Ransone & Ransone (No 2)
[2024] FedCFamC2F 1161
•13 September 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Ransone & Ransone (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2F 1161
File number(s): SYC 8228 of 2021 Judgment of: JUDGE BECKHOUSE Date of judgment: 13 September 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Spend time with orders – Where term poor parental communication was inappropriately used to describe an entrenched pattern of behaviour towards the mother and child – Where no physical violence – Where father alleged to control mother by range of behaviours including harassment, intimidation, humiliation, monitoring, constant criticism – Whether father posed risks arising from alcohol use, mental health condition or family violence – Where father lacked insight – Where child has a loving and meaningful relationship with the father – Where child would be exposed to unacceptable risk of psychological and emotional harm in the care of the father – Whether parenting coordinator and/or use of AI tool to moderate father’s communication style can mitigate the identified risks of harm – Where the risk posed by the father can only be mitigated by final orders for supervised and restricted time. Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4AB(1), 4AB(2), 60CA, 60CC, 60CG
Cases cited: Amador & Amador (2009) 43 Fam LR 268
Blanch & Blanch & Crawford (1999) FLC 92-837
Blinko & Blinko [2015] FamCAFC 146
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Carter & Wilson (2023) FLC 94-129
Dieter & Dieter [2007] FamCA 608
Garrod & Davenort [2018] FamCA 825
Gorman & Huffman and Anor [2016] FamCAFC 174
M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69
Moose & Moose (2008) FLC 93-375
Ramzi & Moussa [2022] FedCFamC2F 1473
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 252 Date of hearing: 26-28 February 2024 Place: Sydney Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Bateman Solicitor for the Applicant: Jones Hardy Law Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Roberts Solicitor for the Respondent: Newnhams Solicitors ORDERS
SYC 8228 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR RANSONE
Applicant
AND: MS RANSONE
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE BECKHOUSE
DATE OF ORDER:
13 SEPTEMBER 2024
ON A FINAL BASIS THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Parental responsibility
1.The child, X born in 2017, live with the Mother.
2.The Mother have sole parental responsibility for X and in the exercise of sole parental responsibility:
(a)the Mother shall notify the Father of any proposed decision in relation to the long-term care of X in writing before a final decision is made, except in the case of an emergency;
(b)the Father shall provide the Mother with his views about the proposed decision in one message, within 7 days of receiving the Mother’s notification;
(c)the Mother shall take into consideration any views expressed by the Father in respect of such proposed decision;
(d)the Mother shall advise the Father of the final decision as soon as reasonably practicable; and
(e)the Father shall refrain from entering into any further correspondence about the final decision.
Spend time with arrangements
3.X spend supervised time (subject to Order 5) with the Father as follows:
(a)Each alternate Saturday from 1.30 pm to 4.30 pm, or instead at the Father’s election, one day each month from 9.30 am to 3.30 pm.
(b)From 2024 and every even-numbered year thereafter, for six (6) hours on X's birthday as agreed between the parents in writing, but failing agreement, from 10.00 am to 4.00 pm.
(c)For four (4) hours on Easter Sunday as agreed between the parents in writing, but failing agreement, from 10.00 am to 2.00 pm.
(d)For four (4) hours on Christmas Day as agreed between the parents in writing, but failing agreement, from 10.00 am to 2.00 pm.
(e)For six (6) hours on Father's Day, as agreed between the parents in writing, but failing agreement, from 10.00 am to 4.00 pm.
(f)Such other time as agreed in writing between the parties.
4.For the purpose of the supervision of the Father's time in accordance with these Orders:
(a)Supervision shall be provided by a paid professional contact supervision service as nominated by the father.
(b)The Father is to meet the cost of the supervised service.
(c)Each parent must do all things necessary to forthwith engage in all necessary intake processes for supervision by the proposed agency.
5.Upon X commencing high school, he shall spend time with the Father in a public place nominated by the Mother at the dates and times provided for in Order 3, without supervision.
6.Changeovers will be effected by the Mother or her nominee delivering and collecting X to and from the Father's residence, or such other location as is agreed between the parents in writing from time to time, or nominated in accordance with these Orders.
7.The Father is at liberty to telephone or video call X each Tuesday and Thursday evening between 6.30 pm and 7.00 pm and the Mother shall do all acts to reasonably facilitate such calls occurring. The Mother is at liberty to conclude the respective telephone or video call should the Father make comments to X during the telephone or video call that the Mother deems inappropriate.
8.During the telephone or video call time set out in Order 7 herein, the Mother is permitted to remain within hearing of the conversation between X and the Father, and the Father must not introduce X to or arrange with X to speak or communicate on any other communication platform including any video or computer game or social media.
Communication between the parents
9.Each parent shall forthwith inform the other parent in writing, and keep the other parent informed in writing within 21 days of any change, of their respective residential address, mobile telephone number, and email address.
10.All communication between the parents shall:
(a)Be in relation to X.
(b)Be in writing via the OurFamilyWizard parenting application (“the OurFamilyWizard App”), and the cost of that service shall be shared equally between the parents.
(c)Other than in circumstances of emergency, occur no more than on one occasion each week per parent.
(d)Not be sent by the Father to the Mother prior to subjecting the proposed written communication to analysis by the ToneMeter tool in the OurFamilyWizard App and prior to that analysis returning no flagged statements within the proposed message.
(e)Not repeat a previously sent request.
11.Both parents shall notify the other of any medical emergency, illness or injury suffered by X whilst in their respective care if it required treatment by a third party.
12.The parents shall be at liberty to receive all school reports, newsletters, school notices, information and school photographs in relation to X and this Order operates as an authority for them to do so.
Restraints and injunctions
13.Each parent is restrained from:
(a)Discussing with X or showing X any Orders, letters, reports or other documents, whether electronic or hard copy, and/or proposals that are or were the subject of these proceedings.
(b)Denigrating the other parent in the presence and/or hearing of X.
14.The parents are at liberty to attend any school or extracurricular functions involving X which students’ family members are invited to attend.
15.The Father is restrained from attending X's primary or secondary school during school hours unless it is for the purposes of attending the events foreshadowed in Order 14 herein, and this precludes the Father from:
(a)Seeking any position either in a paid or voluntary capacity at any primary or secondary school which X attends.
(b)Attending at X's school during school hours to perform any role associated with the school including by appointment or election to the Parents and Citizens Association and/or other voluntary or paid activities.
16.The Father is restrained from approaching the Mother or arranging for any meetings with X and the Mother (even if a third party is present) when attending the events and activities foreshadowed in Order 14.
Travel
17.Pursuant to s 65Y of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Mother be permitted to remove X from the Commonwealth of Australia for the purpose of a holiday on any occasion she deems appropriate, provided that:
(a)The Mother provides to the Father notice of the intended travel at least 28 days prior to the departure unless a shorter notice period is agreed between the parents in writing.
(b)The Mother provides to the Father at least 14 days prior to the departure, unless a shorter period is agreed between the parents in writing:
(i)The particulars of such holiday, including a copy of the travel itinerary, the location to be visited and the period of the proposed travel.
(ii)Particulars as to contact information for X during the period of travel, with the travelling parent to facilitate X communicating with that parent during such time.
(iii)Documentation of suitable travel insurance for X.
18.The Mother (as the sole person holding parental responsibility for the child in accordance with Order 2) shall have sole parental responsibility in relation to signing all necessary documentation, or organising or obtaining and renewing an Australian Passport for the child, X born in 2017 and for this purpose, pursuant to ss 11(1)(a) and (b) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth), these Orders provide authority to the Minister for Foreign Affairs or a delegate of the Minister to issue an Australian Passport for the child to be held by the Mother.
19.The Mother will retain X's passport in her possession and control.
New treating psychologist
20.The Father is permitted to provide any new treating psychologist with a copy of the reports completed by Dr B dated 20 May 2022 and 20 December 2023, and these Orders and reasons for judgment.
Implementation of these Orders
21.The parents and/or the legal representatives be permitted to provide a copy of these Orders to any school that X attends or might attend from time to time.
22.The parents and/or the legal representatives be permitted to provide a copy of these Orders and Reasons for judgment to Dr C, the Father's treating psychologist, or to any other mental health professional treating the Father.
Mediation or counselling
23.In the event that there is a dispute about X, or about the interpretation, implementation, or enforcement of these Orders, or about progressing the Father’s time with X, then before making any further application to the Court, the parties will:
(a)Attend either counselling, mediation or family therapy with an organisation recognised under the Act or by the Commonwealth Attorney-General; or
(b)Participate in Family Dispute Resolution with a family relationship centre or a person authorised under s 10G of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.Orders 1, 6, 7, 9, 10(a) to 10(c) and 13 are made by consent of the parties.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
These are parenting proceedings involving final parenting arrangements for the parents' six‑year-old child, X.
The applicant father, Mr Ransone (“the father”), seeks to spend unsupervised time with X which he proposes should increase incrementally until X eventually lives in an equal shared care arrangement with both parents. He proposes that his transition to unsupervised time be supported by the parents attending upon a parenting coordinator who will address what counsel for the father described as “poor communication” between the parents. The father also seeks an order for equal shared parental responsibility for X.
The respondent mother, Ms Ransone (“the mother”), contends that the father's mental health and alcohol abuse issues, combined with his engagement in a pattern of behaviour which she describes as coercive and controlling, places X at unacceptable risk when in the father's care. She seeks an order for sole parental responsibility for X. She also proposes that the father's time with X be professionally supervised indefinitely.
The use of the vernacular “poor parental communication” throughout these proceedings to characterise the parental relationship was unfortunate. Its use masks and minimises a pattern of behaviour that the father has engaged in, and continues to engage in, to control the decisions of the mother and the lives of both the mother and X. The term also suggests a degree of mutuality, yet there was no evidence that the mother ever communicated or responded inappropriately to the father. The continuance of the father's persistent conduct towards the mother, and his failure to understand its impact, combined with other risk factors, places X at unacceptable risk of harm in the father's care.
AGREED ORDERS
At the final hearing, the parties agreed to the following orders:
(a)X will live with his mother.
(b)The father will have telephone or video calls with X every Tuesday and Thursday, with the mother to conclude those calls if the father makes any inappropriate comments to X.
(c)A range of conditions on how the parties communicate with each other, including:
(i)their communication will only be in relation to X;
(ii)they will communicate in writing using the OurFamilyWizard parenting application (“OurFamilyWizard App”) no more than once per week; and
(iii)the tone of all messages will be modified by using an application such as the ToneMeter tool.
(d)The mother or her nominee will deliver and collect X from the father's residence for the purposes of spending time with the father.
(e)Each parent will inform the other in writing of any change to their address, mobile number, and email address.
(f)Both parties are restrained from discussing any aspect of these proceedings with X and denigrating the other parent in the presence or hearing of X.
These agreed orders have formed part of the final orders made.
After the parties closed their cases, counsel for the father tendered an amended Minute of Order which contained 26 proposed orders (“the father's minute”). The father's minute had regard for some of the matters arising from the evidence of the Regulation 7 Family Consultant, Ms D (“the Family Report writer”). The parties did not have the opportunity to concur in relation to the minute. Some of the orders proposed, however, are non-controversial and will also form part of the final orders made.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
The issues that require determination are:
(a)How parental responsibility for X should be allocated.
(b)The arrangements for X to spend time with his father, including:
(i)whether that time should be supervised or not;
(ii)if supervised, the length of time supervision is required; and
(iii)what day to day involvement the father should have in X's life, including his ability to attend X's school and take part in his extracurricular activities.
(c)International travel for X.
EVIDENCE
The parties were both legally represented.
For reasons unknown there was no Independent Children's Lawyer (“ICL”) appointed in these proceedings. This was unfortunate because the only opportunity X had to express his views was via the Family Report writer. The consequences of there being no ICL will be apparent later.
Both parties filed Case Outline documents.
The father relied upon:
(a)Affidavit of Mr Ransone filed 9 February 2024 (“the father’s affidavit”)
The mother relied upon:
(a)Amended Response filed 18 July 2023
(b)Financial Statement of Ms Ransone filed 5 February 2024
(c)Affidavit of Ms Ransone filed 6 February 2024 (“the mother’s affidavit”)
(d)Affidavit of Ms E filed 13 April 2022 (“the paternal aunt’s affidavit”)
(e)The Child Impact Report completed by Court Child Expert, Ms F, on 7 November 2022 (“the Child Impact Report”)
Both parties relied on the following reports filed in these proceedings:
(a)The Family Report completed by the Family Report writer on 30 March 2023 (“the Family Report”)
(b)The Single Expert Report completed by Dr B dated 20 May 2022 (“the Single Expert Report”)
(c)The Updated Single Expert Report completed by Dr B dated 20 December 2023 (“the Updated Single Expert Report”)
RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The mother was born in 1982. She was 42 years old at the time of the final hearing.
The father was born in 1982, and was 41 years old at the time of the final hearing.
The parties commenced a relationship in 2013 and were married in 2016.
In 2014, the mother claimed that the father disclosed to her that he was sexually abused by a relative when he was a child.
X was born in 2017. He is currently six years old.
The parties separated in 2019 for around six months.
The mother said that the parties separated on a final basis in July 2020. The mother claimed that the "final straw" was when she returned home with X to find their unit full of smoke, which was coming from a pan that the father had inadvertently left on the stove to burn. The mother alleged that she found the father unconscious on the bed and unresponsive. She believed she smelled alcohol on him and observed empty bottles of liquor.
In mid-2020, the father was admitted to the G Centre, where he completed a four-week program seeking treatment for alcohol misuse, gambling, depression, and anxiety. He was discharged two weeks later.
The father claimed the parties separated on a final basis in February 2021. The father acknowledged that he was experiencing "issues with alcohol misuse, gambling, depression and anxiety" at that time. The date of final separation is not material to the issues to be determined.
Following their separation, the parties came to a verbal agreement for the father to spend time with X each alternate weekend from Friday 4.00 pm to Sunday 3.00 pm. He would also spend time with X each Tuesday from 4.00 pm to Wednesday 10.00 am.
In early 2021, the father was served with a provisional apprehended domestic violence order ("ADVO"), naming him as the defendant and protecting the mother. It arose from the mother's complaint that the father was sending her numerous "intimidating and harassing" messages. These occurred over a period where he had cancelled seven visits with X in a two-month period. This ADVO was finalised in mid-2021, and expired in mid-2023 ("the mid-2021 ADVO").
The mid-2021 ADVO was varied to include conditions that the father must not approach the mother for at least 12 hours after consuming alcohol and to only contact the mother through a legal representative.
In April 2021 during changeover, the father claimed that X was unsettled and refused to be returned to the mother's care. Although he tried to comfort X, the father claimed that he became more upset, and was crying and yelling, "I do not want to leave Daddy’s place". This was the last unsupervised visit between X and the father. The mother was questioned about this incident during cross-examination. She claimed that this incident did not occur. However, her evidence was that the father's unsupervised time ceased around this time because the father began to appear at X's school.
In early 2021, the father directly contacted the mother and was charged with breaching the mid‑2021 ADVO. At the instigation of the mother the father's time with X was suspended until mid-2021 when the father spent his first visit with X for a period of three hours supervised by the professional supervision service, H Contact Service.
The mother claimed that despite the conditions of the mid-2021 ADVO, the father continued to message her.
In May 2021, the mother received an email from the father, that was addressed to the paternal grandfather, Mr J ("the paternal grandfather"), in breach of the ADVO.
In May 2021, the father alleged that he met with Family Liaison Officers from Suburb K Police Station. He deposed that he did this to eliminate any chance of further breaches and to ensure compliance with the terms of the ADVO.
In May 2021, the father joined the group “L Group” which the father claimed is "a harm prevention charity committed to excellence in fathering". The father deposed that he has learnt how to be "a better and more inclusive father to [X]" by joining this group.
In May 2021, the mother alleged the father breached the mid-2021 ADVO by sending her a 30 minute long message.
On 19 May 2021, the father received a letter from the mother's legal representative, advising the father that supervision of his time with X was required until he "receives regular treatment for the purposes of monitoring and assisting [him] in relation to his mental health and alcohol dependence".
On 8 November 2021, the father filed an Initiating Application commencing these parenting proceedings. He sought orders for equal shared parental responsibility, for X to live with the mother, and for an equal time arrangement to occur by the time X was around five years old.
On 7 December 2021, the mother filed a Response. She sought for the father to spend supervised time with X for a period of three months, for the father to complete an anger management course, and for the father to undertake monthly alcohol testing.
On 25 January 2022, interim orders were made by a Senior Judicial Registrar ("the January 2022 Orders") to the effect that:
(a)X was to live with the mother.
(b)The father was to have telephone or FaceTime calls with X each Tuesday and Thursday from 6.30 pm to 7.00 pm
(c)The father was to spend time with X professionally supervised each Saturday from 1.30 pm to 4.30 pm, and the father to pay the costs of this supervision.
(d)Restraints on the parties from denigrating the other in the presence or hearing of X.
(e)The father was restrained from discussing with X any proposal for him to spend time with the father.
(f)The father was to undergo urinalysis at the mother's request, with such testing to occur randomly and no more than once a month.
The January 2022 Orders remain the current parenting arrangement between the parties.
On 20 May 2022, Dr B completed a Single Expert Report in relation to the father's mental health.
On 17 June 2022, the father filed an Application for Review in relation to the January 2022 Orders. The father sought to remove the requirement that his time with X be supervised. His Application for Review was dismissed by Judge Vasta on 4 August 2022.
On 22 July 2022, the father requested that his supervised time with X be changed to fortnightly visits rather than weekly.
In late 2022, during a FaceTime call with X, the mother claimed the father referenced her “backside” twice as a “wide load”. She ended the call and did not answer when the father called back twice.
In late 2022, the mother alleged that Police attended her home to conduct a welfare check on X. The mother deposed that this upset and confused X, and she believed that the father made this call to retaliate against her for ending the FaceTime call the previous night.
On 7 November 2022, the Child Impact Report was completed. After reading the Child Impact Report, the mother deposed that she stopped recording the FaceTime calls between the father and X.
In 2023, X commenced kindergarten at M School.
On 3 April 2023, the Family Report was released to the parties.
In mid-2023, the 2021 ADVO expired.
On 8 May 2023, the father filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking that all previous parenting orders be discharged and for orders to be made in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Family Report. This Application was dismissed on 27 June 2023, and by consent the father agreed to pay the mother's costs fixed at $8,000.
As at the final hearing (which commenced on 26 February 2024):
(a)The father was unemployed. In cross-examination, he confirmed that he had resigned from his last role in late 2023 and is confident of returning to the workforce shortly. He deposed weekly expenses of approximately $1,775 which includes $264 for supervised visits with X and $523.54 in child support.
(b)The father has not re-partnered, and lives in a rental home in Suburb N. His home has a large backyard and a bedroom for X.
(c)The mother lives in a unit owned by her in Suburb O. X attends school nearby at M School and attends before and after school care from time to time. Although she has re-partnered, she deposed that she did not foresee living with her new partner in the future.
(d)The mother is a health care worker and works four days a week from 7.00 am to 5.30 pm.
PROPOSALS
I will now consider the parties' proposals.
The father's proposal at the close of evidence is as follows:
(a)The parents have equal shared parental responsibility for X.
(b)The parents engage a parenting coordinator for a period of twelve months.
(c)For a period of four months after the parents first attend upon the parenting coordinator, the father spend time with X from 1.30 pm to 4.30 pm each alternate Saturday and supervised by H Contact Service.
(d)After this period of four months, the father spend time with X during school terms as follows:
(i)For a period of six months, each alternate weekend from Friday after school or 5.00 pm until Saturday 5.00 pm.
(ii)Then, for a further six-month period, each alternate weekend from Friday after school or 5.00 pm until Sunday 5.00 pm.
(iii)Then, for a further six-month period, each alternate weekend from Friday after school or 5.00 pm until Monday at the commencement of school or 9.00 am.
(iv)Then, for a further six-month period, each alternate weekend from Friday after school or 5.00 pm until Tuesday at the commencement of school or 9.00 am.
(v)Then, each alternate Friday after school or 5.00 pm until Thursday at the commencement of school or 9.00 am.
(e)X spend time with the father during school holidays as follows:
(i)During the spring school holiday period in 2024, for two consecutive nights during each week of the school holiday period as agreed between the parties, or failing agreement, from 9.00 am on the first and second Monday until 5.00 pm Wednesday.
(ii)During the summer school holidays in 2024/25, for three nights during each week of the school holidays as agreed between the parties.
(iii)From the 2025 school year and thereafter, for half of the school holidays on a week-about basis.
(f)The father's time with X is subject to the father providing a CDT or hair follicle test to the mother every six months for a period of 18 months. If the father returns a CDT level that exceeds 2.2 per cent, the father's time is to be suspended, and the father is to spend time with X each alternate Saturday for a period of four hours until he produces to the mother a CDT level lower than 2.2 per cent.
(g)The parties are to keep each other informed of all education, sporting, cultural and extracurricular activities in relation to X.
(h)The mother shall authorise and request the Principal of X's school to provide the father with copies of all school reports and forms relating to X.
(i)If X is travelling outside the metropolitan area for more than 48 consecutive hours without the parent in direct care, the parties must inform each other within seven days of the intended travel date.
(j)X be permitted to travel with either parent overseas, and both parties must sign for the release of X's passport.
(k)Within seven days, the father is to terminate his treatment by his psychologist Dr C and engage a psychologist from P Psychology, and the father shall thereafter attend for treatment in accordance with the recommendations of the new treating psychologist.
(l)Within seven days of the father engaging the new treating psychologist, he shall provide a copy of the Family Report, the Single Expert Report, the Updated Single Expert Report, the final orders made and reasons for judgment, and an irrevocable authority for the new treating psychologist to communicate with the mother about the father's treatment.
The mother's proposal is as follows:
(a)The mother have sole parental responsibility for X.
(b)X spend supervised time with the father as follows:
(i)Each alternate Saturday from 1.30 pm to 4.30 pm.
(ii)On Easter Sunday from 10.00 am to 2.00 pm.
(iii)On Christmas Day from 10.00 am to 2.00 pm.
(iv)On Father's Day from 10.00 am to 4.00 pm.
(c)The father is to meet the costs of the supervised time.
(d)Changeover will occur by the mother delivering and collecting X to and from the father's residence, or such other location as agreed between the parties.
(e)The mother be permitted to travel internationally with X, and the mother be permitted to apply for X's passport without the father's consent.
EXPERT EVIDENCE
The Court had the benefit of a Family Report, a Single Expert Report and an Updated Single Expert Report. Both the Family Report writer and Dr B gave evidence by Microsoft Teams.
Family Report Writer
In the Family Report, the Family Report writer made the following recommendations:
(a)X live with the mother.
(b)The parties share parental responsibility for decisions regarding X. And in the alternative, the father should “be granted access to school portals, information, and photos, as well as medical information relating to [X]”.
(c)That X spend time with the father unsupervised increasing incrementally as follows:
(i)Until he turns six, each alternate weekend from Friday after school to Saturday 5.00 pm. This time should be contingent upon the father providing a CDT or hair follicle test clear of excessive alcohol use.
(ii)From the age of six to the commencement of Term 3 in 2024, each alternate weekend from Friday after school until Sunday 5.00 pm, with the same testing regime as above.
(iii)From Term 3 2024 to when X turns seven, each alternate weekend from Friday after school until the commencement of school Monday.
(iv)From the age of seven to Term 3 2025, X spend time with the father each alternate weekend from Friday after school until the commencement of school Tuesday.
(v)From Term 3 2025 to when X turns eight, from Friday after school until the commencement of school Tuesday. This does not progress the father’s time as possibly intended and therefore appears to be an error.
(vi)From the age of nine, from Friday after school until the commencement of school Thursday.
(vii)In addition to these incremental increases of time, she recommended additional time during holidays and on special occasions.
(d)FaceTime communication should continue twice each week and be scheduled and time limited.
(e)The father to complete a further Parenting After Separation program followed by at least three individual sessions with that service focusing on how he can facilitate X's relationship with the mother.
(f)The father continue to comply with the treatment plan outlined by Dr C.
(g)Both parents use a parenting application to assist communication.
(h)Both parents attend upon a service that can assist them to develop an effective and agreed communication style.
During cross-examination and having read the parties' trial affidavit material, the Family Report writer's recommendations changed.
Her position can be summarised as follows:
(a)She had understood that the father's goal had been to remain abstinent from alcohol. Hearing that Dr C was “guiding the father to moderation but not abstinence” would lead her to change the recommendations in her report.
(b)Having reviewed the communication by the father to the mother since the Family Report interviews, she was concerned that X is being exposed to criticisms of the mother by the father and that this will cause problems for his emotional development.
(c)A parenting coordinator might assist the father to address his “nitpicky, undermining and disrespectful” communication with the mother, as opposed to a family therapist.
(d)If the Court found that the parties continued to have no trust in each other and are unable to communicate effectively, an order for sole parental responsibility should be made in favour of the parent who has the primary care of X.
(e)The father may have difficulty accepting responsibility for his behaviour and if such a finding is made, it would raise concerns about an order that increases his time incrementally with X to a share care arrangement.
(f)If the father is found to have circumvented court orders and is continuing to undermine the mother, he may not have changed his behaviour. Supervised time is then the only way to safeguard and protect X.
(g)Apart from the parties' engagement with a parenting coordinator, the Family Report writer was unable to offer any other recommendations that would assist the father to moving to unsupervised time.
Dr B
Single Expert Report of Dr B
Dr B is a forensic psychiatrist and was appointed as a single expert. He initially assessed the father on 6 May 2022 for the purpose of these proceedings. He observed that:
(a)The father had a lifelong battle with anxiety and depression arising from childhood trauma.
(b)The father was sexually assaulted as a young child by a relative.
(c)The father reported consuming excessive amounts of alcohol from an early age and becoming addicted to alcohol at around the age of 22.
(d)The father reported a history of problematic gambling since the age of 17 that was at that time reported to be under control.
Dr B observed the significant issue for the father to be alcohol addiction but opined that he most likely experiences a mental health disorder.
He observed that the father:
… has several unresolved mental health challenges arising from childhood adversity, which have impacted his personality development, including how he relates to himself, and the world around him. He displays features of a personality disorder, including emotional instability, impulsive behaviours, self-harming, and relationship dysfunction.
(Single Expert Report p.7, paragraph 5)
The father’s parenting ability was impacted by his alcohol abuse and inability to deal with life stressors and complex emotions. He recommended that the father “must maintain complete abstinence from alcohol use.”
He recommended that the father continue to engage with his psychologist Dr C and that he would benefit from “Dialectical Behavioural Therapy (DBT), a specialised therapy that utilises mindfulness techniques to increase distress tolerance, regulate emotions, and improve interpersonal relationships.”
Updated Single Expert Report by Dr B
On 20 December 2023 Dr B provided a further report having assessed the father on 16 November 2023 for the purposes of preparing an updated report.
He observed that the father had made “significant strides in his mental health journey” because of his work with Dr C. He reported that the father was adamant that:
… he has undergone a profound change. He expresses deep regret that it took such a significant event and a protracted legal process to gain the insights that have guided his recent transformation.
(Updated Single Expert Report p.5, paragraph 13)
Having considered the observations of the Family Report writer he opined that the father has demonstrated positive strides towards recovery and there has been a discernible improvement in his condition since the previous assessment.
His long-term recommendation was for the father to continue:
… his regular therapy sessions, focuses on maintaining his sobriety, and explores the possibility of family therapy to address unresolved issues within his family dynamics. Continued support and monitoring by [Dr C] [sic] and his GP will be crucial in sustaining his progress and navigating the challenges that lie ahead.
(Updated Single Expert Report p.9, paragraph 31)
He observed that the father's potential for future relapse was low, but his difficult family history and experience of childhood trauma posed a risk to this. For these reasons he recommended that not only should the father remain dedicated to his sobriety but that he continue ongoing therapy and focus on enhancing his communications with the mother.
Under cross-examination Dr B did not change his recommendations. He did however express concern that the father's psychologist Dr C may not have all the relevant information to diagnose a personality disorder. And even if he did, he might have decided it was better to focus his therapy on the present issues rather than the underlying issues particularly in the context of legal proceedings. He observed that therapy about the father's childhood trauma places the father at risk of further depression and resorting to substance abuse.
Under cross-examination, the Family Report writer was asked to comment on the father's evidence that Dr C had encouraged the father to actively engage with X through his school and other activities at a time when the orders required his time with X to be supervised. She opined that it would be unusual and risky advice for a psychologist to give. She was concerned that the psychologist is only getting one perspective from the father rather than the full context of the situation concluding:
… so in that respect … I'm always kind of … loathe to say that people shouldn’t access therapeutic support if they feel that’s beneficial to them … but it doesn’t appear to be helping this family situation, it might be helping him personally, but … there doesn't appear to be much benefit gained that’s been brought to light for this family matter.
Having regard for her evidence, the father revised his minute of order and proposed that he cease counselling with Dr C and engage a psychologist from P Psychology and thereafter attend for treatment in accordance with the recommendations of the new treating psychologist. The father further proposed that the new treating psychologist be provided with a copy of the Family Report, the Single Expert Report, the Updated Single Expert Report and the final orders and judgment in these proceedings as well as an irrevocable authority for the new treating psychologist to communicate with the mother about the father’s treatment and to receive documents from the mother in respect of the father and in respect of X. The father also proposed that he provide the details of the new treating psychologist to the mother.
X
Before applying the law, information about X must first be captured.
X is currently six years old and has started Year 1 at M School. He is reported to be doing well in school and is described to be a student who “exhibits a love of learning and a strong thirst for knowledge”. His school attendance is excellent.
Both parents proudly reported that X is “an intelligent, and affectionate child who makes friends easily and who is extremely playful”. There were no reports or evidence of any developmental or behavioural concerns for X.
There is no doubt that both parents dote on and love X. He is described as an active and adventurous little boy, who enjoys exploring and trips to the beach. He is reported to have an active imagination and is interested in superheroes”.
The Father
At the time of the hearing the father was unemployed. He claimed he had been offered a new role but when asked to produce an employment contract or offer of employment, he was only able to satisfy the Court that he had applied for a new role and had been asked by a recruitment consultant to attend an interview.
He gave evidence that he had resigned from his position as a professional at the end of 2023. He claimed that he wanted to find a new employer who facilitated hybrid work and would allow for more flexible work arrangements.
His evidence about this was a little confusing because it appeared that he had enjoyed very flexible arrangements in his previous position of employment and that he had unsuccessfully applied for roles that were potentially more demanding of his time. He reported to Dr B only a month before his apparent resignation that the support of his (now former) manager had been crucial to his recovery.
The mother deposed that the father was in arrears of child support in the amount of $1,268. It was noted by the father that he has paid child support and in addition also spends $600 per fortnight on supervision services.
His employment situation at the time of the hearing leaves some concern about the stability of his current living arrangements and his capacity to continue to provide child support for X.
Prior to the separation the father deposed that he was actively involved in X's parenting. When he was not travelling for work, he described himself as a “hands on” parent. This was not challenged.
The father has spent supervised time with X since 14 August 2021. Notwithstanding the limitations that this can place on the development of parental relationships, the Family Report writer noted that X enjoys a strong bond with the father and was delighted to be in his company and attention.
The father has tendered a range of photographs taken while he was spending time with X. They mainly show them expressing great joy and happiness in each other's company.
The father has a daughter from a previous relationship Ms Q who is 20 years old. They are estranged and he does not know where she lives. The father told the Family Report writer that he was committed to improving his life to avoid repeating the estranged relationship he currently has with Ms Q.
He has undertaken a range of programs to “increase his knowledge and parenting ability”. In early 2023, the father completed the Triple P online parenting course. In early 2023, the father completed an online Anger Management course. In 2024, the father completed a 1.5-hour long Kids in Focus parenting course.
The Family Report writer found that the father “impressed as a potentially charming man who is both needing, and sensitive to the positive regard of others. Whilst it is beneficial for [X] to have both parents involved in his life, it should not be seen as a competition”. She referred to the regular and critical communication by the father to the mother on a range of matters concerning X.
The mother described the father's communication as being argumentative in nature, repetitive and complained about the volume of it. There were numerous examples before the Court of such communication. For example:
(a)On 4 May 2023, the father sent an email to the mother commenting on the mother's parenting:
I would have thought you had educated [X] that if he received a gift, he would take it to his giver.
I may have underestimated your ability to provide true and genuine manners to [X].
I'd kindly ask that you educate our son the above manners. This is something you have done fo [sic] your family, I'd expect it be done with mine.
(b)On 16 October 2023, the mother emailed the father to notify him that X would be sleeping over at a friend's home. The father sent an email response questioning the mother for details, including whether she was aware that her friend had engaged in substance abuse and that he objected to X staying overnight.
(c)The mother under cross-examination said that in the week before the hearing the father had sent her six messages in one night over a period of 1.5 hours.
The father acknowledged that his communication with the mother was not always productive. The father conceded that he had acted inappropriately toward the mother by sending her numerous text messages. He said that he had been unable to accept their separation, but denied the content of his messages was abusive. He indicated to the Family Report writer that through counselling he is now focused on X, his needs, and best interests. He gave evidence that he began to use an AI program in January 2024 to draft messages to the mother to “remove the anger and disdain” in his correspondence with her.
Throughout the proceedings the father also threatened to involve X in discussions about the mother or the legal proceedings. The tone of that communication is perhaps captured by the following messages by the father to the mother, all suggestive of a willingness and desire to involve X in parental discussions:
(a)OurFamilyWizard App message from 16 April 2023:
Also, confirming you are not willing to allow [X] to engage in conversation/engagement with me before or after his lessons and is it to be only via video call? Even though I have raised concerns pertaining to the narrative we both shall tell [X] (to confirm: Mum won't let me talk to you unless there is supervision by a third party).
(As per the original)
(b)On 22 June 2023, during a FaceTime call with X, the mother claimed the father told X: “Your mum and I are going to a meeting next week so you can spend more time with me”.
(c)OurFamilyWizard App message from 27 June 2023: “I will advise [X] this week that he won't be coming to my place. If he asks why, I'll address his concerns to you”.
(d)OurFamilyWizard App message from 31 August 2023: “But I'll suggest to [X] that you are better suited to answer the questions he may raise. Clearly, it's not a decision of my making”.
(e)On 22 September 2023, the mother was unable to facilitate the father's request for a make-up video call after he had cancelled a supervised visit scheduled for 23 September 2023. The father responded to the mother: “I'll ensure [X] understands that hi[s] mother holds no regard for, what clearly is a sensitive matter”.
(f)In December 2023, the parties communicated about suitable times for the father to spend supervised time with X. In the context of those negotiations the father told the mother: “I'll advise [X] that he can visit me over January as you could not coordinate the appropriate time”.
There have been numerous other occasions where X has been exposed to the parental conflict at changeovers or in other situations by the father. The Family Report writer observed that “it is concerning that the father continued to plead innocence and take no responsibility for his actions which have the effect of embroiling X in the parent conflict”.
The mother expressed a concern that the father's attitude towards spending time with X has been erratic since July 2020. She identified 38 occasions where the father cancelled or missed FaceTime calls with X between May 2021 to January 2024. She also cited a range of occasions when he cancelled spend time arrangements with X: 16 October 2020, 27 October 2020, 30 October 2020, 24 November 2020, 12 January 2021, 19 January 2021, 20 January 2021, 12 February 2021, 23 February 2021, 24 February 2021, 8 March 2021, 6 April 2021, 7 April 2021, 5 February 2022, 5 March 2022, 9 April 2022, 7 May 2022, 8 October 2022, 11 March 2023, 22 April 2023, 23 September 2023, and 4 November 2023.
There were other examples of the father's strange responses to situations. For example, on 2 April 2021, the mother received an email from the father, who informed her that he had a medical condition. The father conceded in his affidavit that he was overreacting, but he believed he was experiencing symptoms.
In April 2021, the mother claimed that the father cancelled his time with X, as he had been hit by a car. In an email to the mother, he claimed that Police and Ambulance were called to the scene, and he attended upon R Hospital. The mother deposed that the father is yet to produce any evidence confirming either his admission or attendance at R Hospital on that day. These matters were put to the father in cross-examination. He was adamant that he attended R Hospital but was not admitted. He said he returned to work but could not explain then why it was necessary to cancel his visit with X. Both incidents in 2021 occurred in the context of a series of cancelled visits set out earlier. There was insufficient evidence to make clear findings about what occurred in 2021 except to conclude that the father was not completely transparent with the mother or the Court as to these events.
Conclusions
The father was observed to engage in a combative and aggressive style of communication with the mother. The Family Report writer observed that he was “excessive[ly] messaging” the mother. An ADVO was issued for the mother's protection because of excessive messaging deemed to be inappropriate, harassing and intimidating. The father was later charged with breaching the mid-2021 ADVO.
Later, the Family Report writer observed of the father's communication with the mother that:
… he has further work to do in this area with his counsellor [Dr C]. Given the father has continued a position of denial in relation to these communications, it is unsurprising the mother continues to express doubts and reluctance. The father holds responsibility to address the mother's concerns.
(Family Report, paragraph 73)
Unfortunately, her report did not consider this behaviour in any greater detail and jumped to a discussion that X will benefit if his “parents are able to communicate efficiently and respectfully with each other” recommending that “they may benefit from some tutoring in setting out parenting communications that are punctual and efficient”.
Regrettably in my view, this gave the impression that each parent faced challenges in the way they communicated. This is not a finding that I can make about the mother’s communication.
Notwithstanding his completion of three educative programs, at the time of the hearing the father appeared to have developed limited insight into how his behaviour and communication style affected the mother. The consequences of these findings will be examined later in the judgment.
The father demonstrated a propensity to be unreliable, embellish stories as a way of either justifying his absences or to provoke a sympathetic response. It raises concerns about his ability to provide stability and consistency for a young child.
The Mother
The mother works as a health care worker four days each week from 7.00 am until 5.30 pm. On her workdays, X goes to before and after school care.
The mother enjoys good health. She began consulting with a psychologist at around the time the proceedings were commenced and at that time she was diagnosed with adjustment disorder. She was never medicated and now sees her psychologist roughly every three months.
The mother has been X's primary carer since the parties separated. The Family Report writer noted that the mother presented “as protective, nurturing, and well-attuned to X's needs as a young child”. She also reported that she had a very close and loving relationship with X. There were no risks raised by the father nor evidence available, to suggest that X was at any risk in the mother's care.
At paragraph 124 of the mother’s affidavit she described the father and her approach to him in these terms:
It is a sadness to me that [Mr Ransone] continues to behave in the way he does. [X] loves his father but I continue to have serious concerns in relation to [Mr Ransone]'s mental health and that he continues to drink alcohol to excess. [Mr Ransone] has provided no evidence that he has abstained from alcohol for any significant period of time. I believe [Mr Ransone] continues to drink. As stated earlier, I have observed him, during video calls, to slur his words and have erratic conversations. I also continue to have serious concerns that [Mr Ransone] will continue to undermine my relationship with [X] and speak poorly of me to [X]. I feel that [Mr Ransone] has taken every opportunity to criticise my parenting of [X], and has been critical of me on social media, to the family report writer, and anyone else that will listen to him. I have done my best to shield [X] from my views of [Mr Ransone] as I believe it is important for him to have a relationship with his father, provided it is safe.
The father filed an extensive affidavit in these proceedings spanning 250 paragraphs over 46 pages. It is largely focussed on his relationship with X, reflections on his parenting and the steps he has taken to address any perceived risks. Whilst he is very critical of the mother in terms of her day to day decision making for X, he deposed no significant concerns about risks posed by the mother.
I am left to conclude that the mother has:
(a)a positive and loving relationship with X;
(b)fulfilled her obligations to maintain X;
(c)demonstrated her capacity to provide for the needs of X including his emotional and intellectual needs; and
(d)demonstrated an appropriate attitude to parenting X and the responsibilities of parenthood.
Other family members
The father appears to have limited external supports. He gave evidence that he is currently estranged from his daughter Ms Q and his immediate family, including the paternal grandfather and paternal aunt.
The breakdown of those relationships is a relatively recent occurrence. The father (accidentally or otherwise) copied the mother into an email he sent his father effectively terminating their relationship.
The paternal aunt, Ms E (“the paternal aunt”), was a witness for the mother. She claimed that as a child the father sexually abused her, exposed her to pornography and sexualised behaviours. She deposed supporting the father through some difficult relationship break-ups, mental health breakdowns, gambling addictions and alcoholism. She said she remains fearful for X's safety in the father's care. These risks and her allegation will be considered further in the judgment.
The mother reported that she facilitates FaceTime calls for X with his paternal grandfather and paternal aunt every few months.
X shares close relationships with his maternal family. His cousin S attends M School with him. They spend time together on weekends. X's maternal grandfather lives in Suburb T but spends overnight visits with X and the mother. X was observed by the Family Report writer to share a close bond with his maternal grandfather. X also enjoys the company of the mother's youngest sister U and his cousins V and W.
THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
The principles governing the determination of competing parenting applications are set out in Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”).
When making a parenting order the Court must consider what is in the best interests of the child pursuant to s 60CA of the Act.
A child's best interests are to be determined by an examination of the considerations as set out in s 60CC of the Act. While the Court must consider each of the primary and additional considerations in s 60CC, express discussion of each is unnecessary. The s 60CC considerations relevant to this matter have been considered and addressed throughout this judgment.
The best interests of the child are met by ensuring they benefit from both their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives to the maximum extent, consistent with their best interests, and protecting them from physical or psychological harm, and from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.
I now turn to the issues that I will need to determine in order to make a decision about what orders are in X's best interests.
Meaningful relationship
The father contended to the Family Report writer that the mother was “creating unnecessary barriers to his relationship and spending meaningful and unsupervised time with [X]”. The mother justifies the limitations she placed on the father's time with X since July 2020 as being protective measures necessary because of her concerns about the father's mental health and alcohol consumption.
The father argues that he has developed a strong and meaningful relationship with X, as evidenced by the supervised contact reports from H Contact Service and the Family Report.
He is concerned that the orders proposed by the mother would not promote a meaningful relationship between him and X.
The mother accepted that X has a positive and loving relationship with the father. She maintained that she wants to facilitate this relationship and acknowledged the importance of this for X.
However, she says that the father's mental health, alcohol use and the erratic and inconsistent style of parenting combined with his constant undermining of her parenting and relationship with X, continue to expose X to an unacceptable risk of harm.
The need to protect X from harm
The mother contended that significant issues of risk arise in relation to X spending unsupervised time with the father. These arise because of:
(a)potentially unresolved addictive behaviours, mental health issues and unpredictable behaviour; and
(b)family violence.
The mother contended that it is in X's best interests that the father's time be supervised to mitigate against the risks that he poses to X. The orders made by me will depend in part on the findings made about these risks, whether they are unacceptable and whether any risks identified can be ameliorated.
Whilst the standard of proof with respect to such findings is the balance of probabilities pursuant to s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), having regard to the serious nature of the matters alleged and the potential consequences for X and his time with the father, proof to the reasonable satisfaction of the Court “should not be produced by inexact truths, indefinite testimony, or indirect references” (M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 (“M v M”) quoting Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336).
Potentially unresolved addictive behaviours, mental health issues and unpredictable behaviour
The father openly acknowledged his history of his mental health, alcohol abuse, and gambling disorders.
The father's history of mental health impairment appears to have originated from childhood trauma. Dr B concluded that it encompassed “a protracted battle with anxiety, depression, and substance abuse”. He observed that the father developed an addiction to alcohol as a coping mechanism, alongside a history of gambling that began in his late teens.
The father said that he began drinking at age 15 and following the birth of X was heavily consuming alcohol during the day. The father was charged with a low range PCA in 2010. In or around 2018, the father admitted that his alcohol consumption and gambling activity considerably increased.
In mid-2019 the father sent the mother a message: “look after our son and show him this video when I am not around”. The mother contacted Police to complete a welfare check on the father. The father was found semi-conscious and taken to the emergency department of the Y Hospital where it was assessed he had taken an intentional drug overdose. This incident led to involuntary admission under the Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW).
I will restrain the father from attending X's school during school hours for any other purpose. That will restrict him from working at the school in a paid or voluntary capacity. I formed the view that such an order is necessary to allow X his own independence and to enjoy his education without constant surveillance, or interference by the father, whether intended or not. I will also restrain the father from approaching the mother when he attends such events.
The father impressed as a man who is committed to establishing, enjoying and maintaining a relationship with X. Understandably the father may in the future seek to extend the periods of time he spends unsupervised with X. In the event that such an application was made, it would be best supported by evidence of:
(a)regular consultation with a new psychologist qualified to provide DBT and a continued stabilisation of his mental health condition;
(b)the undertaking of a face-to-face Men's Behavioural Change program or some other program to address changing his need to control the mother and X;
(c)changes to his attitude towards the mother and his communication with her, perhaps demonstrated by his conduct post final hearing;
(d)a more reliable, and less erratic approach to spending time with and communicating with X; and
(e)evidence of his continued sobriety.
The mother presented as a reasonable woman who had managed a difficult dynamic with the father well. I accept her evidence that she would be happy for X to spend unsupervised time with the father for longer periods of time in the future, provided she could trust the father to behave in a safe manner. She therefore will have the benefit of time to ensure that she is satisfied that the father can progress to unsupervised time when X is at high school. Should his conduct between now and then suggest otherwise, she also will have the ability to bring the matter back before the Court.
I am however confident that if the father addresses the issues set out, the mother will most likely agree to trial longer unsupervised periods of time between X and the father. This would best be discussed and trialled via a family therapy process or alternatively mediation. I will therefore make orders for the parties to participate in family therapy or a mediation process before returning to Court.
OVERSEAS TRAVEL
I will make orders permitting the mother to travel internationally with X for holidays. It is not appropriate for me to make orders permitting the father to travel internationally with X at this stage.
CONCLUSION
I have considered the totality of the evidence available, and for the reasons given, I am satisfied that the orders made are in X's best interests.
While these orders finally end the litigation, the father should observe that they are capable of review if his recovery progresses to a point where a Court would be satisfied that all of the risks identified have been addressed.
Parenting orders may always be varied, provided the father is able to demonstrate a sufficient change in circumstances since the orders were last made to warrant their review or variation.
But for now, these orders are made on the basis that they provide X with stability and certainty and allow the mother to move on with her life in the knowledge that the time X spends with the father is safe.
I certify that the preceding two hundred and fifty-two (252) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Beckhouse. Associate:
Dated: 13 September 2024
3
2