Quinn and Ryder

[2017] FCCA 1129

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUINN & RYDER [2017] FCCA 1129

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – sole parental responsibility – presumption rebutted – where mother unilaterally and unauthorised sought to remove children from the Commonwealth of Australia – where mother unauthorised removed  children from contact centre – children live with the father – children spend no time with the mother – the mother be restrained from communicating with the children – child’s surname changed.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.60CC, 60DA, 62G(2),68L(2)

Applicant: MR QUINN

Respondent: MS RYDER

File Number: MLC 1142 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Hartnett

Hearing date: 28 February 2017

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 30 May 2017

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Burt

Solicitors for the Applicant: Harwood Andrews Lawyers

The Respondent: In Person

Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Juneja

Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Coulter Roache Lawyers

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. All previous orders are discharged.

2. The father have sole parental responsibility for the children X born (omitted) 2013 and Y born (omitted) 2015 (currently known as Y) (‘the children’).

3. The children live with the father.

4. The mother be restrained from spending face to face time with the children or communicating with the children by telephone or other electronic means.

5. The children, subject to the Order, are restrained from leaving the Commonwealth of Australia.

6. Each party MR QUINN born (omitted) 1979 and MS RYDER born (omitted) 1989 their servants and/or agents be and are hereby restrained from removing or attempting to remove or causing or permitting the taking or sending of the children X born (omitted) 2013 and Y born (omitted) 2015 (currently known as Y) (‘the children’) from the Commonwealth of Australia.

7. IT IS REQUESTED that the Australian Federal Police give effect to this Order by placing the names of the said children on the Airport Watch List in force at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia and maintain the children’s names on the Airport Watch List until the Court orders its removal.

8. This Order does not prohibit the taking or sending of the children from Australia to a place outside Australia if it is done by consent in writing (authenticated as prescribed in accordance with reg.13 of the Family Law Regulations 1984 (Cth)).

9. The father is to retain the children’s passports.

10. The father shall inform the mother by email or text message as soon as is reasonably practicable of any serious illness or injury sustained by the children or either of them.

THE COURT DECLARES THAT it is in the best interests of the child Y born (omitted) 2015 to be known as Y.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The parties henceforth exclusively use the name Quinn as the surname of the child Y born (omitted) 2015, now known as Y and not cause or permit any other person to use any name other than Quinn as his surname.

2. The Applicant be authorised to apply to the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages to change the name of the child currently registered as Y to Y, and it is requested that the said Registrar do register the said child’s name as Y notwithstanding the consent of the mother has not been obtained.

3. Otherwise all extant applications are dismissed and the matter removed from the list.

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

1. A sealed copy of these Orders be served by the Applicant upon the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages who IS REQUESTED to give effect to them, and to any application made to the Registrar pursuant to them.

AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:

A.The father is at liberty to not divulge his residential address nor the address of the kindergarten the child X attends to the mother.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Quinn & Ryder is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLC 1142 of 2015

MR QUINN

Applicant

And

MS RYDER

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These proceedings were initiated by the father in an application for final parenting orders on 27 January 2015 in the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Geelong. In his application, the father sought that the parties retain equal shared parental responsibility for their daughter X, born (omitted) 2013, and that X live with each of the parties on a week about basis.

2. On 4 February 2015 the parties entered into consent orders whereby X continued her residence with her mother but was to spend time with her father on weekends. The proceedings were transferred to this Court. The orders made on 4 February 2015 enabled the father to once again spend time with X. The mother had withheld X from the father for approximately three months prior to his institution of proceedings.

History

1. Statements of fact in these reasons are findings of fact on the balance of probabilities.

2. The father was born on (omitted) 1979. He is now aged 37 years. The mother was born on (omitted) 1989. She is now aged 27 years. The father grew up in (omitted) and has three older brothers with whom he has a good relationship. He had a younger sister who died of cancer at age 13. During the course of these proceedings and when interviewed by Ms K, Family Consultant, the father said of his sister’s death and the mother, in these proceedings, response to it that:-

   “[The mother] abuses my parents saying you couldn’t even keep your own daughter alive – they spent probably $200,000 trying to beat her (his sister’s) cancer when she was little – we had nurses and doctors and everything staying in our home from the Royal Children’s …”[1]

   There is no doubt the mother tormented the father and his parents about this tragic death. She wrote to the paternal grandmother referring inappropriately and without empathy to the death of her daughter. She sent texts to the father in the period following separation taunting him about the death. One such text was:-

   [1] Family Report prepared by Ms K dated 29 September 2015 at [49].

   “your nothing but a shit gutless fuck and I dnt care bout (omitted) fucking (omitted), you treat every girl just the same get the fuck over yourselves and as for your dad he can’t even keep his daughter a live so go fuck yourself DOG !!!! can’t even take care of your own dog useless mut.”

   (errors in original)

3. The mother moved to (omitted) from (country omitted) in 2001 with her parents and siblings. The family is of (omitted) heritage. The mother has three brothers and a sister as reported to Dr S. Her father worked on (omitted). The family are close and supportive of each other.

4. The parties commenced their de facto relationship in about October 2012. At that time the mother already had two children. Those children each have different fathers. The children are B who was born on (omitted) 2009 (‘B’) and is now aged 7 years and C (‘C’) who was born on (omitted) 2011 and is now aged 6 years. The child B has no contact with his father, the mother saying to Family Consultant, Ms K, that “He’s not really father material. He’s always in jail.”[3] The child C has currently no contact with her father albeit that her father, Mr M, is the father of a further child, A, whom the mother gave birth to on (omitted) 2016. A is one year old. Her birth followed the birth of the two children of the mother and father in these proceedings and followed the institution of proceedings by the father.

   [3] Family Report prepared by Ms K dated 29 September 2015 at [54].

5. The subject children in these proceedings are X born (omitted) 2013 and Y born (omitted) 2015. Y was born after the parties’ separation, the parties having finally separated on 16 October 2014, there being two earlier periods of separation. During the parties’ cohabitation, the mother was the primary carer of X. The father worked on a fly in, fly out basis in (employment omitted). He was away for three to four weeks at a time and then home for one to two weeks at a time. The father ceased this employment in August 2014 to be at home more and be more involved in X’s care. His involvement extended for two months before separation.

6. Upon separation, the father vacated the former matrimonial home in (omitted). He left the mother with a BMW motor vehicle for transport and met the necessary repayments with respect to the vehicle. Approximately one month later he resumed occupation of the former matrimonial home, of which he was the sole registered proprietor prior to cohabitation, after the mother vacated the home. The mother and the three children commenced to reside in the maternal grandmother’s home.

7. The father’s evidence in his affidavit affirmed 14 February 2016 and unchallenged was that the separation occurred:-

   “6. … as a result of (the mother’s) extreme mood swings and her worsening physical and verbal abuse toward me. I could no longer tolerate Ms Ryder’s behaviour, which had become in the months leading up to our separation increasingly changeable, often violent and irrational.”

8. Following separation, the mother sent many offensive and abusive text messages to the father. They often threatened to remove X from the father’s life. One example was as follows:-

   “run to the cops ya ugly cunt your dog I cant stand you not one bit you cant tell though can you ur not getting X I meant that when I said that the other day.”[4]

   [4] Affidavit affirmed by Mr Quinn on 14 February 2016 at [Q1].

   (errors in original).

9. There were also around the time of separation, incidences of violence perpetrated by the mother. In October 2014 when the father was driving with the mother and X as passengers, the mother became angry and kicked the father in the ribs with both legs. The father stopped the car and got out. He was in significant pain and subsequently diagnosed with a broken rib. Also in October 2014, the mother rammed the father’s car with her car whilst driving at speed causing damage to both vehicles. On 8 November 2014, the mother became abusive to the father and proceeded to repeatedly hit him to the head in the presence of the children. On 22 November 2014, the mother, after refusing to hand over X to the father, despite an earlier agreement, became angry and commenced to shout abuse at the father when he attended to collect X from the mother’s home. The father retreated to his car in the face of the mother’s uncontrolled rage, seemingly brought on because she wanted the father to remove the family dog from the property. The mother followed the father, hitting him to the head some eight to ten times. The mother’s child B observed this incident from the lounge room window.

10. The father made a police statement in respect of the episodes of October, 8 November and 22 November 2014. The mother was charged with unlawful assault and after a hearing on 6 May 2015 she received a Community Corrections Order of six months. The mother was ordered to complete treatment and rehabilitation programs for her offending. There is no evidence before the Court that the mother completed such treatment or programs.

11. On 22 November 2014 Victoria Police provided a “Family Violence Risk Assessment” to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) which is as follows:-

    “The Respondent (Ms Ryder) was positive on – Threat to Kill Victim; Controlling Behaviours; Depression/Mental Issues; Alcohol Possible; Drugs Possible.  Level of Fear of AFM (Mr Quinn)- Fearful.  AFM reports the following on a weekly basis – assaults; threats; controlling and emotionally abusive; and damage property.  Charges Pending.

    Drug and Alcohol Consumption

    Both parents allege current Ice use against each other.  Ms Ryder will not submit to drug tests.

    Mr Quinn – Urine Drug Screen 9.12.2014 – nil detected.”

12. On or about 5 December 2014 the mother forced entry to the father’s home. She removed a range of household items. The mother involved the child B in this process. Victoria Police took out an Intervention Order (IVO) against the mother on the father’s behalf. It existed between 5 December 2014 and 4 June 2015. The mother, in an act of retaliation, sought an IVO against the father, which he consented to without admissions, on 11 March 2015, for a 12 month period.

Proceedings and Evidence in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia

1. In this proceeding, the father relies on the following material: -

   a)affidavit affirmed by him on 14 February 2016;

   b)affidavit affirmed by him on 8 June 2016; and

   c)affidavit affirmed by him on 6 December 2016.

2. The mother relies on the following material:-

   a)affidavit sworn by her on 24 February 2015; and

   b)affidavit sworn by her on 10 March 2016.

3. On 18 February 2015 the Court ordered that the parties and X attend upon a family consultant for the preparation of a family report pursuant to s.62G(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (‘the Act’). The Court also ordered, relevantly, the following as to the father’s time with X, noting the parties agreed to X’s continued residence with the mother and sister and brother:-

   “…

   2. That the father spend time with the child X born (omitted) 2013 (“the child”) as follows:

   (a)     Each Wednesday from 2.00 pm to 7.30 pm commencing 25/2/2015

   (b)     Once per fortnight from 9.00 am Saturday to 3.30 pm Sunday commencing 21 February 2015.

   3.  When the father is spending overnight time with the child in accordance with order 2(b) one of the following people shall be present between 6.00 pm and 9.00 am ;

   (a)     Mr A;

   (b)     Ms S;

   (c) Ms A

   4. The father when spending time with the child in accordance with order 2(b) shall advise the mother by text message on or before 2.00 pm of the Saturday with the name of the person who will be present during the night and the residence the child shall be sleeping at.

   5.  That within 24 hours of being requested to do so by the mother’s lawyers the father shall undertake supervised urine drug screen testing and provide the test results to the mother’s lawyer within 72 hours of the test results becoming available for collection.

   6.  That with 24 hours of being requested to do so by the father’s lawyers the mother shall undertake supervised urine drug screen testing and provide the test results to the father’s lawyer within 72 hours of the test results becoming available for collection.

   7.  The parties shall ensure that the child is not exposed to or left in the presence of any persons overly affected by alcohol or persons affected by illicit drugs.

   8.  That unless otherwise mutually agreed by the mother and father in writing spend time changeover take place at the (omitted) Police Station.

   …

   AND THE COURT NOTES

   18. The parties agree that once the mother gives birth to the child she is pregnant with the parties and child shall undergo DNA parentage testing in accordance with the Family Law Regulations noting the mother states that the father is the child’s biological parent. ”

   The above orders addressed the little time the father had spent with X to that time and the parties counter allegations of drug use.

4. The mother filed a response to the father’s initiating application on 26 February 2015. She sought that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for X; that X live with her; and that X spend time and communicate with her father as deemed appropriate by the Court.

5. Despite the notation to the orders of 18 February 2015 (as set out in paragraph 17 above), the mother did not enable confirmation by way of DNA testing that the father was in fact the biological father of the parties second child Y (he was born on (omitted) 2015). The father needed such confirmation as the mother gave conflicting accounts of the parentage of Y. The father was finally able to organise the DNA parentage testing in November 2015, and so had confirmed his parentage of Y in January 2016.

6. In March 2015 the father returned to interstate work. His unchallenged affidavit evidence as to that was as follows:-

   “In March 2015 I reluctantly decided to accept interstate work. At the end of our relationship, Ms Ryder had left me with significant debts. In November 2014 she withdrew a total of about $4000 from my bank account and credit card without my consent. She had also left me with about $5,500 in fines owing to the Sheriff's Office and Civic Compliance. She had deliberately damaged both of my cars so that I had to pay for repairs. I was paying Ms Ryder $300 per week by way of maintenance and was struggling to meet my financial commitments and legal fees. Accepting the job meant that I would go from earning about $1,000 a week to over $2,000 a week. I felt I had little choice but to accept the job but was very sad that it would affect the amount of time which I could spend with the children.”[5]

   [5] Affidavit affirmed by Mr Quinn on 14 February 2016 at [18].

7. On 29 April 2015 the Court made orders by consent as to X’s time with her father. Those orders were, relevantly:-

   “1. That paragraph 2 of the orders made by the Federal Circuit Court on the 16th day of February 2015 be suspended with effect from 24 April 2015.

   …

   3. That the child shall spend time with her Father as follows:

   3.1 From noon on Saturday the 25^th of April 2015 until 5pm on Sunday the 26^th of April  2015; and

   3.2 During all periods when the father is not working interstate and/or is in temporary residence in the (omitted) region:

   3.2.1 On such days as may be agreed by the parties or in default of agreement on Tuesday for a single period of forty-eight hours commencing at 4pm on the first day and concluding 48 hours thereafter; and

   3.2.2 On each other day from noon until 6pm; and

   3.3 At such further and/or other times as may be agreed.

   4. For the purpose of the preceding paragraph, the father shall as soon as practicable advise the mother in writing of his interstate work roster and/or provide such information to the Mother as may be necessary to give adequate notice to the mother of his availability to spend the time with the child envisaged by that paragraph.

   5. Whilst the father is working interstate the father shall instigate and the Mother shall facilitate video calls between the father and child every second day between 7:30pm and 8:30pm.

   …

   Periodic Spousal Maintenance/Child support

   11. That until further order the father shall pay to the mother the sum of $300 per week, which sum shall comprise:

   11.1 $250 per week by way of child support; and

   11.2 $50 per week by way of spousal maintenance,

   the first of such payments is to be made on the 13^th day of May  2015 and fortnightly thereafter such payments to be made by direct transfer from the father’s bank account into the mother’s bank account.

   12. The mother’s application for spousal maintenance otherwise be dismissed.

   13. The parties shall forthwith advise the Child Support Agency that they have entered into a private agreement, which agreement shall be conditional upon the father making the payments in accordance with paragraph 11.”

8. Throughout 2015 the father received further concerning and offensive texts from the mother despite the existence of the IVO. The mother again told the father that his time with the children would be limited or non-existent. The mother further abused the father in the presence of X. The father became increasingly concerned as to the safety and welfare of the children in the mother’s care and in October 2015 he ceased fly in fly out work to again return to (omitted). Part of that concern involved X being hospitalised in July 2015 after part of her little finger was severed while in the mother’s care. At the time the mother refused to allow the father’s mother and sister-in-law to visit X in hospital. The father discovered that:-

   “…

   a. X spent some time in hospital soon after the initial injury was sustained during which Ms Ryder stayed with her;

   b. X's immunisations were not up to date;

   c. After X's initial surgery and her discharge home, an infection developed in the wound on the finger and the metal rod which had been inserted had been pulled out;

   d. Ms Ryder left X alone in the hospital overnight, saying to nursing staff that she would return but then did not return and had still not done so by the time that I spoke to the nurse several hours later in the morning;

   …”[6]

   [6] Affidavit affirmed by Mr Quinn on 14 February 2016 at [24].

1. The father anticipated that on his return to (omitted) the mother would comply with the Court orders allowing him to see X and otherwise make Y available to him. The mother failed to so comply, refusing him overnight time and providing only limited daytime periods.

2. The father filed a contravention application on 9 November 2015 as a consequence of the mother’s repeated failure to comply with the orders of 29 April 2015. He then withdrew this application as the orders made on 11 November 2015 overtook the need for continuation of the then contravention proceeding.

3. The proceedings had been listed for final hearing on 11 November 2015. The mother failed to attend. A family report dated 28 September 2015 had been prepared by Ms K, Family Consultant, and was in evidence before the Court. Ms K had interviewed, in August 2015, the mother and father, the father travelling from (omitted) via (omitted) to attend the interview. Ms K observed the mother and father with each of the children, albeit in a limited way. There was nothing in those observations to suggest anything other than a close and loving relationship between the mother and children. Observed also was an affectionate attachment between X and her father and a contented attachment between Y, who was very young, and his father. Ms K observed the father to be “friendly and candid” and the mother to be “courteous”. Ms K reported the mother agreeing to the father spending time with the children if he obtained work locally in (omitted). The Court made interim parenting orders as sought by the father and generally as recommended by Ms K in her family report. The mother’s consent to same was conveyed to the Court by the mother’s former solicitor who spoke with her by telephone and explained the orders before they were made. Those orders were as follows:-

   “1. The mother and father have equal shared parental responsibility for the children namely X (born (omitted) 2013) and Y born (omitted) 2015).

   2. The children live with the mother.

   3. The children spend time with the father as follows:-

   (a)     The child X:-

   (i) In week one commencing on Friday 13 November 2015, from Friday 5.00pm until Saturday 5.00pm and in week two, commencing Friday 20 November 2015 from Friday 5.00pm to Sunday 4.00pm;

   (ii)     Each Tuesday from 5.30pm until Wednesday 10.00am, commencing on Tuesday 17 November 2015 and continuing until Tuesday 5 July 2016;  and

   (iii)    Commencing on Thursday 7 July 2016, from 4.00pm each Thursday until 5.00pm on Sunday.

   (b)     The child Y:-

   (i) commencing on Friday, 13 November 2015 and each week thereafter from 5.00pm on Friday until 5.00pm on Saturday;

   (ii)     each Tuesday from 4.00pm until Wednesday 10.00am, commencing on Tuesday 17 November and continuing until 27 March 2018;  and

   (iii)    from 27 March 2018, from 4.00pm each Thursday until 5.00pm on Sunday.

   (c) Starting on Christmas Day 2015, and each alternate year thereafter, from noon on Christmas Day until noon on Boxing Day.

   (d)     Starting On Christmas Eve 2016 and in each alternate year thereafter, from noon on Christmas Eve until noon on Christmas Day.

   (e) On each child’s birthday from 2016 onwards, the children to spend time with the father for no less than three hours at times to be agreed between the parties or in default from 3.00pm to 6.00pm

   (f) On Father’s Day 2016 and each year thereafter, the children to spend time with the father from 11.00am to 6.00pm.

   4. Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of the order of 29 April 2015 shall for the avoidance of doubt remain in force.

   5. The parties each be restrained from changing the children’s place of residence to a place more than 15kms from (omitted) without first having obtained the written consent of the other party.

   6. Neither party shall for a period of 12 hours prior to and during their time with the children:-

   (a)     consume alcohol to excess;  or

   (b)     use or take any illegal drugs;  or

   (c) misuse or abuse any drug whether or not prescribed.

   AND THE COURT NOTES

   A. The father will present both children for DNA parentage testing in accordance with the Family Law Regulations.

   B. The father intends to pursue an application for primary care of both children at the final hearing of this matter

   ”

4. On 18 November 2015 the father sought and obtained a second IVO against the mother. The grounds of that application were as follows:-

   “(omitted) police station 25/10/15 at changeover, the resp told me that she would have a group of her male associates bash me. The resp’s behaviour towards me has been continually harassing and threatening, mostly by text of which thousands can be produced. By text, the resp calls me a dog, mutt, bitch, cunt, little dick, dog breath and countless other names. The resp has sent a number of offensive images to me including pictures of her associates exposed genitals. In or about Oct 2015 the resp sent me a picture of my property at night making comments about my presence in the home, making it clear that she or others were watching my property. The resp has taunted me in respect of her frequent failure to comply with court orders in respect of our children. I have been the subject of various physical assaults by the resp in the past. She is on a CCO in respect of certain of those assaults. On 28/9/15 I was followed into the McDonalds at (omitted) and the resp approached me and my vehicle in an intimidating and harassing manner. I have made various and many reports to police. I had hoped the behaviour would stop but it has persisted and is affecting my capacity to live peacefully. The resps aggressive and violent behaviour towards me has occurred over a number of  years and persists despite our separation and in spite of court orders and a prior intervention order. She is constantly disparaging of me and teases, taunts and tries to aggravate me.”[7]

   This second IVO expired on 30 November 2016.

   [7] Affidavit affirmed by Mr Quinn on 14 February 2016 at [Q4].

5. The father filed a contravention application on 7 January 2016 in which he alleged the mother was not making the children available to spend time with him pursuant to the 11 November 2015 orders. Specifically, the mother had not made the children available since 23 December 2015.  In that application, the father sought that the children live with him until the final hearing then listed in February 2016 at the Geelong circuit sittings of the Court. The father missed Christmas Day 2015 with the children and important overnight time thereafter. He was available for the children and attended repeatedly at the (omitted) Police Station to collect the children but to not avail.

6. During this period of her non-compliance with the Court’s orders, the mother sent many abusive and offensive texts to the father as outlined in his affidavit affirmed 14 February 2016 . Below are some examples:-

   “that's right it's bout the kids my kids and they don't wanna go with you and grannyflaps isn't allowed around my kids at all do what you gotta do I'm standing my ground so hope you had an awesome Xmas enjoy your day .. now run along and lag you still won't take my kids off me I bet my life on that one.” [8]

   “... 2nd Xmas you spent with someone else's kids and not your own .. ,that's gold .... go lag little boy!” [9]

   “I’m  not giving you the kids end of story your not god so u trying to take the 2 kids so granny fanny can be there “mother” not happening I'm there mother and they came out of my vagina weather you like it or not Ok goose, you can wait till Feb or whenever!! Go to the cops ya lawyer who ever couldn't give a flying fuck their my kids and I do an awesome job raising my own so fuck off Mr Quinn.”[10]

   “In every junkie so yes I fucked (omitted) he drove the cars stayed over would have sex with him just before I would pick you up from the airport that's why I was always late ohh and then there was (omitted) every now and then you deserved it think you could treat me like a goose sure mate no chance so print all these out for court make a statement same shit you always do not scared goodbye changing number your not getting an address blah blah blah …”[11]

   [8] Affidavit affirmed by Mr Quinn on 14 February 2016 at [42].

   [9] Affidavit affirmed by Mr Quinn on 14 February 2016 at [43].

   [10] Affidavit affirmed by Mr Quinn on 14 February 2016 at [47].

   [11] Affidavit affirmed by Mr Quinn on 14 February 2016 at [49].

   (Errors in original).

   Also in this period was a response to a reminder from the father that the mother was due to give the children to the father that afternoon, which was as follows:-

   “What a shame were [sic] in (omitted)”.[12]

   The mother was in fact not in (omitted).

   [12] Affidavit affirmed by Mr Quinn on 14 February 2016 at [50].

7. On 18 January 2016 the father’s solicitor sent a text message to the mother, whom she understood to be then a litigant in person, reminding the mother of an upcoming Court date. That text message was as follows:-

   “Ms Ryder, it is Chris Thomas from Harwood Andrews here. Please be advised that our client’s Contravention Application and urgent Application in a Case have been listed by the Court and will proceed at 2.15pm on Monday 25 January 2016 at the Federal Circuit Court in Melbourne. The Court is located on the corner of William and Latrobe streets. You should ensure that you attend at the hearing and you should preferably get legal advice as a matter of urgency.”[13]

   [13] Affidavit affirmed by Christine Michelle Thomas on 21 January 2016 at [6.3]

8. On 21 January 2016 the mother responded to the father’s solicitor’s text by forwarding two text messages which read as follows:-

   “There my kids my kids so you and Mr Quinn can fuck off because know one Will taking my kids off me to give to your kiddy bashing and touching client you think I’m scared of a court I’m a awesome mum and kids will not being going anywhere you’re a dog of a person so for the last time lady FUCK OFF”

   “My kids and I live in Queensland so I won’t be attending Court in Melbourne also I have had no papers served on me for Court so I won’t be attending!! Middle finger go fuck yourself.”[14]

   [14] Affidavit affirmed by Christine Michelle Thomas on 21 January 2016 at [8]

   (Errors in original).

9. The mother was, on 21 January 2016, personally served with the father’s applications in Geelong. She had previously avoided service.

10. On 25 January 2016, on a hearing of the father’s contravention application the Court ordered, relevantly, in the absence of the mother:-

    “…

    4. Notwithstanding any other orders to the contrary, and with all orders as to time spent between the Applicant father and the children being suspended in operation, the children shall live with the father as follows:-

    a) for a 24 hour period from 10:00am on Thursday 28 January 2016 to 10:00am on Friday 29 January 2016;

    b) from 10:00am on Saturday 30 January 2016 until 10:00am on Sunday 31 January 2016;

    c) and in the same manner from 10:00am each Thursday and Saturday thereafter until the next hearing date of 15 February 2016 or a date when listed thereafter.

    5. For the purposes of Order number 4 herein, the Applicant father is to be in substantial attendance and not at work.

    6. Changeover to occur inside the (omitted) Police Station and only the Applicant father and Respondent mother are to be present.

    7. Service of this Order upon the Respondent mother to be effected by personal service by 12:00pm Wednesday 27 January 2016.

    8. In the event the Respondent mother fails to comply with these orders on 28 January 2016  or on any occasion of time spent with, as provided for in these orders thereafter, then a recovery order shall issue for the recovery of the children to be placed in the Applicant father’s care until further order.

    9. A request for a recovery order can be made by telephone to the Chambers of Judge Hartnett on any breach of these orders.

    10. There is liberty to the Respondent mother to apply on short notice in the event a recovery order issues.

    11. The Contravention Application filed 16 January 2016 is adjourned to the Geelong Circuit sitting commencing 15 February 2016.”

    The Court also appointed an Independent Children’s Lawyer pursuant to s.68L(2) of the Act. Personal service of the order of 25 January 2016 was effected upon the mother in accordance with the orders.

11. On 17 February 2016, when the matter was next listed before the Court, the mother again failed to attend. The Court ordered:-

    “1. Pursuant to r.25B.03(b) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), a warrant be issued for the arrest of MS RYDER born (omitted) 1989 and such warrant to be executed forthwith.”

12. On 18 February 2016, the mother was brought before the Court by the Australian Federal Police (‘AFP’)and the following orders made:-

    “ 1. There is leave to the Applicant father to withdraw count number 2 of the Contravention Application filed on 7 January 2016.

    Upon the Court finding on the balance of probabilities that the allegations as set out in counts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Contravention Application filed 7 January 2016 by the father are proven, the contraventions being a breach of the orders made 11 November 2015, by the mother:

    THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

    Section 70NFA(2)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) applies, the Court being satisfied that the mother has behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard of her obligations under the primary order.

    THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:

    2. The Applicant father’s costs of this Contravention Application are reserved.

    3. Notwithstanding any other orders to the contrary, the children X born (omitted) 2013 and Y born (omitted) 2015 (‘the children’) spend time with their father from 3:30pm on Thursday 18 February 2016 until 6:00pm on Sunday 21 February 2016 with changeover to occur inside the (omitted) Police Station and thereafter as set out in the orders made on 25 January 2016 until further order.

    4. All extant applications are adjourned to 10 March 2016 at 11.30am for interim hearing in the Melbourne Registry of this Court.

    5. In the event the mother fails to comply with these orders then a recovery order shall issue for the recovery of the children to be placed in the father’s care until further order.

    6. A request for a recovery order can be made by telephone to the Chambers of Judge Hartnett on any breach of these orders.

    7. There is liberty to the mother to apply on short notice in the event a recovery order issues. Such application to be made to the Chambers of Judge Hartnett.

    AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:

    A. The Applicant father will agitate for orders as per the 11 November 2015 orders, on the return date.

    B. The Applicant father will pursue the issue of drug testing.”

    The mother did not facilitate changeover of the children in accordance with the orders made. She appeared to be assisted in that regard by her mother (the maternal grandmother).

13. On 19 February 2016 being the day following, the Court was required to make relevant orders as follows:-

    “1. A Recovery Order do issue authorising/directing the Marshal, all officers of the Australian Federal Police and all officers of the Police Forces of all the States and Territories of the Commonwealth of Australia, with such assistance as may be required, and if necessary by force:-

    a) to find and recover the children X born (omitted) 2013 and Y born (omitted) 2015 and to deliver the said children to the Applicant father at (omitted), in the State of Victoria, or such other place as the Applicant and the person effecting such recovery agree to be appropriate; and

    ….”

14. The AFP located the mother and children in Queensland in late February 2016. They were at the home of the maternal grandfather. The father travelled to Queensland to collect the children as requested by the AFP but the mother had already left Queensland and returned to Victoria with the children. The mother and children were not located at that time by the AFP.

15. On 8 March 2016 a further recovery order was issued to include the surname of ‘Ryder’ as the mother had, without the father’s knowledge or consent, obtained a passport for the child Y with that surname.

16. The mother was apprehended by the AFP at Sydney International Airport on 8 March 2016 at around 10.45am. The mother was attempting to travel with the children to (country omitted). The children were delivered into their father’s care. He was required to travel to Sydney for that to occur. The mother had booked the tickets to (country omitted) on 7 March 2016 and claimed that she had no intention of leaving Australia permanently. She claimed she was going to visit her very sick grandmother. The Court finds that the mother was attempting to remove the children from the Commonwealth and from the possibility of an ongoing relationship with their father.

17. On 10 March 2016 the Court placed the children on the airport watch list and made the following relevant orders:-

    “1. That the children X (born on (omitted) 2013) and Y alternatively Y (born on (omitted) 2105)) (‘the children’) live with the Applicant Father until further order.

    …

    6. The children spend supervised time with the mother at Community West Children’s Contact Service each Thursday between 10 am and 12 noon with the father and mother to bear their respective costs of the supervised time.

    …

    8. There shall be a psychological assessment of the mother to be conducted by Dr S on 17 March 2016 the costs thereof to be borne by the mother and there be liberty to the Independent Children’s Lawyer to supply Dr S with copies of all documents filed in these proceedings.

    9. That the mother undergo hair strand drug testing within 24 hours of any request made by the Independent Children’s Lawyer and supply the results of such testing to the parties on receipt, with the mother to bear the costs of such testing.

    10. That the father undergo supervised urine drug testing within 24 hours of any request made by the Independent Children’s Lawyer and supply the results of such testing to the parties on receipt, with the father to bear the costs of such testing.”

18. The need for the issue of recovery orders was the mother’s refusal to comply with orders of the Court that provided for the children to spend time with the father. In that process the children’s needs were compromised by the mother. She travelled, impetuously, interstate with the children; sought to remove the children from the Commonwealth; and was abusive to and about their father in the presence of the children. She attempted to deny them an important and primary relationship with their father. The satisfaction of the children’s physical and emotional needs were placed in jeopardy by the mother by her behaviour. The father sought throughout not to punish the mother, but to assure the safety of the children.

19. Following the March 2016 change in residence of the children on an interim basis, supervised time spent between the mother and children commenced. One visit occurred uneventfully. The children were happy to see their mother. On 11 May 2016 a second visit occurred at the Community West Contact Centre in (omitted). Ms S, a social worker at the Centre, was supervising that time spent with. Her evidence before the Court is as set out in her affidavit sworn 11 May 2016. This evidence was unchallenged. Ms S observed the children to be in “good spirits” when delivered by their father and that they seemed “well presented”. They “happily greeted their mother with hugs and kisses”. Ms S described what then occurred as follows:-

    “…

    6. The mother removed Y from his pram and he was crawling around happily. The mother played with the children with playdough and other activities in the room. They enjoyed a snack which the father had brought for the children.

    7. The mother then began to ask questions and seemed to become quite agitated. She asked how many visits there were and I told her there were 8. She began raising her voice and told me that she was very  upset with her situation. She told me that the father is a ‘crackhead’ and that the children had been with her ‘since day dot’ and the children should be with her. I encouraged the mother to focus on the children and I said to her, ‘Let’s have this conversation after the visit.’ The mother then seemed to calm down and started playing with the children again.

    8. At about 12.30pm my supervisor came to do a scheduled check and at that stage things were settled in the room.

    9. At about 12.45pm the mother said to X words to the effect of ‘My sister’s here. Do you want to see my sister?’ X seemed to be a bit confused by this question. The mother then went and picked Y up. (He had crawled to the other side of the room.) She then took X’s hand and walked toward the door. I told her that she was not allowed to leave and she told me that “They’re my kids and I’ll leave if I want.” I tried to hold the door but couldn’t hold it and the Mother opened the door and walked out with the children.

    10. I ran upstairs and told my supervisor Ms V what had happened and she told me that she would call the police. I then went to the carpark of the building in the company of my co-worker Ms N. I saw the Mother in the driver’s seat of a black car. I could not see the children but assume that they were in the back seat. (The windows of the car were tinted, I think.) Ms N and I wrote down the registration number of the car, as it drove away. Ms N told me that she had seen an adult person in the passenger seat of the car with the Mother but I did not see that.”

1. The mother absconding from the Contact Centre with the children required a further recovery order for the return of the children to the father to be made. On 12 May 2016 the Court ordered additionally that the mother’s supervised time spent with the children should cease and a further family report be prepared.

2. So as to avoid a further active recovery of the children by AFP members, the father’s solicitor and the ICL sought to arrange handover of the children by mutual agreement at the (omitted) Police Station. Whilst that occurred, one hour later than agreed, the mother claiming to have misunderstood the agreed time, its circumstances were appalling for the children. They were as found by the Court and set out in the affidavit evidence of the father:-

   “10. Upon arriving at the police station, I saw Ms Ryder and her father Mr G standing outside the front of the police station. Mr G had a mobile phone in his hand and as soon as I arrived and got out of the car, he appeared to begin to videorecord the changeover on his phone. He continued to do so throughout the changeover. I got out of the car and proceeded toward X, who was running around outside. She immediately began resisting me and yelling at me “I hate you Daddy!”  Ms Ryder have her father encouraged X to behave in this way [sic]. X's reluctance to coming with me was ·very distressing. I was shattered to hear her tell me that she hated me. Ms Ryder and her father also began -upon my arrival and until I left with the children- to yell obscenities and insults at me. They also both spat on me, all in full view of the children. In putting the child Y into his car seat in my car, Ms Ryder said to my father - who had remained seated in the passenger seat of my car throughout- that “I hope you die, you fat cunt’.  X was incredibly upset during this episode and I was just so shocked at her response to me. It took a long time to settle X down and this only occurred a few hours after we got home.

   11. Even after I had both children in the car and was about to leave, Mr G challenged me to fisticuffs. I simply got into the car and commenced to drive away. Just as I was leaving, Ms Ryder lunged at the car and a police officer who had witnessed much of the event was required to physically pull her away from the car. (I am not sure how long the police officer had been there.)

   12. I was extremely shocked and angry to have been ridiculed and spat upon by both Ms Ryder and her father. I called my lawyer shortly after the changeover and was encouraged to simply get the children home and to do my best to calmly settle them for the evening.

   13. After that difficult changeover, it took several days to calm X down and get her back into her routine. Fortunately, Y (who is a very laid-back baby) was relatively calm and seemed not to be as troubled by the whole exchange. X was exceptionally clingy toward me over the following days. She made a number of concerning comments and posed several questions, such as “Why do the police come and take me away?" X was quite jumpy and was worried that someone was going to come and get her. A few times, she was convinced that someone was there and she needed lots of reassurance to feel safe. However, despite her initial resistance to me at the changeover, X has again settled into my care.”[15]

   [15] Affidavit affirmed by Mr Quinn on 8 June 2016.

3. On 20 May 2016 the ICL requested both parties to undergo drug testing. This was the final request for drug tests by the ICL.

4. On 15 July 2016 Dr S, Clinical and Forensic Psychologist, interviewed the mother and subsequently prepared a psychological evaluation dated 25 July 2016 which is in evidence before the Court. This evidence was unchallenged. Dr S’s conclusions, relevantly, as to the mother’s functioning were as follows:-

   “25. This evaluation indicated that Ms Ryder is a woman with personality difficulties, with vulnerability to impulsivity. It is likely that there are some cognitive limitations although a more complete cognitive evaluation would need to be undertaken to confirm this factor. Nevertheless, she presents as functioning approximately in the Low Average range of intellectual abilities.

   26. Ms Ryder’s evaluation would suggest that she has not tended to take the Court issues seriously and has ignored or defied Court orders, possibly for good reason although this has been commented on by the family report writer.

   27. It is questionable or not whether Ms Ryder will negotiate at any level with the father in the future, despite her statements otherwise where she has indicated that she wishes to have the children share their time with the father.

   28. Despite the above factors, Ms Ryder presents as rather unaware of how such a history may present itself and she presents as confident that the Court will simply support her with the children despite evidence otherwise.

   29. Ms Ryder presents as a person who requires assistance in understanding Family Law processes and needs assistance with dealing with issues of impulsivity in relationships and establishing more appropriate relationships while she is caring for the children.

   30. This matter may be best assisted by DHHS to assist the family in the longer term.”

Family Reports

1. On 27 October 2016, an updated family report prepared by Ms K was released to the parties. In that report, Ms K made the following recommendations:-

   “…

   60. The children live with the father;

   61. the children spend supervised time with the mother for two hours each alternate weekend at a Children’s Contact Centre;

   62. In the event that the mother can comply with any Order made by the Court for eight months without problems arising then –

   a) the children spend time with the mother each Sunday from 9am to 6pm supervised by the maternal grandmother for four months;

   b) the changeover to take place at a Children’s Contact Centre;

   63. In the event the mother complies with the agreed schedule for seeing the children for 12 months, the mother spend time with the children by agreement with the father, but no less than each Sunday from 9am to 6pm.

   64. If the mother does not comply with an Order made by the Court, the father immediately inform his lawyer and the mother’s time with the children be reserved; and

   65. the children remain on the Airport Watch List”

2. In her observations of the children on 14 October 2016, Ms K noted:-

   “43. The children appeared to be cheerful and in good health.  Mr Quinn was observant and guided the children’s behaviour in a quiet voice.  They were calm and responsive to his requests.

   X

   44. X presented as self confident, cheerful and articulate.  She was happy to hold hands to be guided to the Playroom.  She settled in immediately to play with the toys.

   45. When Ms Ryder arrived she was shown to the Playroom.  Ms Ryder brought two bags of presents for the children.  X was pleased to see her mother.  Ms Ryder greeted the children, hugging and kissing them.  X hugged her mother.  During the visit Ms Ryder told X she loved her and X reciprocated.  X told her mother she was naughty to take them away from Dad. 

   Y

   46. Y presented as quieter than his sister, although calm and in good spirits.  He took a little time to settle into the Playroom but was successfully distracted by the staff.  He settled to play on his own once Mr Quinn had left.

   47. When Ms Ryder arrived, Y was climbing on a slide.  He looked at her but did not move towards her.  He did not show any particular emotion.  He did not resist Ms Ryder’s greeting.  Ms Ryder and X talked about the presents. X seemed happy. Y continued playing and after a few minutes became more animated and began to interact happily with Ms Ryder.”

3. Ms K, in her evaluations of October 2016 said relevantly:-

   “Ms Ryder

   50. Ms Ryder appears to have an entrenched way of responding to frustration which is self-defeating.  There is evidently a pattern of impulsivity present as assessed by Dr S.  However, that does not mean she is unable to make choices about moderating her behaviour.   Despite her impulsive tendencies and educational deficits she presented well in interview.

   51. Ms Ryder seems to be unaware of the risk she is running in relation to spending time with X and Y.

   52. She regards herself as a good mother but she has shown little insight into the needs of the children having a relationship with their father, nor the need to curb her abusive behaviour in front of the children.  Ms Ryder did not express any regret that C has little or no support from her father and she has repeated that situation by having A. Her comments during interview indicated that she had no intention of encouraging a relationship between A and her father.

   Mr Quinn

   53. Mr Quinn has made adjustments to his life to take on the full-time care of the children.  When his parenting capacity was raised with Ms Ryder she made allegations about his drug taking more than once. 

   54. Mr Quinn is aware that X is attached to her mother.  He seems sincere that he would like Ms Ryder to spend time on a regular basis with the children if she can be depended upon to keep to the schedule they have agreed.

   X and Y

   55. X evidently has an attachment to her mother.  Y did not seem to be as affected by her presence or absence. 

   56. Ms Ryder’s behaviour has been unreliable in her adherence to orders. It is difficult to believe her assurances about complying with orders and listening to the advice of her legal representatives. However, it is important that X and Y be given another chance to have a positive relationship with their mother if at all possible.   

   57. If Ms Ryder can comply with orders and demonstrate an understanding of the importance of doing so, her relationship with X would help X’s happiness and future sense of security. 

   58. However, if Ms Ryder can not comply with orders or removes the children, she is likely to deprive them of their father and model reckless impulsivity.  In that event the development of the relationship with the children would be counterproductive and should be left until they are more mature. 

4. Following the release of the second Family Report to the parties, the mother emailed the ICL stating her refusal to attend for drug testing, and her disagreement with Ms K’s recommendations. In fact, the mother has never complied with a drug screen request. The father has always complied and despite the mother’s allegations that he is a drug user, neither his work required drug screens, nor the Court ordered drug screens, have returned a positive result.

5. On 6 December 2016 the father filed a further amending initiating application in which he sought the following:-

   “1. The father have sole parental responsibility for the children of the relationship namely Y born (omitted) 2015 and X born (omitted) 2013 (‘the children’)

   2. The children live with the father

   3. The father shall inform the mother by email or text message as soon as is reasonably practicable of any serious illness or injury sustained by the children or either of them.

   4. The father be solely authorised to do all things necessary and make all such applications as may be necessary to change the registered surname of the child Y to “Quinn.

   ...”

6. The father seeks that Y be known by the same surname as he and X. Y is of an age that such change shall have no adverse impact upon him. The change will positively affect him. It will identify him with his residential parent and sister. The mother’s other children have the surnames of either their different father or mother. The father seeks to promote Y’s best interests and adopt a course agreed upon by he and the mother before Y’s birth. As he said in his affidavit affirmed 6 December 2016:-

   “…

   21. I am seeking an Order that enables me to formally change the surname of the child Y from “Ryder” to “Quinn”. This had been intended by Ms Ryder and I before the child's birth. It was only to acquire a passport for the purpose of leaving the jurisdiction in contravention of Court orders that Ms Ryder proceeded to register the child 's birth, citing his surname for that purpose as “Ryder”. (I  was required to submit to the Court the DNA test results and relevant identifying photographs which confirmed my paternity of the child in order to stymie the Mother's effort to leave Australia with the child Y from the Sydney Airport.)

   …”

   Adopting the father’s surname will not exclude the mother from the children’s lives and nor does the father seek it to have that effect. It is only the mother’s current risk behaviours that exclude her from her children’s lives. This is hopefully a situation the mother might determine to address in the near to mid-term future.

7. On 16 December 2016 the proceedings were adjourned to 28 February 2016 for final hearing with priority. At the final hearing the mother attended but was unrepresented. Each of the other parties were represented.

Consideration

1. The ICL and the father join in seeking orders be made by the Court. They are opposed by the mother. They are the orders which the Court shall make being satisfied that such orders promote the best interests of the children.

2. The mother has no ability to communicate with the father and no desire or interest to do so. Any communication from her is abusive.

3. The mother, in her affidavit material, made many allegations of the father being violent to her and her children, in particular, B. These allegations were denied by the father and no evidence supporting the allegations was before the Court. The mother claimed to have reported such instances to the police whom she said refused to take any notice. The mother gave inconsistent accounts of some episodes referred to by her. Further claims made by her in the witness box had not previously been made in her affidavit evidence of events which occurred prior to the swearing of her affidavits. Her allegations are not accepted by the Court. It is the mother who has been the perpetrator of violence.

4. The father now resides with the children in a rented premises in (omitted). His father resides with him. The home has five bedrooms and a large secure backyard and is close to all amenities. The children see their paternal grandmother regularly. She resides in (omitted) with the father’s brother and his wife and two small children. The father commenced working part time in March 2016 before ceasing to work around July 2016 to focus at that time on the children’s care. He has since returned to work as a casual employee with (employer omitted). He has arranged for Y to be cared for and for X to attend kindergarten. The father has provided the children with settled routines and a safe, nurturing environment. The children rely on him and love him.

5. Section 60CA of the Act requires the children’s best interests to be the paramount consideration when making parenting orders.

6. Section 61DA(1) of the Act provides for the presumption that parents have equal shared parental responsibility for their children. This presumption may be rebutted in a number of ways. As set out in s.61DA(2)(b) the presumption does not apply if a parent of the child has engaged in family violence:-

   “…

   (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:

   …

   (b)  family violence.

   …”

   The presumption may also be rebutted in the following circumstance:-

   “…

   (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.”

   On the circumstances of this case, both grounds are applicable.

7. It is not in the children’s best interests to make an order for equal shared parental responsibility. There is no current ability nor reasonably anticipated future prospect of the parties being able to communicate in any way about anything, and in particular, their children. It is thus not a mandatory requirement that the Court consider equal time or substantial and significant time spent with between the children and their mother.

8. In determining the best interests of the children, the Court must consider the mandatory considerations as set out in s.60CC(2) and (3) of the Act. One of those considerations requires the Court to consider the benefit to the children of having a meaningful relationship with both parents. The mother has repeatedly attempted to disrupt the relationship between the father and the children. The mother has failed to demonstrate to the Court, in the approximately two years this matter has been in the list, that she will support a relationship between the father and the children. In fact, the mother’s actions have been to discourage the children from having a relationship with the father.

9. The risk of the mother absconding with the children is so significant, that, should the mother be allowed to spend time with the children, it is likely that she would again seek to remove them from the father and the Court’s jurisdiction.

10. I find the children benefit from having a meaningful relationship with their father. Whilst the children would ideally benefit from having a meaningful relationship with their mother, her exposing them to family violence and to psychological harm, the second primary consideration as set out in s.60CC(2)(b) of the Act, needs to be balanced against that meaningful relationship. It is not in the children’s best interests to be exposed to their mother’s behaviours which include the extreme lengths she has gone to, to keep the children away from their father.

11. The Court cannot be satisfied on the evidence before it that the mother has any capacity to facilitate, let alone encourage, a continuing relationship between the father and their children. The father on the other hand, has always wished for the mother and children to have a close relationship until the events which occurred on 12 May 2016 which to him was the end of the road. In time, as the children’s living arrangements settle and they become older and more able to express a view and thus protect themselves to some extent, the father will again support that relationship. It will require that the mother behave in a civilized and respectful way by not denigrating or abusing him. Further, it will require the mother to guarantee in some way that she will not seek to remove the children from him. Currently, there is no contact centre with the facilities necessary to stop the mother repeating her behaviour. Nor, it was submitted by the ICL, is there a contact centre willing to undertake supervision in these circumstances. Supervised time is thus problematic.

12. The father has considerable insight into the intellectual and in particular, emotional needs of the children. The mother’s capacity to recognise such needs is impaired. The father has throughout taken the obligations of parenthood seriously and has a genuine commitment to same. He provided necessary financial support additional to his physical and emotional support, when the children were in the care of the mother and continues to provide that support to this time.

13. The children are too young for the Court to give their views, if they were expressed, any weight. Whilst the Court accepts that they would miss their elder brother and sister, Y less so than X, and that it is very sad for the family unit of the mother to have her children separated, their mother placed them at such unacceptable risk that it became necessary to remove Y and X from her care. On the evidence currently, the mother continues to be a flight risk. The mother put before the Court no evidence to ameliorate this prospect. She put before the Court instead a continued hostility to the father and uncontrolled abuse of him.

14. It is open to the mother in the future to seek to vary these orders. She will need to establish to the Court’s satisfaction that she has a genuine commitment to promoting her children’s best interests and that she no longer represents a flight risk, at the very least.

I certify that the preceding sixty-six (66) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Hartnett

Date:  30 May 2017

[2] Affidavit affirmed by Mr Quinn on 14 February 2016 at [Q1].