Pickett & Maxwell
[2022] FedCFamC2F 611
•13 May 2022
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Pickett & Maxwell [2022] FedCFamC2F 611
File number(s): LNC 56 of 2012 Judgment of: JUDGE TAGLIERI Date of judgment: 13 May 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – parenting – interim – children living with the father and interim consent orders that children spend time with the mother – where the mother withheld children – where the mother alleges children at risk of psychological and physical abuse in the care of the father and filed urgent interim application – where allegations of family violence between the father and current partner – order that children live with the mother – order that children have electronic communication with and spend supervised time with the father – final hearing expedited Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s60CC(2), s60CC(2A), s60CC(3), s69ZW, s102NA
Criminal Code 1924 (Tas) s50
Cases cited: Beaton & Beaton [2020] FamCAFC 297
Deiter & Deiter [2011] FAMCAFC 82
Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346
Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101
MRR & GR [2010] HCA 4
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 62 Date of hearing: 2 May 2022 Place: Hobart Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Kovacic Solicitor for the Applicant: Cann Legal Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Sawyer Solicitor for the Respondent: PWB Lawyers Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Mr Trezise ORDERS
LNC 56 of 2012 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR PICKETT
Applicant
AND: MS MAXWELL
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE TAGLIERI
DATE OF ORDER:
13 MAY 2022
UNTIL FURTHER ORDER, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The children X born in 2009 and Y born in 2010 live with the mother MS MAXWELL (“the mother”);
2.The children spend time with the father MR PICKETT (“the father”) via face-time, video-call or telephone for up to one hour on Wednesday and Sunday evenings between 5:00pm and 6:00pm;
3.If practicable, the father have in person time with the children on at least two occasions on weekends for up to three hours on any occasion at dates and time to be agreed between the parties and facilitated at Location B; or in the alternative by a supervisor approved by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
4.Pursuant to section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and or the personal protection of the children X born in 2009 and Y born in 2010, the mother MS MAXWELL is restrained by injunction from denigrating or speaking negatively about the father MR PICKETT within the children’s hearing, or allowing the children to remain in the presence of any third party who is doing so.
5.Pursuant to section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and for the personal protection of the children X born in 2009 and Y born in 2010, the mother MS MAXWELL is restrained by injunction from exposing the children to family violence, and by mandatory injunction is required to remove the children as soon as possible from any circumstance in which family violence arises in their presence.
6.Pursuant to section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and for the personal protection of the children X born in 2009 and Y born in 2010, the parents MS MAXWELL and MR PICKETT are restrained by injunction from discussing parenting issues and these proceedings in the presence or hearing of the children, or allowing the children to remain in the presence of any third party who is doing so.
7.Each parent will keep the other parent informed at all times of their residential address, and mobile telephone numbers, and further will inform the other parent of a change to their contact details within 48 hours of the change.
8.The mother is hereby restrained from removing the primary residence of the children X born in 2009 and Y born in 2010 from her current address at C Street, Town D in Tasmania.
9.The mother and father are to communicate with each other (in respect of the children) either:
(a)By using a communication app agreed by them and in default of agreement the Our Family Wizard app; and the cost of such app is to be shared equally by the parties; or
(b)By text message.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.Pursuant to section 68C of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), a police officer may arrest without warrant if he/she holds reasonable belief that the order for personal protection in Orders 4, 5 or 6 have been breached.
B.Pursuant to ss.65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in Attachment B and these particulars are included in these orders.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Pickett & Maxwell has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Judge Taglieri
On 2 May 2022 I conducted an interim hearing concerning the Application in a Proceeding filed by the mother Ms Maxwell (“the mother”). The application seeks orders for a change of living arrangements for the parties’ two children, X, aged 12 years, and Y aged 11 years (collectively “the children”).
The background to the application is important and I will address it in detail. It is not contentious and largely apparent from the court record. The current round of proceedings commenced in 2019 when the mother made an application for final and interim parenting orders. At that time the children had been living with the father in Town E for about 2 – 3 years. The precise circumstances that led to the children living with the father are not presently clear, but some insight is available from Child Safety Services (“CSS”) and Tasmania Police reports received by the Court.
Between 2019 and August 2021, there were many procedural appearances before this Court, an Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) was appointed for the children, and consent interim orders were made for the mother to spend time with the children. By 11 August 2020, further interim consent orders were made by Judge Baker (“the August 2020 orders”) for the children to spend time with the mother in Town D.
The proceedings came before me on 8 June 2021 for the first time. The history of the proceedings were noted, being prolonged. As a Family Report had been produced and released in April 2021, I ordered that the parties attend a Family Dispute Resolution Conference and also made trial directions for a defended hearing commencing on 24 January 2022 (“the January defended hearing”). In November 2021, orders were made in respect of both parties pursuant to section 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”), given history and allegations of family violence by and against both parties. At this time neither party was legally represented.
On 17 January 2022 I conducted a compliance callover hearing to confirm readiness for the defended hearing. The mother had legal representation and did not appear at the hearing. In answer to why the trial directions had not be complied with, I was told by the mother’s solicitor that she was without instructions. The father, who appeared for himself as he had done for some time, had not yet secured a lawyer under the cross-examination scheme. He advised that he had been without contact from the children since he had sent the children to spend time with the mother in early January 2022 in accordance with the August 2020 orders. He had attempted to speak with them by phone, but had been unable to contact them.
The ICL had not had any contact with the mother or the children. Not surprisingly, I held concerns for the welfare of the children, but had no option but to vacate the January defended hearing. I impressed on the ICL the need to make further inquiry about the children’s whereabouts and ordered an early return date for a directions hearing on 27 January 2022.
At the directions hearing on 27 January, I was informed by the ICL that the children’s whereabouts were known and they were living with the mother. The ICL had met with the children and they had made disclosures about physical discipline, verbal abuse and alcohol abuse by the father. I was told the children expressed fear of the father. Further, that Tasmania Police had become involved and the children had been interviewed. The ICL recommended the children remain living with the mother and that the views of the children be ascertained.
The Tasmania Police and CSS liaison were in attendance on 27 January 2022 at my invitation. I was advised that the children and mother had been interviewed by police on 20 January 2022, following a report received on 17 January 2022. The CSS liaison indicated that they had not been notified by Tasmania Police of the allegations of the children, but had received separate reports.
I ordered the urgent preparation of reports from Tasmania Police and CSS under section 69ZW of the Act and the preparation of a Specific Issues Report by Child Court Expert Ms F, who had prepared the Family Report in 2021. I was informed by the mother’s solicitor that she intended to file an Application in a Proceeding on an urgent basis.
I was informed by the Tasmania Police liaison that the allegations by the children were “under investigation”. I adjourned the proceedings for further case management.
By the time of the next hearing on 10 February 202, I had received the section 69ZW reports. These were released to the parties, except for the video interviews of the children attached to the Tasmania Police report due to the risk of it compromising any criminal proceedings.
INTERIM HEARING
On 2 May 2022 I conducted the hearing of the mother’s Application in a Proceeding filed 4 February 2022 (“the interim hearing”). Both parties were represented by counsel.
Also present, at my request, were Mr G from Child Safety Services and Sergeant H from Tasmania Police.
The mother’s Application in a Proceeding is supported by an affidavit of 4 February 2022. It seeks an interim order that the children live with the mother, a discharge of the spend time arrangements in the August 2020 orders and orders for the father’s time with the children to be supervised professionally. The basis of her Application is the risk of harm to which she says the children are exposed due to disclosures they have made to her about physical and verbal abuse of them by the father and family violence in his home.
The father filed a Response to the Application in a Proceeding on 11 March 2022. He relies on two affidavits, his own and that of his partner Ms J both filed 15 March 2022. He seeks no variation to the August 2020 orders and the return of the children to live in his care.
At the commencement of the interim hearing, Mr G and Sergeant H provided the Court with updated information (without objection) as to their respective organisations’ involvement with this family since the mother did not return the children to the father’s care.
Sergeant H
Sergeant H told the Court that police had closed their investigation as there was insufficient evidence to charge the father with an offence under section 50 of the Criminal Code 1924 (Tas), which is the provision governing domestic discipline. The children were interviewed, but the father was not. A welfare check was performed on the children in their mother’s care, and they were noted to be happy.
Information was also provided that both the mother and the father were recorded in the police system in separate family violence reports since the last appearance before this Court on 7 March 2022. Given that this was not previously on the court record, Sergeant H formally gave evidence in this regard under affirmation.
She stated that police records show that the mother and her new partner Mr K were involved in a family argument on 19 March 2022 which was reported to police by a third party. The individual was not identified, however Sergeant H told the Court that the report indicates that they were an acquaintance of the mother who heard shouting on a telephone call. The mother reported that she sent the children to the park during the incident, however it is unclear whether they were present when police attended. Mr K left the premises when the mother requested. The incident was recorded by police for information purposes only.
Further, Sergeant H stated that Police charged the father with aggravated common assault of his current partner Ms J after an incident on 25 March 2022, when it is alleged that he spat in Ms J’s face and struck her with a mobile phone. The aggravating factor was that Ms J is pregnant. The father was bailed to appear in court on the assault charge on 3 May 2022. There were three children noted as present at the incident: L, who is the child of the father and Ms J; and M and N, who are Ms J’s children from a previous relationship.
As a result on the incident on 25 March 2022, on 27 March 2022 a Police Family Violence Order issued against the father naming Ms J as a protected person. Sergeant H described the Order as a ‘keep the peace’ type order, with the father not to approach within 50 metres of a specific hotel or a property where Ms J lives. The purpose of the order relating to the hotel, according to Sergeant H, was to provide Ms J with a ‘safe space’ to which she could go if she felt threatened. Police anticipated that there would be ongoing contact between the father and Ms J given Ms J’s pregnancy.
Following the interim hearing, I enquired of the parties as to whether there was any objection to me requesting a copy of that Police Family Violence Order relating to the 25 March 2022 incident from police under the voluntary information sharing scheme. Counsel all indicated no objection, and my Chambers obtained that document from police. I have marked it Exhibit A and I have had regard to it.
Counsel for the father was afforded opportunity to take instructions about the evidence provided by Sergeant H and after a brief adjournment she asked questions to clarify the evidence given. It appeared from the further evidence that the father and Ms J were continuing their relationship.
Mr G
Mr G told the Court that Child Safety Services had nothing further to report since the production of a section 69ZW report on 7 February 2022. On their information the children are happy living with the mother, but they have not been to her home to conduct an assessment nor have they discussed the disclosures with the children as police were investigating.
In response to my enquiry, Mr G advised that the reports received by Child Safety Service about concerns noted in the section 69ZW report about children’s welfare in the father’s household were from various sources, some mandatory reporters. Further, that the children had been interviewed in September 2020 and not made any disclosures. Accordingly, there was insufficient information to make finding about the children being exposed to unacceptable level of risk.
When asked directly what actions Child Safety Services would take if the Court returned the children to the father’s care, Mr G said that they would contact the father to put supports in place for him and have discussions about discipline. He confirmed that they would not seek to intervene.
Mr G confirmed that Child Safety Services received a report following the incident on 25 March 2022, and that report was awaiting follow up. The records also show that a report was made, presumably by a person at a school that M had disclosed she was concerned about being smacked if she went home unwell.
The Court read into evidence all affidavits previously mentioned in these reasons. It received the Tasmania Police and CSS section 69ZW reports in evidence. The Family Report of Ms F was also received in evidence at the ICL’s request without objection.
Before concluding the hearing, I advised counsel that I had viewed the recorded video interviews of the children by police, to assess if they ought to be disclosed to the parties while the police investigation was continuing. That being so, to afford procedural fairness I indicated I would release the interviews to counsel for the purpose of making submissions about their admissibility and weight in the interim hearing.
Due to the fresh evidence from Sergeant H, I granted leave to the father to file a short additional affidavit and the mother’s counsel was afforded opportunity to address the evidence in his written submissions to be filed.
The parties’ counsel both provided written submissions, the mother’s on 9 May 2022 and the father’s on 10 May 2022, to which I have had regard.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
Having regard to the competing orders sought and the affidavits relied upon by the parties, the issues for determination are:
·Whether returning the children to live with the father exposes them to an unacceptable risk of physical, emotional or psychological harm;
·Whether, because of that risk, the children ought to live with the mother on an interim basis;
·Whether the children’s time with the father ought to be supervised and generally what orders should be made for the father’s time with the children.
THE PARTIES’ CASES
The parties had filed case outlines on 28 April 2022 which include written submissions. These have been read and considered. In addition, very brief oral submissions were also made at the conclusion of the hearing.
For the mother, in short, it is said that the children will be exposed to unacceptable risk of harm if returned to live in the father’s care and by contrast are safe and happy in the mother’s care. The unacceptable risk is said to arise from:
·Physical and verbal abuse of the children;
·Family violence in the father’s household between him and Ms J; and
·Neglect and abuse from the father’s use of alcohol and also drugs, said to be ICE.
In addition, the mother says that the children’s reports of fear of the father are genuine and they have expressed a wish to live with her.
For the father, he says that the children have been in his care for five years; he denies the allegations of family violence, physical and verbal abuse of the children. He says there has been no reason to remove the children as he has been their primary carer, they have attended school and are reported to have been proceeding satisfactorily, and he has facilitated the mother’s time with the children.
By contrast, he says the mother has not abided by the Court orders and has orchestrated false reports of allegations against him and encourages the children to tell lies. Further, he says that if they remain with the mother, he will be alienated as has had no contact with them until just recently and there have been difficulties with the mother facilitating time.
In short, the father refutes that the court can be satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk of harm to the children in his household whether physical or otherwise. He also points to the children being separated from their half-brother L and step-siblings M and N with whom they have lived for some time.
The ICL’s position is succinctly summarised in his case outline as follows:[1]
[1] Case Outline of the Independent Children’s Lawyer filed 29 April 2022 at Part D.
1.This case brings into sharp focus the interplay between sections 60CC(2)(a) and 60CC(2)(b) of the Family Law Act. The latter, of course, has paramountcy over the former – section 60CC(2A).
…
3.The ICL has observed to the parents’ practitioners that the state of the parents’ evidence is essentially one of allegation and denial. (The father’s plea of guilty to the common assault of his current partner should, however, be attributed weight.) This creates difficulties for the court dealing with the untested evidence at the interim hearing.
…
5.The information reported in the section 67ZW [sic] response from Tasmania Police and Child Safety Services accords significant weight. It supports the proposition that, on balance, the children may be at risk of psychological and/or physical harm in the father’s home. It reports the children feeling safe and supported in the mother’s home. In the ICL’s assessment, and after now having spoken twice to the children, the Court could be more comforted with the conclusion that the children’s best interests will be served on an interim basis if they remain in the mother’s care.
RELEVANT PRINCIPLES – INTERIM PARENTING
The decision making pathway referred to in Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346 and MRR & GR [2010] HCA 4 applies as this is an interim parenting application.
In summary, on the basis of undisputed evidence or agreed facts the Court is to make an assessment of what is in the best interests of the children, guided by the relevant statutory provisions. In this case neither party sought orders about parental responsibility, and I confine myself to the question of where the children should reside and how they should spend time with the other parent.
Multi-levelled evaluations of multiple considerations, some of which may be inter-related, must be assessed on a discretionary basis according to uncontentious or agreed facts, cognisant that where the parties’ evidence is in conflict, it has not yet been tested.[2] The parties’ respective proposals need to be assessed to identify what is in the children’s best interests, including having regard to relevant risks of harm to the wellbeing of the children noting limits of the evidence before the Court.[3] The evaluation should give attention to all considerations in section 60CC of the Act. However, sometimes there is little alternative to weigh probabilities of competing claims on untested evidence and the likely impact on the children should the adverse allegations materialise.[4]
[2] Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346 at [68]; Deiter & Deiter [2011] FAMCAFC 82 at [61]; Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101 at [121].
[3] Deiter & Deiter [2011] FAMCAFC 82 at [61]; Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101 at [121].
[4] Beaton & Beaton [2020] FamCA 297.
Given the contentions about unacceptable risk of harm posed by the father, there is inevitable focus required on prioritising arrangements to avoid likely risk (noting the limits of the assessment referred to in the previous paragraph. Accordingly, the mandatory requirement imposed by section 60CC(2A) of the Act is critically important.
In light of the history referred to at [4] to [8] of these reasons and the father’s denials of the allegations against him of abuse, it is impossible at this juncture to make a safe and properly informed assessment of the relevant section 60CC(3) considerations in this case. I note the submissions made about those considerations but focus on the primary considerations in section 60CC(2) as directed by section 60CC(2A) because of events since January 2022.
EVALUATION
There is good reason to be sceptical about the allegations made by the children in January 2022 and that are the subject of the police interviews. The reports were first made to police on the same day that I held the compliance call-over at which the mother did not appear and in circumstances where she had not instructed her solicitor for some time. The father had also been unable to contact the children.
Further raising concern about the reliability of the reports, is the clear evidence that the children had not reported concerns in September 2020 to CSS nor the author of the Family Report, and the evidence is silent or at least vague about when the children say the father physically and verbally abused them.
The timing of the reports coincide with a period when the children are in the mother’s care and a defended final hearing of the proceedings was imminent in the face of recommendations in the Family Report of Ms F that the children ought to reside with the father on a final basis.[5]
[5] Family Report at [108].
The mother’s case focussed on the allegations raised by the children in January 2022 and completely omits to acknowledge or address very significant concerns documented in the reports by CSS about the safety and care of the children in the mother’s care for several years when she was their primary carer.
However, faced with this scepticism and concern, I must be guided by undisputed evidence and agreed facts. It is as follows:
(a)Some concerns have been reported to authorities about the well-being of the children in the father’s care, particularly between 2020 and late 2022, but CSS have not intervened and instead simply offered advice. As Mr G stated, the Child Safety Services had not made an assessment of unacceptable risk;
(b)Significant concerns had been raised with CSS and Tasmania Police in the past about the risk to the children from residing with the mother due to family violence in her home with multiple partners other than the father. I understand that this somehow led to the children living with the father;
(c)The father was subject to a Family Violence Order for the protection of Ms J for 12 months from 7 February 2021 and they separated for a time. It appears that the conviction for common assault on 7 February 2021 resulted from the same incident which led to the Family Violence Order;
(d)The father is now charged with aggravated common assault of Ms J and subject to another Police Family Violence Order,[6] arising from the same incident. I was told the father is pleading not guilty to the charge and that he and Ms J continue a relationship, but the latter fact is addressed in the father’s affidavit filed 4 May 2022;[7]
(e)The mother and her current partner were also subject to a police report on 19 March 2022, which police characterised as a family argument; and
(f)In January 2022, the children made various historical allegations against the father about physical and verbal abuse, alcohol and drug abuse and continuing family violence towards Ms J. The police have investigated these and the father has not been charged with a criminal offence relating to conduct towards the children.
[6] Exhibit A.
[7] At para [6].
In view of the undisputed evidence and agreed facts, it could be inferred that whatever the truth of what happened between the father and the children up until late 2021, the likelihood of harm to the children in the father’s care did not rise to an unacceptable risk. This results from the fact that a number of different reports, the sources of which are presently not known, were considered and investigated by CSS who took no action.
Given the timing of the disclosures by the children to the mother, said to have been on 16 January 2022, I infer that because the children had been in the care of the mother from 8 January, the conduct to which the children refer occurred in the past and probably in the same period traversed by the CSS reports.
In relation to the video interviews of the children attached to the section 69ZW report by Tasmania Police, both counsel submitted that recorded interviews are admissible. I agree. They each made submission about the weight to be given to the evidence of the children. Each counsel agreed that there was some degree of leading by the police officer conducting the interviews, but it seems they are agreed that this did not contaminate the evidence to the point that no weight ought to be given to it.
Counsel for the father made submissions that I consider valid about how the evidence could be interpreted, particularly X’s distress.[8] The validity of the submissions are heightened by the history of the proceedings which I took time to detail earlier in these reasons and the fact that CSS did not intervene even knowing of the reports set out in the CSS section 69ZW report.
[8] Father’s written submissions filed 10 May 2022 at [7] and [8].
The common nature of the disclosures the children made in the police interviews with the topics reported in the CSS section 69ZW report give the impression that there may be some kind of substance to claims that the father at least at times treats the children inappropriately and puts them at some risk of physical and emotional harm. However, the fact that the children themselves had not disclosed the allegations, including to a very experienced Child Court Expert when a detailed Family Report was prepared, requires conservatism in drawing a strong impression adverse to the father. Especially so when he denies the conduct. I am acutely aware that the truth may lie somewhere between the children’s January 2022 claims and the father’s denials.
For the foregoing reasons, without the updated information from Tasmania Police, I would be minded to make an order returning the children to the father’s care pending final hearing. However, the recent concerning allegations of family violence against Ms J and the criminal charge tip the balance against this course. These matters, although subject to denials by the father, heighten the concern about the nature of family life in the father’s household. There is apparent conflict of some kind between the father and Ms J which is not one off. Rather, it is continuing.
It is not likely in the children’s best interests to return them to a home where there is potential and perhaps significant potential volatility due to the nature of relations between the father and the children and also the father and Ms J and her children. The recurrence of the theme in more recent documented evidence cannot be ignored.
I have had regard to the father’s affidavit of 4 May 2022. The evidence is untested, and although he states he can assure stability and safety for the children irrespective of whether Ms J remains living in his home, objectively with pending police charges and a Police Family Violence Order in place, it suggests potential for further inter-personal stress. This in turn flags the prospect of continuing exposure to risk (either physically or emotionally) for the children if they are returned to that environment.
I have concerns on the material before me about the children being adversely influenced by the mother and alienation of them from the father. But the impression gained from the historical reports noted in the CSS report, are not reported to be continuing to the same degree.
Accordingly, while the children report to the police and the ICL that they are happy in the mother’s home and say they are fearful of the father’s reaction to recent disclosures, a cautious and protective approach is for the children to remain with the mother in the interim. I have been persuaded to accept the submission of the ICL that I can be more comforted in leaving the children in the mother’s home until all the evidence can be properly assessed.[9]
[9] See [40] of these reasons
Regarding the issue of the father’s time with the children, the distance between his residence and that of the mother creates practical difficulty, as does the fact that the children are attending school. Further, the reported fear of the father, regardless of its true cause, needs to be acknowledged and sensitively and carefully approached to ensure the children are not unreasonably distressed. Consequently, during the short time before the matter proceeds to final hearing, the father should have video or phone time with the children and, if practical, in person time professionally supervised.
I still hold nagging concern about the reliability of the allegations against the father and so I will expedite the final hearing, particularly because the trial intended on 24 January 2022 became derailed. The Specific Issues Report I ordered on 27 January 2022 will be available by the end of May 2022, the evidence filed in the Application in a Proceeding is current and so limited further evidence needs to be marshalled for a final hearing. I propose to list the proceedings for a defended final hearing on 14 and 15 June 2022.
In the interim, the Court’s orders are that until further order:
(1)The children X born in 2009 and Y born in 2010 live with the mother MS MAXWELL (“the mother”);
(2)The children spend time with the father MR PICKETT (“the father”) via face-time, video-call or telephone for up to one hour on Tuesday and Saturday evenings between 5:00pm and 6:00pm;
(3)If practicable, the father have in person time with the children on at least two occasions on weekends to be agreed and facilitated at Location B;
(4)Pursuant to section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and or the personal protection of the children X born in 2009 and Y born in 2010, the mother MS MAXWELL is restrained by injunction from denigrating or speaking negatively about the father MR PICKETT within the children’s hearing, or allowing the children to remain in the presence of any third party who is doing so.
(5)Pursuant to section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and for the personal protection of the X born in 2009 and Y born in 2010, the mother MS MAXWELL is restrained by injunction from exposing the children to family violence, and by mandatory injunction is required to remove the children as soon as possible from any circumstance in which family violence arises in their presence.
(6)Pursuant to section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and for the personal protection of the X born in 2009 and Y born in 2010, the parents MS MAXWELL and MR PICKETT are restrained by injunction from discussing parenting issues and these proceedings in the presence or hearing of the children, or allowing the children to remain in the presence of any third party who is doing so.
AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:
(A)Pursuant to section 68C of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), a police officer may arrest without warrant if he/she holds reasonable belief that the order for personal protection in Orders 1, 2 or 3 have been breached.
(7)Each parent will keep the other parent informed at all times of their residential address, and mobile telephone numbers, and further will inform the other parent of a change to their contact details within 48 hours of the change.
(8)The mother is hereby restrained from removing the primary residence of the children X born in 2009 and Y born in 2010 from her current address at C Street, Town D in Tasmania.
(9)The mother and father are to communicate with each other (in respect of the children) either:
(a)By using a communication app agreed by them and in default of agreement the Our Family Wizard app; and the cost of such app is to be shared equally by the parties; or
(b)By text message.
I certify that the preceding sixty-two (62) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Taglieri. Dated: 13 May 2022
5
2