett’s tyres. Father told police he was in AZ Town over the weekend and he could not be him. he got angry with the police and called him a coward. Police officer hung up on him. Father still angry with the police. Called them back. Spoke to a senior officer. This officer also hung up on him. counsellor talks with him about the concept
of not making a decision for one hours if he is upset. S17 Mr T U Psychology

15 March 2016 Father is sentenced at Suburb PP LC for offences of AOABH and destroy or damage property (DV). He receives a CSO for 150hrs for the offence of AOABH and a S9 Bond for 12 months for destroy or damage property offence. S19 NSW
Police CR

24 March 2016 Referral letter prepared by Dr W to Dr S for father regarding depression. S9 Dr S

29 March 2016 Mother’s friend Mr BM is helping the mother improve the matrimonial home. His four tyres are slashed while his car is parked outside the house overnight. Mother reports this to Suburb AV Police. M para 130

1 May 2016 Mother is waiting to cross the road with X while visiting AJ Town and she sees the father’s car waiting to turn right in front of them. The mother expects him to go straight ahead to avoid coming within 100metres but the father turns right in front of them. Mother turns X around to avoid him facing the father as he drives past. M para 131

13 May 2016 Father’s previous solicitors write to the father’s Psychiatrist, Dr S requesting that he prepare a report about the father and they enclose a letter of instruction dated 3 May 2016. F P25 &
Annexure B

14 May 2016 Father sees Mr T. Father tells him he has started a relationship with a woman called Amanda. Father discussed his nephew’s death and attending the funeral in WA. S17 Mr T U Psychology

17 May 2016 Mother receives a text from the father in breach of the ADVO. M para 132

18 May 2016 Mother attends her local police station and she speaks tells the police about the father’s text message. The mother does not pursue action after talking to the police. M para 133

7 June 2016 Report prepared by Dr S, the father’s treating Psychiatrist regarding the father. F P26 &
Annexure C

11 June 2016 Father sees Mr T. He went to get a drug test by the GP as per court request and GP did not want to order it. Dr S did a report and his solicitor asked for some amendments. He wrote letters to give to the children but the ICL has not agreed to this so children won’t get them. Father says he is really angry about it and considered just sending the letter to the mother but has not. Counsellor explored potential consequences if he was to act upon the impulse. Counsellor comments progress made in that father not acting on impulse but he still finds it hard to identify possible consequences but can recognise the need to delay reacting until calmer. S17 Mr T U Psychology

23 June 2016 Matter is listed in the FCC at Wollongong before Judge Harman. Parties enter into interim consent orders for the mother to provide the father with a photo of the children taken in the previous 3 months and correspondence from the children if the request it. The matter is adjourned for further directions on 14 September 2016.

3 July 2016 Mother takes a photo of the boys in the park to give to the father. The boys want to send the father a drawing as well. M para 137

6 July 2016 Mother posts photos of the children and school progress summaries to the father’s solicitor. M para 137

July 2016 Mother and children commence counselling through Victims Services. They receive counselling for PTSD and anxiety. M para 138

July 2016 Mother takes the boys on a beach holiday. M para 139

6 Aug 2016 Fathers sees Mr T. Relationships with Amanda going well. Went to the snow with her and children. Counsellor explores how high emotion and impulsivity prevents us from seeing the full picture and compromises decisions. S17 Mr T U Psychology

9 Aug 2016 Matter is listed in the FCC at Parramatta before Judge Harman. The matter is listed for final hearing for 3 days commencing on 8 March 2017. The Applicant is directed to file his documents by 23 December 2016 and the Respondent to file her documents by 3 February 2017.

Aug 2016 Mother registers the boys in an activity program for the summer. M para 140

31 Aug 2016 Y comes home from school with a Father’s Day card he has made and asks to give it to his father. The mother asks X if he wants to do the same and he doesn’t. He then reluctantly decides to make a card. M para 141

8 Sept 2016 Report prepared by Dr S, the father’s treating Psychiatrist regarding the father. F P28 &
Annexure D

Sept 2016 Dr S calls father’s counsellor Mr T. Dr S says he has written a report and he agrees there are some personality disorder traits and that the father struggles with some relationships and impulsivity but he is not diagnosing him with this but with adjustment disorder. S17 Mr T U Psychology

10 Sept 2016 Mother attends a five-hour seminar by Ms WW, a parenting and resilience specialist. She receives a Certificate of Attendance. M para 142

14 Sept 2016 Mother takes the children to P Town for a 4 day snow holiday. M para 143

20 Sept 2016 Mother receives a letter from X’s Primary School Counsellor summarising the counselling sessions. She states, ‘although he (X) is afraid of him (Mr Partlett) he still misses him.’ M para 144 & Exhibit LF1 page 51

28 Sept 2016 Mother takes the children on a train trip to stay with friends. X asks to live there because it is safer and is far away from daddy. M para 146

6 Dec 2016 Father completes the parenting course, ‘Keeping Kids in Mind’; which he does over a period of 7 weeks. F P32 &
Annexure F

12 Dec 2016 Dr AX prepares a letter regarding the mother’s eye condition. He states that the mother has less than 10 degrees of visual field in both eyes. She is classified as legally blind. M, para 5 & Exhibit LF1

15 Dec 2016 Dr AX prepares a letter regarding the mother’s eye condition. He states the mother will require cataract surgery and that the surgery is scheduled for 7 and 21 March 2017. M Feb P6 & Annexure C

5 Jan
2017 Dr S, the father’s treating Psychiatrist writes to the father and confirms reading the Family Report. In this letter, the Dr raises concerns about the validity of the Family Report because the father was not assessed with the children. F P33 &
Annexure G

29 Jan 2017 Mother is at the MGPs. The PGM calls and X answers the phone. The mother allows the PGM to speak with the children. She puts the phone on speaker phone. The PGM asks X questions about what school he is attending and X tells her. He also tells her where he goes for soccer training and karate. The mother tells the PGM she has to go. The boys then ask to see the PGM.
After this call, mother feels unsafe about her current address and she is concerned for the children’s safety. M para 156

10 Feb 2017 Mother files an Amended Response seeking final orders for parenting and property matters. In relation to parenting matters, the mother seeks orders for sole parental responsibility and for the children to live with her. She seeks orders that the children spend no time with the father and injunctions restraining the father from removing the children from the mother and from attending upon specific places. The mother also seeks orders regarding the children’s passports and change of name for the children.

14 Feb 2017 Matter is re-listed before Judge Harman. Hearing dates for March 2017 are vacated and the matter is listed for final hearing for 3 days commencing on 13 June 2017. The father is directed to file his trial documents by 21 April 2017 or the matter might proceed undefended. Costs are reserved for the mother and ICL.

7 March 2017 ICL makes mandatory report to FaCS under s67AZ regarding comments made by the father. Letter sent to the father confirming this. Mother’s solicitor is also provided with a copy. M para 160-164

13 April 2017 Father completes course, ‘More Harmony No Harm.’ F May P32 &
Annexure F

13 April 2017 Father attends his GP, Dr W to request a urine drug screen and he obtains a pathology request. F May P48 & Annexure I

7 March 2017
Mother attends the police station and makes a report about the contents of the ICL’s letter dated 7 March.

Police create a record only.

M para 164

NSW Police COPS June 17

31 March 2017 Father sees Mr T. He mistakenly attends at 6.30 when he should have attended at 5.30. Father not seen. S22 Mr T U Psychology

5 May 2017 Father sees Mr T. Father reports what he told the Judge on 14 February. Said he told judge he sometimes feels like giving up, that the FR was out of date, and he had not seen it. He was given a copy. He was asked about getting another report and he told the counsellor it was very expensive and he probably would not try to organise another. He said at court, he and mother both given 10,000 out of proceeds. Told counsellor judge had given him until 2 June to complete an affidavit. He said he would keep fighting to regain contact with his children. Counsellor asked him if he was still focussing on controlling his impulsivity and the father stated he was focusing on staying calm and was completing relaxation techniques. He was also considering his words before responding. Father then give an example of how he has controlled himself with one of his workers. Father still in a relationship. Father tells counsellor about a conversation he had with ICL and he had gotten upset and during the conversation had told ICL that he would never harm his children. He also said that he told her that it was because of people like her that made father’s want to take their children off a bridge or something to that effect. Father told counsellor that he stuffed up and had not meant it. Counsellor notes that father’s thought and speech process – little changed from previous sessions (tangentiality, expansive and lengthy stories). Indications of impulsivity and poor social cues still evidence by disclosed intention to LA solicitor and also by comments to judge at previous court hearing. He notes that it appears since last episode of treatment, the father’s impulsivity has deteriorated again as is common
during treatment gaps. S22 Mr T U Psychology

19 May 2017 Father sees Mr T. He provides letter he received from ICL. Father tells him the letter did not point out that he had also told ICL that father’s who kill their kids are wrong and he would never condone this behaviour or engage in it. When challenged by counsellor as to whether he made the comments in the letter, the father said he did. He was asked why he made the statements and he said he was upset and that he was trying to convey how hard the system made it for him. he stated he felt it was unfair that he could not see his children because he does not think he is a threat and he was trying to impress this on ICL, how situation upset him. he again stated that he would never engage in that behaviour, would never want to and it was disgusting. He was challenged about how the comments might be perceived, and he identified that it could be seen as a threat. He was also challenged that what he said was not a logical statement. To say these comments to an ICL, that they would cause harm to the children did not make sense. Father agreed. The comments would more logically be targeted towards a mother. The father was challenged about his intent in making comments. He said he didn’t know and it was stupid. Father also discussed attending a BH group. They discussed DV. Counsellor discussed ‘Schizotypal Personality Disorder’ with the father. He listed off the criteria for this. Counsellor reflects that the discussion about Schizotypal PD was good as it gave more of context to the father’s behaviour but there is still a considerable lack of insight in the father which causes him to get into situations where he causes problems for himself. S22 Mr T U Psychology

25 May 2017 Dr S, the father’s treating Psychiatrist writes a letter about the father’s diagnosis and medication after seeing the father. He notes the diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with Depression stabalised on Loxdate and Zyprexa. The Dr notes the father’s prognosis as good and that the father remains stable mood and appears fit from a psychiatric perspective to have supervised access. F P33 &
Annexure G

2017 Father is enrolled in a course called ‘CC’ run by UU Facilities. F P34 &
Annexure H

13 June 2017 Matter is listed for final hearing. Final property matters resolved, and Orders made appointing Dr B as the Single Expert in respect of parenting matters. Parenting proceedings adjourned.

16 September 2018 Dr B Expert Report released. Dr B opines that “if the court findings are in accordance with my view that the risks of recommending child/father time are significant, and outweigh the limited benefits that might result from the same then the children have no contact with the Father, during the period until the children are aged 18”. Paragraph 686 Expert Report

3 October 2018 Interim s68B orders made for the Mother and children’s protection and matter transferred to the Family Court of Australia Orders of 3
October 2018

24 August 2020 Paternal Grandmother files an Initiating Application seeking that she spend time with the children on a supervised basis initially, with time to ultimately progress
to one weekend per month from 9am Saturday to 5pm
Saturday. Such application filed as a stand alone
application in the Wollongong Registry of the Federal
Circuit Court. Initiating Application of Ms D Partlett filed 24 August 2020

29 March 2021 Children participate in Child Inclusive Conference. X says “I wouldn’t mind seeing Dad again” and “it would be nice to see Dad again, but if I can’t, I wouldn’t mind”. Y was reported to have little recollection of his father and it was stated: “he does not think he wants to see his father and does not think much about the situation”. Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum

Family consultant opines: “if the Court finds that there is an ongoing risk of harm, the children should have no time with their father”.

14 December
2020 Paternal Grandmother’s application joined to proceedings as between the parents. Orders of 14 December 2020

16 April 2021 Paternal Grandmother files a Notice of Discontinuance in respect of her application Court file

22 July 2021 Dr B scheduled to give evidence in the AM.

19-23 July Matter listed for Final Hearing. Court file
SCHEDULE B
The Father’s Proposal

That all previous parenting orders in relation to the children X born in 2009, and Y born in 2012, be discharged.
That the mother Ms Partlett have sole parental responsibility of the children X born in 2009, and Y born in 2012.
That the children live with the mother.
That the children spend time with the father as follows:
4.1.From the first availability of the BK Contact Centre for a period of 9 months,
4.1.1.For a period of 2 hours per calendar month, supervised by BK Contact Centre at a time and day suitable to the Contact Centre.
4.2.At the expiry of Order 4.1 for a period of 12 months,
4.2.1.For a period of 4 hours per fortnight supervised by AD Services at a time and day suitable to AD Services.
4.3.For At the expiry of Order 4.2 and thereafter,
4.3.1.For a period of 6 hours per fortnight unsupervised.
4.4.Pursuant to Orders 4.1 and 4.2, within 7 days of the making of the Orders, each party is to contact the BK Contact Centre and AD Services and complete all registration documentation and intake assessment procedures for the purpose of the father spending time with the children.
4.5.Pursuant to Order 4.1, The father is to bear the costs associated with the father spending time with the children at the BK Contact Centre.
4.6.Pursuant to Order 4.2, the father is to bear the costs associated with spending time with the children supervised by AD Services.
Changeover
For the purposes of changeover pursuant to Order 4.1, that changeovers occur at the BK Contact Centre at the commencement and conclusion of the children’s time with the father.
For the purposes of changeover pursuant to Order 4.2, that changeovers be facilitated and directed by the authorised supervisor(s) from AD Services.
For the purposes of changeover pursuant to Order 4.3, that changeovers occur at a public venue as agreed in writing between the mother and the father but failing agreement, facilitated by BK Contact Centre.
Pursuant to Order 7, the father is to bear the costs associated with the changeovers facilitated by BK Contact Centre.
Communication with the children
During periods when the children are not spending time with the father, that the communications between the children and the father be ordered as deemed fit by the Court and in the children’s best interests.
The parties are restrained from:-
10.1.Abusing criticising or denigrating the other or any member of the other parent’s family in the children’s presence and from allowing any other person to do so;
10.2.Discussing any issues raised in these proceedings and any allegations raised with the children in their presence and from allowing any other person to do so;
10.3.Discussing any issues raised in these proceedings or any allegations raised in these proceedings on any social media platform;
10.4.Making critical or derogatory remarks on social media platforms in relation to the other parent, or the other parent’s family or these proceedings relating to the children, and shall as far as reasonably practicable, not permit any third party to do so.
Injunction

That pursuant to s 68B, the father, on a non-admissions basis, be restrained from approaching the mother and the children outside any time stipulated in these orders, at the mother’s home, at the children’s school, sporting or extracurricular activity venue or at any of the mother’s or children’s treating professionals.
The Mother’s Proposal
That the Mother have sole parental responsibility for the children, namely X born in 2009 and Y born in 2012 (“the children”).
That the children live with the Mother.
That the children spend no time with the Father until they each attain the age of 18 years.
Pursuant to Section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 the Father, Mr Partlett, be and is hereby restrained by injunction from:
a.Approaching the children or either of them, or attending upon or being within 100 metres of the children’s place of residence or employment, school or extracurricular activity location;
b.Dwelling in or frequenting the locale of the children’s place of residence, employment, school or extracurricular activity;
c.Contacting or communicating with or attempting to communicate with the children or either of them, by any means, including by third party, or by telephone, electronic platform such as SMS, iMessage, Facebook, Skype, Instagram or other social media;
d.Removing or attempting to remove the children or either of them from the care of the Mother or the Mother’s nominee, including by third party;
e.Taking the children or either of them into his care or having the children or either of them in his care.
IT IS NOTED that the above Order 4 pursuant to Section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 is an injunction made for the personal protection of the children to which Section 68C would apply and accordingly any police officer made aware of these Orders and who on reasonable grounds believes that such Orders and injunctions have been breached by the Father, by either harassing, molesting, talking to or physically harming or threatening to harm the children or either of them, may arrest the Father without warrant.
Pursuant to Section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 the Father, Mr Partlett, be and is hereby restrained by injunction from:
a.Approaching the Mother or attending upon or being within 100 metres of the Mother’s place of residence or employment;
b.Dwelling in or frequenting the locale of the Mother’s place of residence or employment;
c.Contacting or communicating with or attempting to communicate with the Mother by any means, including by third party, or by telephone, electronic platform such as SMS, iMessage, Facebook, Skype, Instagram or other social media.
IT IS NOTED that the above Order 6 pursuant to Section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 is an injunction made for the personal protection of the Mother to which Section 68C would apply and accordingly any police office made aware of these Orders and who on reasonable grounds believes that such Orders and injunctions have been breached by the Father, by either harassing, molesting, talking to or physically harming or threatening to harm the Mother, may arrest the Father without warrant.
Pursuant to Section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 the Father, Mr Partlett, be and is hereby restrained by injunction from:
a.Approaching the Maternal Grandparents or either of them or attending upon or being within 100 metres of the Maternal Grandparents place of residence (noting their current place of residence is YY Street, Suburb ZZ NSW ) or employment;
b.Dwelling in or frequenting the locale of the Maternal Grandparent’s place of residence or employment;
c.Contacting or communicating or attempting to communicate with the Maternal Grandparents or either of them, including by third party, or by telephone, electronic platform such as SMS, iMessage, Facebook. Skype, Instagram or other social media.
IT IS NOTED that the above Order 8 pursuant to Section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 is an injunction made for the personal protection of the children and Mother and Maternal Grandparents, to which Section 68C would apply and accordingly any police officer made aware of these Orders and who on reasonable grounds believes that such Orders and injunctions have been breached by the Father, by either harassing, molesting, talking to or physically harming or threatening to harm the children and/or Mother and/or Maternal Grandparents, may arrest the Father without warrant.
The Mother shall be at liberty to change the names of the children and in this regard attend upon any Births, Deaths and Marriages office and make such sole application on behalf of the children X born in 2009 and Y born in 2012 without the need to consult with the children’s Father, Mr Partlett.
That the Mother is at liberty to travel outside of the Commonwealth of Australia with the children or either of them.
IT IS NOTED that the purpose and intent of the Order vesting sole parental responsibility in the Mother is to permit her to make major issues decisions for the children without the need to consult with the children’s Father, Mr Partlett and, further, for the purpose of obtaining a Passport for the children, namely X born in 2009 (or as he may otherwise be known) and Y born in 2012 (or as he may otherwise be known), and renewing those Passports from time to time without the need for Mr Partlett’s consent and thus the Order is intended to also operate as an Order for sole parental responsibility for the purpose of Section 11 of the Australian Passports Act 2005.
That leave be granted to the Father to provide a copy of the Family Report prepared by Dr B dated 16 September 2018 to the Father’s treating Psychologist and treating Psychiatrist.
That leave be granted to the Mother to provide a copy of the Family Report prepared by Dr B dated 16 September 2018 to the Mother’s treating Psychologist and treating Psychiatrist and to the children’s treating Psychologist and treating Psychiatrist.
That all previous parenting Orders be and are hereby discharged.
That all extant Applications are withdrawn and dismissed.
That pursuant to Section 65DA(2) and Section 62B, the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders and details of who can assist to adjust and comply with an Order are set out in the attached Family Law Courts fact sheet entitled “Parenting Orders – obligations, consequences and who can help,” and those particulars are incorporated in these Orders.

File number(s):	WOC 777 of 2014
Judgment of:	ALTOBELLI J
Date of judgment:	10 December 2021
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Risk of harm – Whether the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the children due to allegations of family violence and threats of filicide and familicide – Order that child live with the mother – Order that mother have sole parental responsibility for the child – Order that the father spend no time with the child – Personal protection orders under s 68B imposed in protection of mother and child.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA, 67ZA, 68B.
Cases cited:	Hiu and Ling [2010] FamCA 743 Molina and Sanchez [2021] FamCA 84 Oates v Q (2010) FLC 93–451; [2010] FamCAFC 202 Olsen & Rigby [2020] FamCA 885 Oscar & Traynor [2008] FamCAFC 158 Re W: Publication Application (1997) FLC 92–756; [1997] FamCA 8
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	187
Date of last submission/s:	16 August 2021
Date of hearing:	19–23 July 2021
Place:	Sydney (via videoconference)
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Hill
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Inner West Solicitors Pty Ltd
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Cook
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Bowral Legal
Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer	Ms De Vere
Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer	Legal Aid NSW

WOC 777 of 2014
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:	MR PARTLETT Applicant
AND:	MS PARTLETT Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	ALTOBELLI J
DATE OF ORDER:	10 DECEMBER 2021

25 Jan 2016	Mother takes the children to the local Police Station to discuss the need for her and the children to be safe and protected at her new address and she asks the police to help her with this. Mother tells the children they have to leave AJ Town because, ‘daddy lives thee and his is not well.’ She also tells them, ‘daddy has made some bad choices and done the wrong thing which makes him unsafe to be around, so even if you see daddy you are not able to go close to him at the moment until mummy says its ok.’	M para 124
Jan 2016	X commences year 1 at a new school.	M para 126
Jan 2016	Father commences seeking treatment.	F May P24
6 Feb 2016	Father sees Mr T. He tells counsellor he needs to learn to live his life without his children. Counsellor also tells him he needs to work on his impulse control and mood regulation. Counsellor gives him examples. Father agrees to treatment goal of impulse control and mood regulation. He agreed to maintain his citalopram and to complete the bi polar self assessment on the black dog institute website.	S8 Mr T, U Psychology
8 Feb 2016	Police serve ADVO on the father. ADVO to expired on 5 January 2018.	S10 NSW Police COPS
12 Feb 2016	SDM Family Risk Assessment Decision Report completed of mother’s circumstances by FaCS. Family risk level ‘low’. Noted that mother has removed the children from the premises and has relocated so father does not know where she is.	S2 FaCS
18 Feb 2016	Family Report prepared by Ms XX.
19 Feb 2016	Orders made in Chambers by the Court’s own motion for the Family Report to be released to the parties.
29 Feb 2016	Y commences at a new day care centre two days per week.	M para 127
12 March 2016	Father sees Mr T. Father is due to go to court for criminal charges about his mother. He is upset with his mother because she said she would come to court to support him. Five days later she changed her mind. Father also tells counsellor about being contacted by the police. Father told by police someone slashed Ms Partlett’s tyres. Father told police he was in AZ Town over the weekend and he could not be him. he got angry with the police and called him a coward. Police officer hung up on him. Father still angry with the police. Called them back. Spoke to a senior officer. This officer also hung up on him. counsellor talks with him about the concept of not making a decision for one hours if he is upset.	S17 Mr T U Psychology
15 March 2016	Father is sentenced at Suburb PP LC for offences of AOABH and destroy or damage property (DV). He receives a CSO for 150hrs for the offence of AOABH and a S9 Bond for 12 months for destroy or damage property offence.	S19 NSW Police CR
24 March 2016	Referral letter prepared by Dr W to Dr S for father regarding depression.	S9 Dr S
29 March 2016	Mother’s friend Mr BM is helping the mother improve the matrimonial home. His four tyres are slashed while his car is parked outside the house overnight. Mother reports this to Suburb AV Police.	M para 130
1 May 2016	Mother is waiting to cross the road with X while visiting AJ Town and she sees the father’s car waiting to turn right in front of them. The mother expects him to go straight ahead to avoid coming within 100metres but the father turns right in front of them. Mother turns X around to avoid him facing the father as he drives past.	M para 131
13 May 2016	Father’s previous solicitors write to the father’s Psychiatrist, Dr S requesting that he prepare a report about the father and they enclose a letter of instruction dated 3 May 2016.	F P25 & Annexure B
14 May 2016	Father sees Mr T. Father tells him he has started a relationship with a woman called Amanda. Father discussed his nephew’s death and attending the funeral in WA.	S17 Mr T U Psychology
17 May 2016	Mother receives a text from the father in breach of the ADVO.	M para 132
18 May 2016	Mother attends her local police station and she speaks tells the police about the father’s text message. The mother does not pursue action after talking to the police.	M para 133
7 June 2016	Report prepared by Dr S, the father’s treating Psychiatrist regarding the father.	F P26 & Annexure C
11 June 2016	Father sees Mr T. He went to get a drug test by the GP as per court request and GP did not want to order it. Dr S did a report and his solicitor asked for some amendments. He wrote letters to give to the children but the ICL has not agreed to this so children won’t get them. Father says he is really angry about it and considered just sending the letter to the mother but has not. Counsellor explored potential consequences if he was to act upon the impulse. Counsellor comments progress made in that father not acting on impulse but he still finds it hard to identify possible consequences but can recognise the need to delay reacting until calmer.	S17 Mr T U Psychology
23 June 2016	Matter is listed in the FCC at Wollongong before Judge Harman. Parties enter into interim consent orders for the mother to provide the father with a photo of the children taken in the previous 3 months and correspondence from the children if the request it. The matter is adjourned for further directions on 14 September 2016.
3 July 2016	Mother takes a photo of the boys in the park to give to the father. The boys want to send the father a drawing as well.	M para 137
6 July 2016	Mother posts photos of the children and school progress summaries to the father’s solicitor.	M para 137
July 2016	Mother and children commence counselling through Victims Services. They receive counselling for PTSD and anxiety.	M para 138
July 2016	Mother takes the boys on a beach holiday.	M para 139
6 Aug 2016	Fathers sees Mr T. Relationships with Amanda going well. Went to the snow with her and children. Counsellor explores how high emotion and impulsivity prevents us from seeing the full picture and compromises decisions.	S17 Mr T U Psychology
9 Aug 2016	Matter is listed in the FCC at Parramatta before Judge Harman. The matter is listed for final hearing for 3 days commencing on 8 March 2017. The Applicant is directed to file his documents by 23 December 2016 and the Respondent to file her documents by 3 February 2017.
Aug 2016	Mother registers the boys in an activity program for the summer.	M para 140
31 Aug 2016	Y comes home from school with a Father’s Day card he has made and asks to give it to his father. The mother asks X if he wants to do the same and he doesn’t. He then reluctantly decides to make a card.	M para 141
8 Sept 2016	Report prepared by Dr S, the father’s treating Psychiatrist regarding the father.	F P28 & Annexure D
Sept 2016	Dr S calls father’s counsellor Mr T. Dr S says he has written a report and he agrees there are some personality disorder traits and that the father struggles with some relationships and impulsivity but he is not diagnosing him with this but with adjustment disorder.	S17 Mr T U Psychology
10 Sept 2016	Mother attends a five-hour seminar by Ms WW, a parenting and resilience specialist. She receives a Certificate of Attendance.	M para 142
14 Sept 2016	Mother takes the children to P Town for a 4 day snow holiday.	M para 143
20 Sept 2016	Mother receives a letter from X’s Primary School Counsellor summarising the counselling sessions. She states, ‘although he (X) is afraid of him (Mr Partlett) he still misses him.’	M para 144 & Exhibit LF1 page 51
28 Sept 2016	Mother takes the children on a train trip to stay with friends. X asks to live there because it is safer and is far away from daddy.	M para 146
6 Dec 2016	Father completes the parenting course, ‘Keeping Kids in Mind’; which he does over a period of 7 weeks.	F P32 & Annexure F
12 Dec 2016	Dr AX prepares a letter regarding the mother’s eye condition. He states that the mother has less than 10 degrees of visual field in both eyes. She is classified as legally blind.	M, para 5 & Exhibit LF1
15 Dec 2016	Dr AX prepares a letter regarding the mother’s eye condition. He states the mother will require cataract surgery and that the surgery is scheduled for 7 and 21 March 2017.	M Feb P6 & Annexure C
5 Jan 2017	Dr S, the father’s treating Psychiatrist writes to the father and confirms reading the Family Report. In this letter, the Dr raises concerns about the validity of the Family Report because the father was not assessed with the children.	F P33 & Annexure G
29 Jan 2017	Mother is at the MGPs. The PGM calls and X answers the phone. The mother allows the PGM to speak with the children. She puts the phone on speaker phone. The PGM asks X questions about what school he is attending and X tells her. He also tells her where he goes for soccer training and karate. The mother tells the PGM she has to go. The boys then ask to see the PGM. After this call, mother feels unsafe about her current address and she is concerned for the children’s safety.	M para 156
10 Feb 2017	Mother files an Amended Response seeking final orders for parenting and property matters. In relation to parenting matters, the mother seeks orders for sole parental responsibility and for the children to live with her. She seeks orders that the children spend no time with the father and injunctions restraining the father from removing the children from the mother and from attending upon specific places. The mother also seeks orders regarding the children’s passports and change of name for the children.
14 Feb 2017	Matter is re-listed before Judge Harman. Hearing dates for March 2017 are vacated and the matter is listed for final hearing for 3 days commencing on 13 June 2017. The father is directed to file his trial documents by 21 April 2017 or the matter might proceed undefended. Costs are reserved for the mother and ICL.
7 March 2017	ICL makes mandatory report to FaCS under s67AZ regarding comments made by the father. Letter sent to the father confirming this. Mother’s solicitor is also provided with a copy.	M para 160-164
13 April 2017	Father completes course, ‘More Harmony No Harm.’	F May P32 & Annexure F
13 April 2017	Father attends his GP, Dr W to request a urine drug screen and he obtains a pathology request.	F May P48 & Annexure I
7 March 2017	Mother attends the police station and makes a report about the contents of the ICL’s letter dated 7 March. Police create a record only.	M para 164 NSW Police COPS June 17
31 March 2017	Father sees Mr T. He mistakenly attends at 6.30 when he should have attended at 5.30. Father not seen.	S22 Mr T U Psychology
5 May 2017	Father sees Mr T. Father reports what he told the Judge on 14 February. Said he told judge he sometimes feels like giving up, that the FR was out of date, and he had not seen it. He was given a copy. He was asked about getting another report and he told the counsellor it was very expensive and he probably would not try to organise another. He said at court, he and mother both given 10,000 out of proceeds. Told counsellor judge had given him until 2 June to complete an affidavit. He said he would keep fighting to regain contact with his children. Counsellor asked him if he was still focussing on controlling his impulsivity and the father stated he was focusing on staying calm and was completing relaxation techniques. He was also considering his words before responding. Father then give an example of how he has controlled himself with one of his workers. Father still in a relationship. Father tells counsellor about a conversation he had with ICL and he had gotten upset and during the conversation had told ICL that he would never harm his children. He also said that he told her that it was because of people like her that made father’s want to take their children off a bridge or something to that effect. Father told counsellor that he stuffed up and had not meant it. Counsellor notes that father’s thought and speech process – little changed from previous sessions (tangentiality, expansive and lengthy stories). Indications of impulsivity and poor social cues still evidence by disclosed intention to LA solicitor and also by comments to judge at previous court hearing. He notes that it appears since last episode of treatment, the father’s impulsivity has deteriorated again as is common during treatment gaps.	S22 Mr T U Psychology
19 May 2017	Father sees Mr T. He provides letter he received from ICL. Father tells him the letter did not point out that he had also told ICL that father’s who kill their kids are wrong and he would never condone this behaviour or engage in it. When challenged by counsellor as to whether he made the comments in the letter, the father said he did. He was asked why he made the statements and he said he was upset and that he was trying to convey how hard the system made it for him. he stated he felt it was unfair that he could not see his children because he does not think he is a threat and he was trying to impress this on ICL, how situation upset him. he again stated that he would never engage in that behaviour, would never want to and it was disgusting. He was challenged about how the comments might be perceived, and he identified that it could be seen as a threat. He was also challenged that what he said was not a logical statement. To say these comments to an ICL, that they would cause harm to the children did not make sense. Father agreed. The comments would more logically be targeted towards a mother. The father was challenged about his intent in making comments. He said he didn’t know and it was stupid. Father also discussed attending a BH group. They discussed DV. Counsellor discussed ‘Schizotypal Personality Disorder’ with the father. He listed off the criteria for this. Counsellor reflects that the discussion about Schizotypal PD was good as it gave more of context to the father’s behaviour but there is still a considerable lack of insight in the father which causes him to get into situations where he causes problems for himself.	S22 Mr T U Psychology
25 May 2017	Dr S, the father’s treating Psychiatrist writes a letter about the father’s diagnosis and medication after seeing the father. He notes the diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with Depression stabalised on Loxdate and Zyprexa. The Dr notes the father’s prognosis as good and that the father remains stable mood and appears fit from a psychiatric perspective to have supervised access.	F P33 & Annexure G
2017	Father is enrolled in a course called ‘CC’ run by UU Facilities.	F P34 & Annexure H
13 June 2017	Matter is listed for final hearing. Final property matters resolved, and Orders made appointing Dr B as the Single Expert in respect of parenting matters. Parenting proceedings adjourned.
16 September 2018	Dr B Expert Report released. Dr B opines that “if the court findings are in accordance with my view that the risks of recommending child/father time are significant, and outweigh the limited benefits that might result from the same then the children have no contact with the Father, during the period until the children are aged 18”.	Paragraph 686 Expert Report
3 October 2018	Interim s68B orders made for the Mother and children’s protection and matter transferred to the Family Court of Australia	Orders of 3 October 2018
24 August 2020	Paternal Grandmother files an Initiating Application seeking that she spend time with the children on a supervised basis initially, with time to ultimately progress to one weekend per month from 9am Saturday to 5pm Saturday. Such application filed as a stand alone application in the Wollongong Registry of the Federal Circuit Court.	Initiating Application of Ms D Partlett filed 24 August 2020
29 March 2021	Children participate in Child Inclusive Conference. X says “I wouldn’t mind seeing Dad again” and “it would be nice to see Dad again, but if I can’t, I wouldn’t mind”. Y was reported to have little recollection of his father and it was stated: “he does not think he wants to see his father and does not think much about the situation”.	Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum
Family consultant opines: “if the Court finds that there is an ongoing risk of harm, the children should have no time with their father”.
14 December 2020	Paternal Grandmother’s application joined to proceedings as between the parents.	Orders of 14 December 2020
16 April 2021	Paternal Grandmother files a Notice of Discontinuance in respect of her application	Court file
22 July 2021	Dr B scheduled to give evidence in the AM.
19-23 July	Matter listed for Final Hearing.	Court file