RANGAN & RANGAN (No.3)
[2018] FCCA 3570
•13 December 2018
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| RANGAN & RANGAN (No.3) | [2018] FCCA 3570 |
| Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Parenting – mother will not communicate with father – sole parental responsibility to father –shared care equal time arrangement. |
| Legislation: Family Law Act 1975, ss.60B, 60CC, 61DA, 64B, 65D, 65DAB |
| Cases cited: Mazorski v Albright [2007] FamCA 520; 37 Fam LR 518 Rangan & Rangan [2015] FCCA 1868 Rangan & Rangan (No. 2) [2015] FCCA 3451 |
| Applicant: | MR RANGAN |
| Respondent: | MS RANGAN |
| File Number: | SYC 2488 of 2015 |
| Judgment of: | His Honour Judge B. Smith |
| Hearing dates: | 23 July 2018 - 26 July 2018 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 26 July 2018 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 13 December 2018 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Ms Winfield |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Paul Marsh & Associates Solicitors |
| Respondent: | In person |
| Counsel / Advocate for the Independent Children's Lawyer: | Ms Karagiannis |
| Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer: | Legal Aid NSW |
FINAL ORDERS
Parental responsibility
That all previous parenting orders in relation to the children [X] born [date] 2010 and [Y] born [date] 2012 (“the children”) be and are hereby discharged subject to Order 4(a) below.
Subject to order 3 below, MR RANGAN (“Mr Rangan”) shall have sole parental responsibility for all decisions relating to the children’s long term care, welfare and development, provided that Mr Rangan shall genuinely consult with MS RANGAN (“Ms Rangan”) and inform her of his intentions prior to making any long term decisions.
Ms Rangan and Mr Rangan shall have equal shared parental responsibility in relation to any changes to the children’s living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for either child to spend time with either parent pursuant to these orders.
Share care arrangement – live with and time with
The children shall live with the parties in a shared care arrangement as follows:
a)From the date of these orders the current live with and time with orders will continue until order (b) below commences.
b)Commencing at the end of school term in December 2018 and continuing thereafter continuously through school holidays and school terms the children shall live with the parents on a week about basis:
i)In a two week cycle as follows with Week 1 commencing on the first Monday of the December 2018 school holidays:
1)In Week 1 the children shall live with Mr Rangan from after school or 3:00pm on Monday until the commencement of school or 9:00am on the following Monday;
2)In Week 2 the children shall live with Mr Rangan from after school or 3:00pm on Monday until the commencement of school or 9:00am the following Monday;
ii)And thereafter in alternate weeks.
Day to day decisions and events
Mr Rangan shall have responsibility for decisions as to the children’s day to day care welfare and development during periods when they are living with him.
Ms Rangan shall have responsibility for decisions as to the children’s day to day care welfare and development during periods when they are living with her subject to the following:
a)Mr Rangan shall have sole responsibility for decisions as to the children’s attendance at and participation in school activities such as Book Day, dances, excursions, sports, clubs or other events regardless of which parent the children are living with when the event is on, and Ms Rangan will take all reasonable measures required to facilitate their attendance and participation when they are living with her.
b)Ms Rangan shall have sole responsibility for decisions as to the children’s attendance at non-school based extra-curricular activities including [nationality] School or Cultural or Language Classes, [Hobbies], sporting or other activities regardless of which parent the children are living with when the event is on, and Ms Rangan will take all reasonable measures required to facilitate their attendance and participation when they are living with her, subject to (c) below.
c)However, in respect of [nationality] School or Cultural or Language Classes, while Ms Rangan must facilitate the children’s capacity to attend, she need not take the children herself and must instead facilitate a changeover with Mr Rangan so he can take them to class and deliver them back after class.
Special occasions
Notwithstanding the above Orders, the children shall spend time with the parents as follows:
a)If the children are not living with Mr Rangan, with Mr Rangan from 5pm on the day before Father’s Day until 5pm on Father’s Day; and
b)If the children are not living with Ms Rangan, with Ms Rangan from 5pm on the day before Mother’s Day until 5pm on Mother’s Day; and
c)If the children are not living with Mr Rangan, with Mr Rangan from after school or 3pm to 6pm on Mr Rangan’s birthday; and
d)If the children are not living with Ms Rangan, with Ms Rangan from after school or 3pm to 6pm on Ms Rangan’s birthday; and
e)If the children are not living with Ms Rangan, with Ms Rangan from after school or 3pm to 6pm on the Maternal Grandmother’s birthday; and
f)If the children are not living with Ms Rangan, with Ms Rangan from 5pm on the day before Pentecost Sunday until 5pm on Pentecost Sunday; and
g)With the parent they are not living with from 2pm to 6pm on Easter Sunday; and
h)In odd numbered years with Mr Rangan from 5pm Christmas Eve until 2pm on Christmas Day and with Ms Rangan from 2pm Christmas Day until 5pm Boxing Day; and
i)In even years with Ms Rangan from 5pm Christmas Eve until 2pm on Christmas Day and with Mr Rangan from 2pm Christmas Day until 5pm Boxing Day; and
j)With the parent they are not living with from 2pm to 6pm on New Year’s Day; and
k)On each child’s birthday with the parent they are not living with, on a non-school day from 2pm to 6pm, and on a school day from after school until 6pm; and
l)On any other occasion as the parents shall agree between themselves.
Events and activities
The parents will both be entitled to attend all events involving the children including:
a)Religious and/or cultural activities;
b)Sporting fixtures;
c)Extracurricular activities that allow for parental attendance; and
d)School functions and events that allow for parental attendance including but not limited to concerts, school assemblies, sports days, parent and teacher interviews, canteen duties and social functions.
The parent who has the children in their care on the day of such activity will be responsible for their day to day care at such event and the children’s transportation to and from that event.
Contact with
The children shall be at liberty to contact the parent they are not then living with by telephone at will, and are to be advised of this fact by the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the parents, and are to be provided with reasonable access to a telephone at the residence of each parent to facilitate this order.
Changeovers
Changeovers shall occur by delivery to or collection from school on a school day.
For all changeovers that occur on a non-school day changeovers shall occur at the McDonalds restaurant in Suburb A.
Keep Informed
Each parent shall ensure that the other is kept informed of:
a)Any medical problems or illnesses suffered by either child while in their care;
b)Any medication that has been prescribed for either child;
c)Any social, school or religious functions which either child is to attend;
d)The particulars of the others who may reside with either child;
e)Any other matter relevant to either child’s welfare;
f)Any medical practitioner either child may attend or receive treatment from, from time to time, including name, address, contact details and dates of attendance and treatment; and
g)Any special church services either child may attend including date, time, name of church, location and event such as First Holy Communion, Confirmation, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Pentecost Sunday, to the intent that both parties may attend.
Authorisation
Mr Rangan shall do all such things necessary to authorise any school or activity group that either child may attend from time to time to provide Ms Rangan with all school reports, school newsletters and other information regarding the children’s school activities as they become available and this Order shall act as sufficient authority for that purpose and Ms Rangan shall be at liberty to liaise directly with each child’s school or preschool or activity group.
Communication
For the purposes of communicating information between the parents, Ms Rangan and Mr Rangan shall:
a)Communicate by telephone regarding matters of an urgent nature; and
b)Communicate by email about day to day matters including arrangements for each party to spend time with the children.
Within 7 days Ms Rangan shall provide to Mr Rangan her current address and contact telephone numbers (including both mobile, landline and email address if applicable).
Each party advise the other party and keep the other party advised of their current address and contact telephone numbers (including both mobile and landline if applicable) and advise the other party of any changes to these details within seven days of such change occurring.
Ms Rangan is to check her email daily for the purpose of complying with this order.
Restraints
Ms Rangan and Mr Rangan are each restrained from:
a)Making critical or derogatory remarks about the other to or in the presence or hearing of the children or either of them;
b)Showing or allowing the children to see any documents filed in these proceedings;
c)Discussing these proceedings or any matter arising from these proceedings with or in the presence or hearing of the children or either of them;
d)Questioning the children in a manner that is critical or derogatory of the other parent; and
e)Physically disciplining the children.
Passports
Mr Rangan is to hold the children’s passports.
Keeping Kids in Mind
Ms Rangan shall attend upon and complete a “Keeping Kids in Mind” or like program within 6 months of these orders.
Mental health supervision - Mother
Ms Rangan shall:
a)attend upon her usual treating general practitioner within 3 months of these orders; and,
b)provide a copy of these orders to that general practitioner; and
c)abide by any mental health plan prepared by that general practitioner; and
d)thereafter attend upon her general practitioner at least once every 12 months for the purposes of having that general practitioner assess her mental health.
Legal Aid reimbursement
Within twenty-eight days of the date of these orders, Mr Rangan shall pay to Legal Aid NSW the sum of $4,969.50, being one half of the costs of independent legal representation for the children herein.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Rangan & Rangan (No.3) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYC 2488 of 2015
| MR RANGAN |
Applicant
And
| MS RANGAN |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
A: Introduction
This is a parenting case between Mr Rangan and Ms Rangan about their children [X] (8) and [Y] (6).
An Independent Children’s Lawyer appeared. Ms Rangan conducted her own case, despite having a grant of Legal Aid.
The parties’ relationship suffered a catastrophic breakdown after Ms Rangan was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital in [date] 2014. Ms Rangan characterises this as an act of family violence orchestrated by a manipulative, controlling and abusive husband. Mr Rangan says that his wife was ill and that her medical practitioners scheduled her.
The reason for Ms Rangan’s involuntary admission is the primary factual issue in dispute. The parties’ competing views of this event have largely determined their subsequent actions.
B: Background
The parties are [Religion] originally from [country omitted]. Both their ethnic heritage and their religious beliefs are important to them. Ms Rangan practices as a [Religion] and Mr Rangan within the general [Religion] Church.
They met as children, married in [country omitted] in [date] 2000 and commenced cohabitation in [date] 2001 in [country omitted], where Mr Rangan had moved to work as an [occupation omitted].
In 2002, Ms Rangan suggested to Mr Rangan that she move to Australia to support Mr Rangan’s sister, who was experiencing a difficult pregnancy. Mr Rangan agreed and Ms Rangan came to Australia in [date] 2002. In [date] 2003 Mr Rangan followed.
Both parties have family in Australia. Mr Rangan has two brothers and a sister in Sydney, all with spouses and 8 children in their late teens and early twenties between them. Ms Rangan’s mother and sister were in Melbourne but her mother began living with Mr Rangan and Ms Rangan from [date] 2014.
Mr Rangan obtained work as an [occupation omitted] and has continued in that industry to the present. They purchased the matrimonial home in Suburb B in [date] 2005 and lived there till separation. Mr Rangan continues to live there.
Ms Rangan worked as a part-time [occupation omitted] in a [employer omitted] and then in an [occupation omitted] role with [employer omitted] from 2003 to 2007, then ceased work to concentrate on having children. [X] was born in [date] 2010 and [Y] in [date] 2012.
Ms Rangan alleged a continuing history of verbal and physical abuse and controlling behaviour from the time the parties lived in [country omitted] through to the end of the relationship. Mr Rangan denied these allegations.
Ms Rangan’s evidence was that this abuse culminated in Mr Rangan maliciously having her involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility when she was not seriously mentally unwell.
Mr Rangan’s evidence was that Ms Rangan had a history of depression in 2005 and had deteriorating mental health across 2013 into 2014. He tried to get her to seek medical help which she refused. She was rapidly losing weight and neglecting herself and the children. He contacted Dr A because he was concerned for her wellbeing. Dr A made a home visit and scheduled Ms Rangan.
Ms Rangan was involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric facility on [date] 2014. She was hospitalised for just over 6 weeks, with the admission becoming voluntary towards the end, and was discharged on [date] 2014.
This was a nightmarish experience for Ms Rangan, the effects of which have not left her and which she blames Mr Rangan for.
After her discharge, the parties engaged in couple’s counselling without success.
Ms Rangan alleges the family violence continued post-discharge, including Mr Rangan slapping her in the face, pushing her roughly, telling her not to go to church and hiding her car keys. Mr Rangan denies this.
On 30 March 2015, while Mr Rangan was away on business, a Women’s Refuge agreed to accept Ms Rangan and she and the children left the matrimonial home without notice.
Since then Ms Rangan has only spoken to Mr Rangan once, by telephone, prior to the Hearing. She has consistently sought to avoid having any contact with him. She has on many occasions failed to comply with Court orders facilitating his time with the children. At every stage of Court proceedings she has argued to reduce Mr Rangan’s time with the children.
Since the circumstances surrounding Ms Rangan’s involuntary admission is the central factual question in the case, and as its determination will influence the view to be taken of the parties, other evidence and the other factual and legal issues, it is convenient to address this question first.
C: Ms Rangan’s psychiatric admission in [date] 2014
Ms Rangan’s evidence
Ms Rangan said that from [date] 2013 to [date] 2014 she often heard Mr Rangan speaking on the phone about her, saying words to the effect that she was “mentally sick”. She said that Mr Rangan repeated the assertion that she was “mentally ill” to extended family in [date] 2013. Ms Rangan reported that after this, Mr Rangan’s family suddenly stopped visiting her and that she believed that isolating her from family and friends was an aspect of Mr Rangan’s family violence.
Ms Rangan said that in [date] 2013, Mr Rangan told her that she could not go on “a spiritual retreat operated by the [Religion] Church” and that isolating her from her religious community was another part of his family violence.
Ms Rangan said that on [date] 2014, an ambulance officer came to the matrimonial home and told her she needed “to go to hospital”, to which Ms Rangan replied that “there is nothing is (sic) wrong with me”. Ms Rangan said that the ambulance officer then said words to the effect of “[y]our husband called us to say you have a mental health problem”, which Ms Rangan said she denied, causing the ambulance officer to leave after first checking her heart rate and blood pressure.
Ms Rangan said that on [date] 2014, Mr Rangan brought the maternal grandmother unexpectedly to the house, which caused Ms Rangan to become very upset. Ms Rangan states that the maternal grandmother did not reply when asked why she had not told Ms Rangan she was coming to visit, and that Ms Rangan asked her to go home the following day.
Ms Rangan said that on [date] 2014, Mr Rangan took the children without her knowledge, turning off his mobile to be uncontactable, and that she later opened the door to a police officer who told her that her husband “informed us that you are attempting to commit suicide”. Ms Rangan denied this and asked where her husband was. The police then checked the house, told her she needed to go to the police station to make a statement, and left.
Ms Rangan said that Mr Rangan then arrived with Dr A, her usual treating GP, and the maternal grandmother. She said that this caused her to become very angry and that she asked them where the children were, why the police had been sent, and why her mother had not gone home. Ms Rangan claims that she has since discovered that the maternal grandmother and Dr A did not know that the ambulance and police had been called by Mr Rangan, and that Dr A was concerned as she had “never seen [Ms Rangan] angry like this”. Ms Rangan said Dr A filled out a form in her presence (which she did not see or read) and signed it and gave it to Mr Rangan, who gave it to an ambulance officer who had arrived. Ms Rangan said that the ambulance officer then said words to the effect of:
So you are a religious lunatic. If you don’t come with us willingly we will sedate you
Ms Rangan said she did not know what to do and so she went with them to Hospital, where she was admitted to the Psychiatric Unit as an involuntary patient.
Ms Rangan said that she was kept in hospital from [date] 2014 to [date] 2014, and that she “tried to tell medical staff there was nothing wrong with me but no one would listen to me”. She said that she was distressed and missing her children, but kept up her usual religious practices of praying several times a day and also sang hymns to keep herself calm. She said that her mobile phone, whose account was in Mr Rangan’s name, had been blocked for outgoing calls, and that Mr Rangan tried to get access to her personal items without her permission.
Ms Rangan said that after a few weeks at Hospital, the doctors told her that they were going to transfer her to “Psychiatric Hospital”. Ms Rangan states that she reiterated to them that “there is nothing wrong with me” and that they replied that her husband had “made a decision to transfer you”. Ms Rangan claims that she was then transferred to Hospital where she was diagnosed with depression and prescribed Zoloft.
She was discharged on [date] 2014.
Ms Rangan alleged that during her time in hospital, Mr Rangan destroyed her religious books and CDs, her university notes and bags and writing and drawing materials, and prevented Ms Rangan’s sister from seeing her.
Ms Rangan stood by her evidence during cross examination. I have no doubt that she was being subjectively honest in her evidence, that she believes that she was not suffering from a mental illness and that she believes that her involuntary admission was an act of family violence by Mr Rangan.
Mr Rangan’s evidence
Mr Rangan’s evidence was that Ms Rangan started to suffer from a decline in her mental health which presented as an increasingly obsessive adherence to her religious beliefs. She withdrew from him, ceased sleeping in the marital bedroom and moved to the third bedroom. She commenced going to Mass every day, taking the children with her; frequently sprayed the house with holy water; placed bible verses around the house on coloured cardboard; built a religious shrine; played religious music constantly; and put a lock on her bedroom door to exclude Mr Rangan and the children. She lost a large amount of weight in a short period of time and her hair started falling out. He said that she told him she was sick because of his sins and his involvement with the “occult”. She asked for the doors and windows to be left open to rid the house of bad spirits. Whilst she took the children to Mass and blessed them, he says she did not interact on an emotional level with them.
Mr Rangan’s evidence was that he had accompanied Ms Rangan on a number of church retreats throughout 2013 and in the early part of 2014.
Mr Rangan eventually asked the maternal grandmother to Sydney because he was concerned about Ms Rangan’s mental health. The material grandmother arrived on [date] 2014. Ms Rangan ordered her to leave, and on the following day, Mr Rangan arranged for Dr A to see her at the matrimonial home. He made sure the children were at one of his brother’s homes.
Mr Rangan says that following her interview of Ms Rangan, Dr A told him she was going to “schedule” Ms Rangan “as she is very unwell”. Dr A then completed some forms which she handed to Mr Rangan and the ambulance officers who arrived to take Ms Rangan to the emergency department of Hospital.
Ms Rangan remained in the psychiatric unit of Hospital for approximately a week before being transferred to Hospital where she remained for a further 5 weeks, eventually becoming a voluntary patient. Towards the end of her stay she was allowed home visits on weekends.
During that period Mr Rangan and the maternal grandmother looked after the children, and the maternal grandmother remained living with the family until Ms Rangan left with the children in [date] 2015.
Mr Rangan said that he saw Ms Rangan at Hospital on a number of occasions, and that hospital authorities allowed the children to see their mother at both Hospitals. He was not aware of the details of Ms Rangan’s treatment. He said that once Ms Rangan returned home in [date] 2014, she continued to sleep separately and did not speak to or acknowledge him.
He said that he packed up her religious materials and still has them stored. He denies destroying them and offered to return them.
Under cross examination by Ms Rangan, he also stood by his evidence and seemed to be genuinely trying to explain himself to her.
Subpoenaed medical records
Dr A’s notes for 4 April 2016 (part of exhibit ICL6) were as follows (errors in original):
unkempt
eerily calm (husband and mother in attendance)
reading a bible
religious sermons blaring away
all lights on
was in room when reqeusted by husband to come out
came out but annoyed with husband questioned him as to whereabouts of her children (with his brother and family)
talked to patient who insisted that
she is surrounded by evil people, who are out to harm her, told me off as being of different religious background
unable to understand the evilness surrounding her
admits to chastising 4 yr old son for not praying seriously
feels he is being influenced by father’s bad habits
claims that husband is not of good heart annoyed and angry that mother has come
The report of the ambulance officers from 4 April 2014 (exhibit ICL7) records (errors in original):
Primary Survey no immediate life threat
Secondary Survey appearance personal presentation neat / clean, extraocular movements not present; behaviour agitated; clean ; concentration is normal; crying / tearful ; facial expression flat non-expressive; insight impaired; mood irritable; speech content bizarre / irrational rate normal, volume normal; thought content delusional > > religiously delusion, flow normal
…
Case Description
ct 39 yo female for transport of schedule. oa pt in hallway. greet by ambos with talk of being [Religion] and being close to jesus and god. pt wanting to speak to local bishop before going to hospital. pt under doctor schedule. form on scene. husband also on scene. states wife has been having grander and grander religious delusions for approx. 12 months post having baby 6 months before this. husband ? post natal depression. apparently very good mother to children. pt has made threats against children however who dont always please her in terms of there religious followings. pt denies wanting to harm self or thoughts on harming herself. prior to leaving house pt said several prayers to shrine built in lounge room. i belive it was a hail mary in english then in [language omitted]. pt crying profusely whilst completing these prayers. pt refusing to go with ambulance at first but on getting changed packing a bag and grabbing her bible was ok to come to hospital with pt. pt has requested her husband have nothing to do with her and request he not see her in the hospital. pt refused obs. pt stable en route.
Extensive medical records were tendered from Hospital (exhibit ICL5).
The emergency department assessment of 4 April 2014 noted that Ms Rangan “states she is the ultimate [Religion]”, “wants to divorce husband as he is not [Religion] enough”, was “increasingly turning house into shrine… becoming increasingly [Religion] and religiously fixated…” and on examination “…stated she needed to confess to priest…” and “started hyperventilating”.
A Mental Health Assessment that day recorded, among other things, that Ms Rangan:
…Continues to constantly prays (sic) all day, with religious items, constantly ringing Bishop – needed to remove mobile phone…
Believes house is possessed
An “Overall Level of Risk” assessment placed Ms Rangan at low risk for suicide or violence, but at medium risk of “Self neglect”. The assessment continued:
…Precedence of religious rituals/prayers over self care & child care. Pt lost around 20kg in weight over last 12 months
Thought Content
Religious delusional beliefs. Believes everyone is evil & they all should be praying.
Paranoid & persecutory beliefs towards husband & mother.
Bizzare (sic) behaviour in response to her delusions… Denied any thoughts to harm her children or others… Denied any auditory or visual or somatic hallucinations… poor insight. Lacks judgement. Refuses hospital admission stating that she needs to see the Bishop as there is nothing wrong with her.
…
History of Presenting Problem
… Had been trying for babies with IVF but conceived after 10 yrs by natural means. Since then believes God has answered her prayers…. Socially isolated. States that she will only speak to the Bishop & none else.
Further medical reports “as to mental state of a detained person” were prepared by psychiatrists on 7 and 11 April 2014.
The report of 7 April 2014 recorded:
…She has said [Mr Rangan] is trying to kill her and called him ‘the Antichrist’. She has a very distant relationship with the children… [she] told me that she ‘promised God’ she would be devout and now practices her religion to the exclusion of almost, everything else. She detailed needing to be ‘cleansed of sinning. She had lost at least 15kg of weight by fasting – in order to pray. She is indifferent to the loss of weight.
Ms Rangan is psychotic. The content of the delusions is religious but her beliefs are of an intensity causing her and her children harm.
The 11 April 2014 report concluded:
Ms Rangan is suffering a psychotic illness, with prominent religious delusions. This is causing harm to her, and to family in her inability to engage with them.
Dr B - single expert witness
A single expert report dated 1 September 2016 (exhibit ICL1) was prepared by Dr B, Child and Family Psychiatrist, following interviews with Ms Rangan, Mr Rangan, the children, the maternal grandmother, the paternal brother and sister-in-law and a paternal sister in July 2016.
Dr B recorded the parent’s respective histories and views. These were substantially the same as those in their trial affidavits two years later.
Assessment of Ms Rangan
Ms Rangan’s concerns for the children were said to be that [X] did not finish his schoolwork on time and needed to know that his parents would not reconcile, while [Y] at 3 took her pants off and ran around naked and put her hands down her pants to her genital region. [Y] was also fearful of the dark, swimming and movies in the cinema. [Y] also apparently told Ms Rangan that Mr Rangan had said that she needed to say sorry and come back to him.
Dr B noted Ms Rangan’s desire not to have to deal with Mr Rangan, her very strong feelings of betrayal given her view that he maliciously had her scheduled and hospitalised, and the fact that she “could not think of any positive personal qualities in him, commenting “I don’t know this person””.
Dr B recorded that Ms Rangan’s view of the facts was that, while she had been depressed in 2014, Mr Rangan had exaggerated her illness “which she continues to experience as a painful betrayal” attributing malice to him as she believed he “planned” to have her admitted with a mental illness”. Dr B was of the opinion that Ms Rangan had a genuine “ongoing perception he remains a potential threat to her.”
Dr B expressed concern around “how guarded, perhaps secretive” Ms Rangan was and concluded that she “had no insight into how unwell she was at the time of her admission, when she was retained on a schedule, making it reasonable that her husband sought psychiatric treatment for her.”
Dr B noted that Ms Rangan had not presented to medical practitioners as mentally ill in the two years from 2014 to 2016 and that in August 2015 her treating psychiatrist stated in a letter that “there is no clinical evidence that [Ms Rangan] may have any worries coping with children. She is a good and caring mother”. Dr B spoke to this doctor by telephone when completing the report.
However, Dr B considered that Ms Rangan’s past psychiatric history placed her at risk for future episodes.
In respect of Ms Rangan’s expressed religious beliefs and practices, Dr B stated that if they were consistent with [Religion] practice then they cannot be considered bizarre from a psychiatric perspective.
Dr B concluded that Ms Rangan presented as “a caring and functional parent with a history of a concerning psychiatric admission in 2014” and that there were “no current contraindications to her having appropriate parental care and responsibility for the children provided she has adequate mental health and social supports.” (emphasis in original)
Assessment of Mr Rangan
Mr Rangan’s concerns for the children were said to include that Ms Rangan had told them that it was Mr Rangan who made her sick and sent her to hospital, that he was a liar who practiced magic, that the children are not allowed to wear clothes with cartoon characters on them or watch some cartoon programs involving magic, that the children reported Ms Rangan would not touch them after they have been with him until they had had a bath, and that Ms Rangan had been non-compliant with Court Orders for telephone contact.
Mr Rangan confirmed his “understanding… that [Ms Rangan’s] perception is that (he is) an evil person” which “makes it difficult for her to see his love for the children and the benefit for them to have him involved.”
In terms of the alleged family violence, Mr Rangan denied Ms Rangan’s allegations, but “acknowledged it was possible before they had children they pulled and pushed each other but he was adamant he never attempted to strangle her or threatened to throw her out.” Mr Rangan acknowledged that his father had drunk alcohol to excess but denied family violence in his parents’ relationship.
Dr B concluded that Mr Rangan presented as a committed, caring and involved parent, despite Ms Rangan’s reports to the contrary, and noted that “[h]er allegations of family violence are denied by him and are confounded by her belief during her psychotic illness that he was a malevolent person.”
While Dr B suggested that Mr Rangan may not have been as sensitive to Ms Rangan’s needs as she required, given she “has felt neglected, dismissed and controlled by him” Dr B concluded that “he did not appear to have malignly fabricated or exaggerated her illness behaviour”.
It was recommended that if Mr Rangan was to move closer to Ms Rangan to be closer to the children, as he foreshadowed he might do, he would need to be carefully empathetic and mindful of how his actions are perceived by her, noting that “if his behaviour is appropriate he cannot be responsible for any oversensitive or paranoid perceptions she might have.”
Dr B’s oral evidence – reason for psychiatric admission
Dr B was called and cross examined. She presented as an experienced, sensible and thoughtful psychiatrist. She had been provided with the trial affidavits and pleadings, the current orders and the up to date subpoenaed material prior to the hearing. She noted that her examination and report was almost 2 years old and pointed out the potential limitations that placed on her evidence even with the benefit of the updated materials.
Based on the subpoenaed material, Dr B considered the decision to schedule Ms Rangan appropriate. Some of that subpoenaed material is set out above. Dr B confirmed that she did not consider that Mr Rangan’s actions had been vindictive in seeking and following medical advice and that there was nothing she had seen that established family violence, but that the family violence issue was a factual question for the Court. She did note that Mr Rangan supporting Ms Rangan’s move to Australia before him was inconsistent with the kind of controlling behaviour Ms Rangan ascribed to Mr Rangan.
She stated that Ms Rangan was intensely bitter at Mr Rangan and felt persecuted by him because of her involuntary admission and appeared to continue to lack insight into how unwell she had been at that time including the fact that she had had a psychotic illness.
She noted that from Ms Rangan’s perspective it would have been a very unpleasant, disturbing and traumatic experience. Because Ms Rangan had not been able to develop insight into her own mental state at that time she remained unable to move on or to forgive Mr Rangan.
Dr B did not consider Ms Rangan to be “delusional” in her ongoing belief about Mr Rangan, noting that Ms Rangan no longer believes Mr Rangan is the antichrist but only that he maliciously had her scheduled. Dr B considered this belief to be a step below a “delusion” in psychiatric terms, being instead an “over-valued belief”, which is to say a very strongly held belief that will not be affected by any evidence.
When cross examined by Ms Rangan there was, in effect, an extended discussion which at times ran the risk of verging on therapy, which Dr B explicitly sought to avoid. Dr B was sensitive in the way she expressed her opinions about Ms Rangan directly to Ms Rangan but her opinions did not change under Ms Rangan’s cross examination.
Dr B’s evidence on other matters will be considered further below.
Findings – Ms Rangan’s psychiatric admission
Based on the contemporaneous documentary medical evidence and Dr B’s expert medical opinion, I find that Ms Rangan was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility on 4 April 2014 by her usual treating general practitioner Dr A and then was held for treatment by treating psychiatrists for her own protection and treatment due to a serious psychotic episode with religious delusions.
I find that Mr Rangan did not act manipulatively nor maliciously in bringing his concerns about Ms Rangan’s health to the attention of Ms Rangan’s general practitioner, nor in accepting her involuntary admission and treatment on medical advice.
Consequently, I find that this was not an act of family violence by Mr Rangan and does not provide evidence to support the other allegations of family violence.
D: Separation and Court proceedings
On 31 March 2015, Mr Rangan returned from a work trip to Melbourne to the matrimonial home to discover Ms Rangan and the children were not there. Mr Rangan spoke with a counsellor from Hospital who informed him that Ms Rangan had taken the children to a refuge.
On 22 April 2015, Mr Rangan commenced these proceedings seeking orders that the children reside with him and spend time with Ms Rangan.
On 6 May 2015, he reported Ms Rangan and children missing to Police. On 7 May 2015 Police confirmed that they were at a refuge but the location could not be disclosed to him.
In February 2015, [X] had commenced at a [School 1] at Suburb D. Ms Rangan unilaterally changed [X]’s primary school and [Y]’s pre-school without Mr Rangan’s knowledge or consent.
Child Dispute Conference – 17 June 2015
The parties attended a Child Dispute Conference on 17 June 2015 conducted by Ms C, Family Consultant, whose Memorandum to Court is exhibit ICL2. She summarised the parents’ positions and the relevant issues which continued broadly unchanged to the final Hearing and which were the issues discussed in detail by Dr B.
Time with Mr Rangan
The children have lived with Ms Rangan since 30 March 2015 and spent time with Mr Rangan since Court Orders in mid-2015.
Mr Rangan initially had time with the children under paid supervision. Then between July 2015 and March 2017 the Court ordered the children spend time with Mr Rangan every weekend from 9am Saturday till 5pm Sunday. From March 2017 it moved to a two week cycle, with week 1 from after school or 3pm Friday until before school or 9am Monday, and week 2 from after school or 3pm on Thursday until before school or 9am on Friday. Time increased during school holidays to week about. The children were to speak with Mr Rangan by telephone when not with him. This arrangement was broadly followed, subject to Ms Rangan terminating her telephone line so that the children could not speak with Mr Rangan.
E: Post separation history
Communication
Ms Rangan had not spoken to Mr Rangan in person until she cross examined him at the Hearing. They had only spoken directly by telephone on one occasion.
Mr Rangan does not have a telephone number or residential address for Ms Rangan. He has never seen the accommodation Ms Rangan shares with the maternal grandmother and the children in Suburb E. He has an email address for her but she either does not check her email or does not, as a rule, reply to his emails. That means that Mr Rangan can only effectively communicate through hand-written notes given to the children or via his solicitors.
Ms Rangan has all of Mr Rangan’s contact details.
Ms Rangan’s desire not to communicate with Mr Rangan makes it extremely difficult to co-parent and make arrangements regarding the children.
Ms Rangan conducted a competent cross examination of Mr Rangan. It was apparent that, subject to her beliefs about Mr Rangan, she was rational with ordered thinking. She appeared to become more comfortable over time and as no objections were taken to her having a wide ranging discussion with Mr Rangan, so this was allowed. Mr Rangan seemed positively eager to take the opportunity to answer any questions she asked and to establish rapport. He remained calm and child focussed in his responses, although in his over-anxiousness to speak with Ms Rangan he tended to give very long answers. He might perhaps have listened more and spoken less. Hopefully this experience of speaking with Mr Rangan for an extended period, albeit in a very unusual setting, without any apparent ill effects may assist Ms Rangan to communicate better with him in future.
In response to questions about whether her refusal to communicate with Mr Rangan had made discussing or negotiating the children’s care difficult, Ms Rangan said that talking to people was not in her nature, that she “may improve” in the future, but that she cannot be “somebody else”.
She submitted that she was not “like a businessperson” and did not constantly check her phone and had not set up her phone’s voicemail service. In terms of her failure to communicate with Mr Rangan she said she was “not perfect”.
The children’s education and activities
Mr Rangan stated that he is very happy with the education the children are receiving at their current school which is [School 2] Primary School at Suburb E and that he pays their school fees, as well as child support to Ms Rangan of $1,400 per month. [X] is in year 3 and [Y] is in kindergarten. Both parents want the children to continue at this Primary School and to then continue on to a [Religion] High School.
There are, however, significant issues between the parties about other issues.
Ms Rangan stated that she is was [Religion] and not a traditional [Religion] like Mr Rangan. She believes that Mr Rangan had shown “no respect” for her religious beliefs and values, and had tried to interfere in her religious upbringing of the children.
It is important to distinguish between the religious delusions which Ms Rangan suffered when in a psychotic state, and the genuine practice of her religious faith. These issues must not be conflated.
Ms Rangan’s objects to her children being exposed to “magic” or the “occult”. She believes that Mr Rangan is engaged in, and is engaging the children in, activities which expose them to these forces. In this respect she confirmed in her evidence that she was referring to the Biblical injunctions against mediums, sorcery or spiritualists.
Mr Rangan, on the other hand, expressed concern that Ms Rangan’s view of the requirements of their [Religion] faith meant she was not open to the children participating in the commonly accepted activities offered to the children, including those offered by their primary school.
He specifically pointed to Ms Rangan’s conduct as follows:
a)Not sending [X] to school on “Book Day”, a day on which students dress up as book characters, because she did not like him “dress[ing] up as one of the characters because it is against God”;
b)Forbidding [X] to attend a school disco;
c)Not allowing the children to bring books from the school library on the days they spend evenings with him;
d)Not letting [X] learn [musical instrument] or go to music class because “they teach [omitted] music which mum doesn’t like”;
e)Not taking [X] to attend [sports] sessions at a park close to Ms Rangan’s residence;
f)Effectively preventing [X] playing [sports] by not communicating with Mr Rangan; and
g)Objecting to the children attending [nationality] school each Saturday from 2pm to 4.30pm.
Ms Rangan said that Mr Rangan knows “occult items” are not acceptable to her. As an example she said that Mr Rangan may want to take the children to see the movie “[omitted]”, which she would never take them to see “due to the child’s use of magical powers in that movie, powers not attributable to God”. She said Mr Rangan showed disrespect to her by sending the children home wearing “[omitted]” t-shirts.
Her objection to Book Day was similarly based on children dressing as characters from “Harry Potter” in which people using occult magical powers are generally portrayed in a positive light.
Her objection to the disco was boys dressing up with guns, noting that her father had been killed by gunshot in [country omitted].
Her objection to [nationality] classes is that she believes that as [Religion] is the predominant religion amongst [nationality], the songs and dances and stories being taught are primarily [Religion]. She strongly objects to the children being involved in this way in another religion.
Mr Rangan’s position is that he is a [Religion], and wants his children to be raised as [Religion]. He does not take as strict a view of what the children may not be exposed to in their education. He does not accept that the [nationality] culture classes are in effect [Religion] religious classes or that they will interfere in their religious upbringing. He accepts the school’s guidance on what is appropriate on Book Day and other social activities for [Religion] children.
Mr Rangan also stated that ideally he would like both children to undertake a sporting activity, join the [hobby] and learn music.
Mr Rangan claims that [X] has told him that “Mum always gives us holy oil before we come to you” and that “mum always gives us a bath with holy salt water when we come home from you”. The inference is that Ms Rangan wants to cleanse the children of evil when they return from Mr Rangan.
Ms Rangan stated that she washes the children when they return from Mr Rangan due to a smell they have on them when they return. She also said that it was her usual behaviour that whenever either of the children would wake up at night crying she would comfort them by giving them a blessing, saying God was watching over them, and making the sign of the cross on their forehead. Ms Rangan said that from about the time [Y] was 5 months old, Mr Rangan would “roughly interfere” and make a hand action on the children’s foreheads as if wiping away the sign of the cross. Mr Rangan denied seeking to interfere with Ms Rangan blessing the children.
Ms Rangan’s alleged non-compliance with Court orders
Mr Rangan’s evidence was that Ms Rangan has consistently violated Court Orders. She stopped the children’s telephone calls to him after several months and disconnected her phone. She is consistently late at changeovers. He provided a table which he said accurately recorded the times Ms Rangan had arrived at changeovers. By contrast, he said that once when he was “approximately 5 minutes late” in returning [X] to school, Ms Rangan left the school without receiving the children and without notifying him.
Mr Rangan said that Ms Rangan had repeatedly withheld the children on days he was supposed to have them, in breach of Court Orders. Furthermore, he said that on 19 April 2018 she sent police to his house because he had not “returned the children” to Ms Rangan, despite the Orders placing them in his care until 20 April 2018.
Mr Rangan says that the children have on more than one occasion said to him, contrary to Orders that she not denigrate him, things like:
Mum said God told her to leave you and the house
Mum does not like you
[y]ou are doing magic
[y]ou sent mum to hospital
[y]ou made mum sick
[X] had his [Religion activity] at 11am on Sunday 3 June 2018. Pursuant to Court Orders the children were to spend time with Mr Rangan from after school on Friday 1 June to before school on Monday 4 June. Mr Rangan, being aware of the importance of this occasion to Ms Rangan sought to arrange, through his solicitor, shared time on that day. Ms Rangan wrote in an email response that because Mr Rangan “was accused of practicing magic that he can’t prepare [X] for the [Religion activity]”.
Ms Rangan did not take the children to school on the Friday 1 June so they were not available to be collected by Mr Rangan. Mr Rangan attended at the church for the ceremony on the Sunday. He was able to speak with [X] for a short period of time before Ms Rangan took the children.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer arranged to see the children at the offices of Legal Aid on the afternoon of 7 June 2018. In summary, Ms Rangan brought the children. They were supposed to leave with Mr Rangan. Ms Rangan saw Mr Rangan and instead of facilitating a hand over took them home.
F: Parenting capacity and issues
Ms Rangan’s current mental health
There was evidence that Ms Rangan attended on a psychiatrist Dr D in 2015 at which time he provided her with a medical certificate stating “Ms Rangan is currently well from a psychiatric point of view. She suffered from Adjustment Disorder with depressive features. She is very stressed with custody issues after separating from her husband.” He prescribed Zoloft and Epilim.
Ms Rangan did not lead any evidence of the state of her current mental health.
In regards to her mental health, Ms Rangan said that the bible said “you have a sound mind” and when asked whether she has or previously had mental health issues replied that “from a biblical point of view no but from a medical point of view yes”. She did not elaborate on this position.
Ms Rangan stated that she would be happy to see a General Practitioner on a regular basis, and that she now understood people’s concern about her mental health and its impact on the children. However, she also said that she would not be happy to have her General Practitioner contact Mr Rangan if the General Practitioner was concerned about her mental health, but that instead the General Practitioner should contact “a priest”. No specific priest was nominated, making the proposal impractical.
Mr Rangan’s parental capacity
Most of the hearing, and consequently of this Judgment, involved a consideration of Ms Rangan’s capacity.
Mr Rangan’s capacity is also relevant. Mr Rangan suffers from no mental or physical condition which might adversely impact on his parental capacity. He gave evidence of his capacity to care for the children and I accept his evidence in these regards. Apart from the question of available time, due to work commitments, his capacity was not seriously challenged.
Mr Rangan tendered a letter from a Director of [employer omitted], his employer, confirming that his work allows him the flexibility to work from home or vary his hours to care for the children. I find that he will be able to work sufficiently flexible hours to make his proposal practicable.
Mr Rangan’s evidence under cross examination by Ms Rangan was very impressive and child focussed. The fact that whilst he seeks sole parental responsibility in his Application, he strongly urged a role for Ms Rangan in being consulted about parental decision in his evidence, and the fact that he sought equal shared time on the basis that this would be in the children’s best interests despite it being more demanding for him to have to continue attempting to engage with Ms Rangan, was strong evidence of this child focus.
Property
Mr Rangan said he has been paying the mortgage over the matrimonial home, which is jointly owned by the parents, and that he although he wished to move to Suburb E to be closer to the children, he cannot afford to do so until he and Ms Rangan reach agreement on how to dispose of or manage the property. It is most unfortunate that the property issues remain outstanding. However, there is no application currently before the Court to deal with financial matters.
Ms Rangan’s concerns about a change of arrangements
Ms Rangan claims that [Y] becomes distressed when separating from her after spending time with Mr Rangan, and has been demonstrating greedy and violent behaviour such as refusing to share and fighting with her brother over toys. Ms Rangan claims the children behave differently on days they are to see their father, and have begun “showing their bottoms to each other”. Ms Rangan expressed particular concern about [Y] having started touching her vagina or taking off her clothes at home, and said she was “showing signs of increased anxiety concerning sleeping and toileting” which Ms Rangan did not know the source of. She claims [Y] no longer wants to sleep or go to the toilet without an adult.
Ms Rangan also expressed concern that since separation, [Y] will now laugh at [X] “in a jeering way”; that the children no longer behave themselves in church; that Mr Rangan has been allowing the children to watch age-inappropriate movies; that the children are sleeping in the same bed as their father; and that time with Mr Rangan was affecting her relationship with them and causing them to say words to the effect of “I don’t love you I don’t want you to come and pick me up from school”. She is also concerned that the current Court Orders do not make any provision for the children to spend any time with her family.
Ms Rangan alleges that Mr Rangan “cannot focus on the children’s needs” and gave her reason for being “late delivering the children to him each weekend” as having trouble, in general terms, in organising the children prior to changeover, stating that it is “a struggle for me to get them in the car”.
Ms Rangan said that Mr Rangan was not “a hands-on Dad” during their time together. She acknowledged Mr Rangan’s statement that he would like to engage in homemaker activities and that it would be a great role model for the children to observe him doing so, but stated that she has never observed Mr Rangan preparing food or eating with the children and that he had been generally inattentive to their needs. She expressed a belief that although Mr Rangan may be able to learn to perform childrearing and household tasks, until the later years of primary school the children needed to spend Sunday nights with her so she could prepare them for school.
Dr B’s oral evidence
Dr B confirmed that she had concerns about Ms Rangan’s parenting capacity because Ms Rangan had a significant history of psychological issues and was at risk of relapse, and Ms Rangan’s secretiveness meant that she was unlikely to disclose to anyone if her mental health deteriorated, which could put the children at risk. For that reason, Dr B recommended that Ms Rangan’s mental health be monitored to protect the children in case she relapses.
Dr B also had concerns that Ms Rangan had been and was involving the children in the parental dispute by communicating her view that Mr Rangan had falsely had her scheduled, which could influence the children against Mr Rangan and undermine their relationship with him. That concern was compounded by Ms Rangan’s consistent lateness in delivering the children to Mr Rangan and not making them available for holidays, as well as her refusal to communicate with Mr Rangan; all of which were explicable given Ms Rangan’s view of Mr Rangan, but evidenced poor parenting capacity.
In the same vein, Dr B noted that if Ms Rangan refuses to touch the children until they have bathed or been “cleansed” after their return from their father’s care, that would communicate to them that he had contaminated them. All of these things risk further communicating Ms Rangan’s incorrect beliefs about Mr Rangan to the children and so over time alienating the children from Mr Rangan.
In relation to Ms Rangan’s refusal to allow [X] to attend book week because of children being dressed as Harry Potter characters, or the disco where some boys were apparently to be dressed in costumes using guns as props, Dr B took a cautious approach, noting that if Ms Rangan’s views are consistent with the views of members of her Church they were not indicative of mental illness, but that if her beliefs were idiosyncratic that could raise concerns about her parenting. Dr B stated that she could not comment on the beliefs and practices of [Religion] and whether or not Ms Rangan’s concerns in these regards were reasonable.
With regards to Ms Rangan running late getting the children to school, Dr B stated that this was not necessarily an issue of mental health but could just be about parental ability to get the children organised on time.
Dr B stated that if the Court considered it was likely that the parents would not be able to agree on major long term issues due to non-communication or co-operation, then parental responsibility should rest with one parent and agreed that it was more likely to be appropriate for it to be Mr Rangan.
In terms of [Y] taking off her pants and running around the house, Dr B indicated that in a 3 year old, when the complaint was made, this would cause no concerns.
Dr B considered that Ms Rangan had a good capacity to think and organise her thoughts generally, as demonstrated by her ability to act as her own advocate in Court, but this is subject to her over-valued beliefs concerning Mr Rangan being evil.
Dr B raised with the Court the fact that Ms Rangan was referring to herself as “the mother” and queried why she was referring to herself in the third person. When asked about this Ms Rangan said because everyone else had been referring to her as “the mother” throughout the proceedings, she had assumed that was the proper thing to do. Dr B accepted this as reasonable and not a sign of mental ill health.
In terms of a possible week-about arrangement, Dr B thought the children, in particular [Y], were a bit young and recommended incremental increases in time with Dr B, but stated that the children were well attached to each other and would adjust.
G: Findings – post separation conduct
I refer to my earlier findings regarding Ms Rangan’s involuntarily committal.
While Ms Rangan denies that she still thinks of Mr Rangan as evil, I do not accept her evidence on that issue. Given her belief that he had her wrongly committed to a psychiatric hospital it would be surprising if she thought otherwise. Her recent email, set out above, concerning Mr Rangan’s unfitness to prepare [X] for his [Religion activity] makes it clear that while Ms Rangan may no longer believe that Mr Rangan is the antichrist, she still believes that he is an evil person who therefore represents a danger to herself and to the children. I note in particular Dr B’s evidence in that regard.
I find that Ms Rangan’s evidence about Mr Rangan is unreliable by reason of the fact that it is infected by this genuinely held but false belief. In these circumstances, where the evidence of Ms Rangan has conflicted with that of Mr Rangan and there is no independent evidence to support Ms Rangan’s evidence, I prefer the evidence of Mr Rangan.
I find that Ms Rangan was consistently late with changeovers. I am not able to find whether this was due to poor parenting capacity or a reluctance to hand the children over or a combination of both factors.
I find that Ms Rangan deliberately breached the Court Order in place and withheld the children from school on the Friday before [X]’s first [religious activity] so that they would not spend time with Mr Rangan that weekend as she considered Mr Rangan to be evil. I find that this is an example of her willingness to breach Court orders when she thinks it appropriate to do so.
I find that Ms Rangan deliberately failed to hand the children over to Mr Rangan at the Legal Aid offices and that this is another example of the conduct referred to in relation to the [religious activity].
I find that Ms Rangan has been washing the children when they return from Mr Rangan and before she will touch them because she perceives them as being tainted by his evil and not because of a smell.
I find that Ms Rangan’s conduct since separation, including her refusal to communicate with Mr Rangan, her reluctant compliance with orders of this Court facilitating time between Mr Rangan and the children, and her consistent attempts to reduce his time with the children at every stage of proceedings, have all been the result of her acting on her incorrect belief that he is evil.
I find that this belief is unlikely to change, given that it has been maintained for 4 years despite access to contemporaneous medical evidence and Dr B’s independent opinion, and that Ms Rangan’s willingness to communicate and co-parent with Mr Rangan is therefore unlikely to improve significantly.
I should note that Ms Rangan has reluctantly managed to generally sustain a shared time arrangement with Mr Rangan for the last 3 years, with many breaches of Court orders, and I find she does have capacity to abide by Court orders for shared time if she chooses to do so. That is relevant given the orders proposed by Mr Rangan and supported by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
(h) if the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child
This is not relevant.
(i) the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child's parents;
Both parents have demonstrated that they care deeply for their children.
However, Ms Rangan has been unable to bring herself to co-parent with Mr Rangan or to accept that it is in the children’s best interests to have a relationship with him or to fulfil her obligation to facilitate and promote that relationship in accordance with the Court’s Orders.
(j) any family violence involving the child or a member of the child's family;
I refer to my findings above. I do not make any findings of family violence.
(k) if a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child's family--any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order;
There are no family violence orders.
(l) whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child;
While the orders proposed by Mr Rangan and the Independent Children’s Lawyer for equal time do involve a risk of non-compliance by Ms Rangan, and the possible need to revisit these orders in the event of such non-compliance, the benefits to the children of maintaining significant and substantial time with Ms Rangan outweigh that issue.
(m) any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant.
Ms Rangan’s mental health history, lack of insight into that issue, incorrect over-valued beliefs that Mr Rangan is evil, risk of a relapse exacerbated by her denial of the problem and consequent likelihood that she would not seek or accept medical help, and history of non-compliance with Court Orders are all relevant factors.
The allocation of sole parental responsibility to Mr Rangan and an equal time arrangement, for school age children, will be sufficient to ensure that if the mother has a relapse in her mental health the father’s extensive involvement would provide a safety net.
H: Decision
I refer to my various findings set out above. The children are not at risk of physical harm from either parent. They are not at risk of psychological harm from Mr Rangan. They are at some risk of ongoing psychological harm from Ms Rangan because of her beliefs about Mr Rangan and her communication of those beliefs to the children and due to her unwillingness to support their relationship with him, however, that risk can be ameliorated by Mr Rangan’s proposal.
There is a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility (s.61DA). That is rebutted in this case by evidence that comfortably satisfies the Court that there is no real prospect of the parents engaging in a productive co-parenting arrangement because Ms Rangan will not communicate or engage with Mr Rangan due to her negative beliefs about him.
On that basis I find that one parent should have sole parental responsibility for the children and that Mr Rangan would be the parent more likely to be child focussed, to be willing to attempt to consult with the other parent, to work to ensure that the children maintain their relationships with both parents, to have a lower risk of being incapacitated from making good decisions due to mental health issues, and to provide a safer and more stable decision maker to care for their long term welfare. Mr Rangan will therefore be the person to exercise sole parental responsibility.
Mr Rangan said in evidence that despite seeking sole parental responsibility, he strongly believes that Ms Rangan should have a say in major long term decision. He also stated that the parents were in agreement that the children should be [Religion], be educated in [Religion] schools, and that there was no desire to change their names. On balance I think it would be best for the children for Ms Rangan to be consulted on major long term issues prior to any decision being made. If she is not willing or able to engage after being given an opportunity, Mr Rangan will be able to make decisions.
I have carefully considered whether the children should live primarily with Mr Rangan, and how practical the proposed equal time arrangement will be, given that Mr Rangan is to have sole parental responsibility and the demonstrated unwillingness of Ms Rangan to communicate or co-parent with Mr Rangan. I have real concerns about the capacity of Ms Rangan to engage sufficiently to allow an equal time shared care arrangement to work and have considered the potential benefits to the children of having a single place of residence with Mr Rangan and time with Ms Rangan on weekends and evenings, effectively reversing the current arrangements.
However, I am satisfied that the shared care arrangement proposed by Mr Rangan and the Independent Children’s Lawyer will be better for the children than moving them to live primarily with Mr Rangan and that given Mr Rangan’s commitment to this arrangement it is a practicable option.
In respect of the risk factors posed by a potential decline in Ms Rangan’s mental health and her views about Mr Rangan, I am satisfied that the allocation of sole parental responsibility to Mr Rangan and an equal time arrangement will provide sufficient protection to the children.
To avoid dispute as an incident of sole parental responsibility, Mr Rangan will be authorised to make the all decisions about the children’s participation in school and extra-curricular sporting, cultural, language, musical, dance and social activities including those that run on a weekly basis across both his and Ms Rangan’s time with the children. To make it worthwhile for the children to be enrolled, Ms Rangan will be obliged to ensure the children attend those activities during the weeks they are with her regardless of whether or not she agrees with those activities. That last Order is subject to one exception. Given her vehement opposition to the [nationality] cultural course in which Mr Rangan enrolled the children, Ms Rangan will be required to facilitate the children’s attendance at that activity by changing them over to Mr Rangan to take to class but she will not be required to take them directly to these classes herself. That exception is only for the [nationality] cultural course, otherwise Ms Rangan is required to take the children to their scheduled activities or to otherwise ensure they attend.
Communications between the parents is to occur via email unless urgent. Ms Rangan is to check her email daily to facilitate this communication. Urgent messages are to be sent by text message or telephone call. The parties are to provide each other with their mobile telephone and any land line numbers and their physical addresses and both parents are to advise the other within 48 hours if their contact details change.
I will also make consequential orders regarding non-denigration and payment of Legal Aid fees and similar matters in respect of which the parties were in general agreement.
I certify that the preceding two-hundred and twenty-five (225) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of His Honour Judge B. Smith
Date: 13 December 2018
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Procedural Fairness
0
3
2