Rowtell and Parton

[2009] FamCA 1095

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ROWTELL & PARTON [2009] FamCA 1095

FAMILY LAW - CHILDREN – With whom a child spends time – Whether Father poses ongoing risk to the Child – Return  of a positive drug test – Lack of Father’s insight into relationship issues – Time to be supervised until Father satisfies the Court he is not a risk to the Child
APPLICANT:	Ms Rowtell

RESPONDENT: Mr Parton

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Hawdon, solicitor, of Forest Glen Lawyers

FILE NUMBER: BRC 501 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 16 November 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Barry J

HEARING DATE: 16 November 2009

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Falcke, Solicitor of Semple Vero Lawyers appearing for the Applicant Mother

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Young, Solicitor of DJ Gilmore & Associates appearing for the Respondent Father

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER Mr Sara of Counsel appeared as town agent for the Independent Children’s Lawyer

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER Forest Glen Lawyers

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The proceedings be adjourned for case management review to 10.00 am on
   31 May 2010 at the Brisbane Registry of the Family Court.

IT IS ORDERED UNTIL FURTHER ORDER THAT:

1. The Father be at liberty to forward correspondence to the child, Z PARTON born … July 2006, care of the Mother’s legal representative.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 501 of 2009

Ms Rowtell

Applicant

And

Mr Parton

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The child in question in these proceedings is a three year old girl.  The child has lived with the mother continuously since birth.  At the present time, the father sees the child for one period a week, supervised, at a contact centre for one hour.  It is precious little time.  The father seeks that he be able to have a longer period of time on an unsupervised basis.

2. The mother’s concerns about unsupervised time include:

   ·the father’s failure to comply with court orders;

   ·the mother asserts that the father has held the child over on two occasions contrary to orders or arrangements;

   ·the father has 30 convictions for driving whilst disqualified;

   ·Dr C has assessed the father as having an anti-social and narcissistic personality disorder.

3. Apart from her concerns the father will not comply with arrangements if he has unsupervised time with the child, the mother’s other concerns include the father’s drug use and his propensity for domestic violence. 

4. The mother, has a protection order current against the father and, as I understand the recent report, the father’s most recent partner, the mother of his seventh child, has also had a domestic violence order taken out.  I proceed on the basis that the police would not have acted without the mother so instructing.

5. In the meantime, the father makes allegations the mother has a drug problem.  She says that once she became pregnant with her daughter she has not taken drugs.  There is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that she has been using drugs.  She has responded to requests for drug tests and they have proved negative.  The father has a recent test which established that he responded with a diluted test positive for cannabis. 

6. At paragraph 26 of her report, the report writer, the family consultant, Ms D, observes the father was observed to lack any insight into his relationship woes and would not consider counselling to address his issues with the failure of relationships that seem to be characterised by violence.  It is a matter of record the father has seven children to six different women.  She then sets out her observations of the father and his track record.  Under the heading Recommendations, she says:

   “I further respectfully recommend that contact between the child and
   [the father] should be supervised at a registered contact centre.  It is my opinion that this contact should continue until such time that the court is satisfies (sic) that [the father] has not engaged in any criminal, violent or inappropriate behaviour.”

7. “51:

   I further recommend that [the father] engage in a variety of activities so to satisfy the court that he is not a risk to his child.  The following are a number of suggestions for the court:

   (a)       drug testing by way of blood samples;

   (b)a proven commitment to practice a law-abiding lifestyle for at least 12 months;

   (c)a proven commitment to attending visits at the contact centre and by being child focused and child appropriate;

   (d)no further reports of domestic violence or any further orders to be taken out against him with regard to domestic violence.  This to occur for at least 12 months;

   (e)[the father] to engage with the child by way of telephone contact and written correspondence so as to offer another form of communication to building a relationship with his child.

   (f)[the father] to demonstrate his commitment to the court by completing a Triple P parenting course at his nearest health centre, a family violence awareness course which are offered by Relationships Australia, Centrecare or Lifeline as is an anger management training.  Furthermore, that Mr Pignat engages with ATODS or another drug and alcohol service so as to gain insight into the use and abuse of alcohol and substances and the repercussions this has on relationships. 

   May I further suggest that the court review the parenting arrangements in 12 months time?”

8. I propose to accept the recommendations of the report writer.  Nothing in the submissions put forward on behalf of the father would alter that view.  The father’s record of anti-social behaviour is simply appalling.  If there are any further instances of domestic violence he can put the clock back another 12 months, as far as I am concerned.  If there are further instances of testing positive to drugs, similar considerations apply.

9. I adjourn this matter to 10.00 am on 31 May 2010.  I will review the matter at that time. 

RECORDED  :  NOT TRANSCRIBED

1. Father to be at liberty to forward correspondence to the child care of the mother’s solicitor’s office.  I will not make an order for telephone communication at this stage.

RECORDED  :  NOT TRANSCRIBED

1. The matter is adjourned until 31 May.  I will review it at that time.

I certify that the preceding eleven (11) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Barry

Associate: 

Date:  16 November 2009