Rowles & Alderman
[2023] FedCFamC1F 732
•9 August 2023
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Rowles & Alderman [2023] FedCFamC1F 732
File number(s): TVC 1272 of 2020 Judgment of: BAUMANN J Date of judgment: 9 August 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim Orders made at a Final Hearing for the child to spend supervised time with the father Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 16 Date of hearing: 8 & 9 August 2023 Place: Townsville Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A Collins Solicitor for the Applicant: Legal Aid Queensland Counsel for the Respondent: Litigant in person Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Mr N McGregor Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Collier Lawyers ORDERS
TVC 1272 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS ROWLES
Applicant
AND: MR ALDERMAN
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
BAUMANN J
DATE OF ORDER:
9 AUGUST 2023
THE COURT ORDERS:
Parental responsibility
1.That the mother shall have sole parental responsibility for making major long-term decisions for the child, Z born 2017 (“the child”).
2.That in exercising sole parental responsibility, the mother must inform the father in writing of her decision within seven (7) days of making such decision.
Living arrangements
3.That the child live with the mother.
4.That the child’s time will commence as at Order 5 herein, conditional upon the father’s compliance with the following:
(a)The father engaging a psychologist and remaining so engaged, for the period of this Order, for management of the father’s mental health diagnosis, and in relation to alcohol relapse prevention; and
(b)engaging a psychiatrist if so directed by his psychologist; and
(c)informing the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer of the name of the psychologist and/or psychiatrist engaged within seven (7) days of the engagement.
5.That commencing immediately, the child spend time with the father on one (1) occasion per fortnight (on the alternate week from the time the father may spend with his other children, X born 2012 and Y born 2013) for a period of not more than two (2) hours on the following basis:
(a)The child’s time is supervised at the B Contact Centre or by such other professional supervision services as the parties may agree;
(b)The day on which the time occurs is as agreed between the parents in conjunction with the supervision service is not to interfere with the child’s educational or extracurricular requirements and activities; and
(c)The cost of the supervision is met by the father;
6.That the father is to initiate contact with the B Contact Centre or such other agreed professional supervision service.
7.That the father shall obtain a report by 1 February 2024 from his treating psychologist and/or psychiatrist confirming:
(a)the father has been attending sessions as directed;
(b)what treatment he has received;
(c)what progress he has made if any;
(d)what further treatment is required;
(e)the psychologist’s prognosis; and
(f)whether, in the view of the psychologist and/or psychiatrist, the father does not pose a risk of harm to the child if time was unsupervised.
8.That the Independent Children’s Lawyer have leave to provide a copy of these Orders and any Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Baumann to the father’s treating psychologist and/or psychiatrist.
9.That the father shall authorise his treating psychologist and/or psychiatrist to provide information to the Independent Children’s Lawyer upon her request as to whether the father is attending his sessions.
10.That the Independent Children’s Lawyer has liberty to contact the chambers of the Honourable Justice Baumann to seek an urgent re-listing in the event either of the parties are not complying with these Orders.
11.That where the child is spending time with the father pursuant to these Orders on Mother’s Day, then the time the child spends with the father that day shall be suspended and the child shall spend time with the mother in lieu thereof.
12.That once six (6) visits in accordance with Order 5 herein have occurred, the child shall communicate with the father on a day and time as agreed once per week, failing agreement each Thursday at 6.30pm by telephone, with the father to initiate that call and the mother to facilitate the child receiving that call.
Exchange of information and authorities
13.That the parents shall:
(a)keep the other informed of their current postal address/es, telephone number and e-mail address and shall inform the other parent in writing within forty eight (48) hours of any change;
(b)communicate with each other about issues relating to the child by Talking parents;
(c)not require the child to pass on messages or information to the other parent; and
(d)keep the other parent informed of the names and addresses of any treating medical practitioners and/or health care practitioners for the child.
14.That the mother shall inform the father as soon as reasonably practical of the welfare of the child and about any injury or illness affecting the child that requires any medical or hospital attention.
15.That the father is at liberty to send the child gifts and cards for the child’s birthday and Christmas.
16.That the father is at liberty to attend the school that the child attends for the purpose of complying with the Orders dated 9 August 2023 in the matter of Alderman & Greig (CSC835/2020).
17.That this Order shall be authority to the child’s school to provide each parent (at that parent’s expense) information about the child’s educational progress, school related activities, copies of school reports, photographs, photograph order forms, certificates, awards obtained by the child and other school communications ordinarily provided to parents.
18.That this Order shall be authority to each of the child’s medical practitioners (including counsellors and psychologists) to provide each parent (at that parent’s expense) information about the child’s medical conditions, treatment and with copies of medical records and reports.
19.That each parent shall ensure that the school/s attended by the child and the child’s usual treating medical practitioners (including counsellors and psychologists) are provided with a copy of this Order.
Restraints and requirements
20.That each parent shall positively encourage the child to maintain and improve their relationship with the other parent.
21.That during the time the child is with either parent, that parent shall:
(a)respect the privacy of the other parent and not question the child about the personal life of the other parent
(b)speak of the other parent respectfully;
(c)not denigrate or insult the other parent or other parent’s family to or in the presence or hearing of the child; and
(d)use their best endeavours to prevent any other person denigrating or insulting the other parent or other family members in the presence or hearing of the child.
22.That the father shall not consume alcohol or any illicit substance while the child is in his care.
23.That the parents shall not expose the child to other persons consuming alcohol to excess or consuming and/or being under the influence of illicit drugs.
24.That the parents shall not allow the child to be exposed to domestic and family violence and will immediately remove the child from any situations where such is occurring.
25.That neither parent may relocate the residence of the child away from City C without the prior written consent of the other parent or an order of this Court.
26.That the child’s surname shall at all times be “Alderman” unless otherwise agreed in writing between the parents.
27.That the mother shall use her best endeavours to ensure that the father is referred to by and in front of the child as “dad” and she shall correct the child if the child refer to the father as anything else.
Case Management Hearing
28.That this matter be adjourned for Case Management Hearing at 9.30am on 27 February 2024 in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) at City C.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Rowles & Alderman has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Settled from the oral reasons delivered)
BAUMANN J:
It is to the great credit of Ms Greig (the mother of X and Y), Ms Rowles (the mother of Z), and the biological father of all children that after hearing, enduring and considering evidence over the last two days, that they have, with the great assistance of their lawyers and in Mr Alderman’s case, unrepresented, taken a mature and reasonable approach, having effectively been able to agree on some interim orders. I make the orders that I believe are in the best interests of all three children but for different reasons.
It is not necessary, because I am making these interim orders by consent, and, in fact, there are many reasons why I may not make specific findings on the evidence.
Some of the evidence that has been produced now in relation to the past medical treatment of the father, makes it clear that the father has, sad for him, not had an easy life. On his own admission, and I think it is agreed by everybody, he had a very much compromised parenting. From a young age to 18 years old he was in care. He says over 60 placements. Perhaps he saw the defence force as a sanctuary for him to provide him structure, support, and a community in which he could develop. He went to the defence force as a young man and, sadly, it was not a good experience for him. Without going into details, the evidence is that he was the subject of significant bullying. The result of his service, but not so much in theatres of war but, in fact, the way he was treated within the hierarchy in the defence force was such that he left with a mental health condition. No one challenges that that is his current diagnosis.
There is no doubt, in respect of the father, either as a result of his life experiences, his mental health condition or just personality traits that he has, very often, abused alcohol. It has made him less capable as a parent and as a partner to function at the level he needs to, to add to the value of these children. He has had a serious alcohol problem. To prevent it relapsing, he needs to, as these orders suggest, get therapeutic support and deal with that problem. I am not a doctor but, in my view, on the history, the frequency of relapses, and on the limited evidence I have, including that of Mr D, he needs to abstain completely from alcohol. He does not want to put himself at risk, not only in terms of his relationship with his children, and new partners, perhaps, in the future, but as a better functioning adult.
I accept, speaking about the father, that the process of this litigation has, at times, caused him to become very frustrated, angry and, at times, aggressive. He has, on occasions, acted inappropriately. Reading that book to X and Y was absolutely ridiculous. I have read the book. Anyone who could consider that that is a child’s book or a child’s book for adults suggests that it had a second meaning. It is not a child’s book that any child should have read to them. I believe the father understands that now. My confidence that the father does understand it, and taking on board the comments of Mr D about no predisposition to sexualised behaviour to young children, I am not satisfied the father is a risk to the children in that regard.
However, there are some risks associated with the father’s past psychological make-up and challenges and how he has used alcohol when stressed and unhappy, and that is a risk to the children. I think that ameliorating that risk is very much tied up with the father, as these orders again prescribe, new therapeutic support.
I am not here to indicate whether or not Dr E did or did not do a good job and Dr F did or did not do a good job in supporting the father. They provided him with support, but he needs ongoing support. In my view, one of the problems with people who suffer mental illness, whether it be post-traumatic stress disorder, whether it be bipolar, whether it be schizophrenia or any range of the borderline personality disorders that people sadly are having to confront, is that they diagnose themselves as being better and they are not. Having a person with a mental illness saying they are not mentally ill is never a good indicator, for obvious reasons. The father has these challenges and he needs to maintain support.
If the father demonstrates a commitment to these orders, my finding and my view is, having seen the mothers in the witness box, who I am going to speak about shortly, they will, although it will be difficult for them and they will take some time to adjust to it, their love for their daughters, is so strong that they would not, because of their own life experiences, rob their daughters of a loving caring father. At the moment, they have not seen that consistently and so they are trying to protect them, I believe. Ms Greig has had the longest relationship with the father. I have seen her give evidence. I thought she was impressive.
I also understood that the level of frustration she exhibited was probably disproportionate to some of the facts. I do not understand, although, in one way, I could appreciate, if she is in difficult financial circumstances, why it seemed necessary to do searches about why he purchased the house and the like and then chose to share with the children her negative views about his decision. That was just inappropriate. Children are not able to make some sense of that adult debate. The father should continue to pay child support. The one video evidence of the interaction between the father and the children, which was very poor quality, I saw, says more about the inappropriateness of both of the adult behaviour, and less about the children.
The children should not be required to be exposed to that and children will pick up a message and I think they have been picking up a message from the mother, Ms Greig, that she does not really (even though she might say it) support them having a relationship with the father. However, I think she is capable of, now, starting a new chapter in her life with her children and giving the father a go provided he does what he is supposed to do. If I did not believe Ms Greig could do that, then any orders I make about this time would just be a waste of time. Having seen Ms Greig in the witness box, notwithstanding the history, I believe she genuinely does want the father to have a relationship with the children as long as it is safe and as long as you do what you are meant to do.
Ms Rowles has frankly had a much more difficult life. It is a sad reality of these sorts of cases that I am often given evidence about real tragedies in people’s upbringing. Being the victim of either significant family violence, or the victim of poor parenting or institutional care. Being a child who has been subjected to sexual abuse. I am not going to labour the point but, clearly, Ms Rowles has had those experiences and she is still a relatively young lady at age 34. In my view, as they say in the classics, unless you have walked in the shoes of a person who has had that journey, we should be careful about judging them too harshly.
However, as Dr G said, there is evidence to reveal that Ms Rowles has, notwithstanding that very difficult history, spent a great deal of time dealing with, if you like, her demons and trying to be a more effective parent. Not only, of course, as I understand, to Z, but to H and K. I do not ignore that Ms Rowles has had some difficulties. I do not ignore that some of the father’s behaviour is absolutely disgraceful towards Ms Rowles. He acknowledges it – using a car to hurt her; hitting her. The fact that Ms Rowles in the witness box, I think, genuinely indicated she is prepared to try to work through those, understandably, very difficult emotions towards the father and put the best interests of Z first, says a lot about her.
I am going to give her that credit. If she can continue to do it when the pressure is on, only time will tell. But I am prepared to take her words, in the witness box on oath, as a reflection that she wants to do better, provided you do better.
In making the interim orders I do for these three children, I am satisfied they are in the best interests of the children at this stage. As I have indicated, these children have much to be thankful for. They have loving parents who are available. They have parents who want the best for them. The parents have yet to demonstrate the capacity to co-parent effectively and we will see how that goes in time.
Equal time is not a current option and the father cannot look at it that way. It would be wrong for him to look at it that way. The father has to be prepared to build his relationship and take all the good opportunities the Court is going to offer because I think if that happens, that this will naturally flow in an appropriate level for the children – not at the father’s; not at the mothers’ – but their rate. That is my hope and I am going to keep an eye on it.
The key to moving forward here is the father doing something different. I do believe the father genuinely wants to do better. He has carried himself in this Court, in a very difficult environment without a lawyer, well. So I make these orders in the best interests of these children.
I certify that the preceding sixteen (16) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Baumann. Associate:
Dated: 13 September 2023
0
1