Royle and Dennehy

[2017] FCCA 2151

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ROYLE & DENNEHY [2017] FCCA 2151

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – Child aged 2 ½ - where applicant father failed to attend the final hearing – where the father perpetrated severe family violence during the relationship – where the father has also used cannabis, abused alcohol and may well have serious mental health issues - where the child would be at unacceptable risk of harm if he spent time with the father even if the time was supervised – where given the extent and severity of the father’s issues the mother would find it impossible to comply with an order that the child spend time with the father - where the only appropriate order is that the mother have sole parental responsibility and that the child to live with the mother and spend no time with and have no communication with the father.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss. 60CC, 61DA

Applicant: MR ROYLE

Respondent: MS DENNEHY

File Number: PAC 2827 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Terry

Hearing date: 21 August 2017

Date of Last Submission: 21 August 2017

Delivered at: Newcastle

Delivered on: 21 August 2017

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: No appearance

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer:

Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer:

Galloway Family Law

Mr Bates

Legal Aid NSW Newcastle

ORDERS

1. All previous Orders are discharged.

2. The mother shall have sole parental responsibility for the child X, born (omitted) 2015 (“X”).

3. The child shall live with the Mother.

4. The father shall have no time with X.

5. The father shall have no communication with X, by any means.

6. Pursuant to s.68B of the Family Law Act 1975, an injunction is granted unconditionally for the protection of the child and the mother, restraining the father, MR ROYLE, born (omitted) 1987 from:      

   (a)Communicating directly with the child by any means

   (b)Communicating by any means with the mother other than through her legal representative

   (c)Permitting, encouraging or allowing any of his agents to communicate with the child or the mother by any means

   (d)Being present within 30 kilometres of any day care centre, pre-school school, sporting venue, recreational area, place of employment or other place where he knows or should reasonably know the child or the mother are likely to be from time to time.

7. An Australian Passport may issue for the child on application by the mother, notwithstanding the father has not provided his consent.

8. The mother, Ms Dennehy, born (omitted) 1990 is at liberty to travel internationally with the child.

9. The father MR ROYLE, born (omitted) 1987 and his servants and / or agents is restrained from removing or permitting the removal of the child X, born (omitted) 2015 from the Commonwealth of Australia and it is requested that the Australian Federal Police give effect to this Order by placing the name of the said child on the Airport Watch List in force at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia.

10. Pursuant to Section 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in Annexure “B” attached hereto and these particulars are included in these Orders.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT NEWCASTLE

PAC 2827 of 2015

MR ROYLE

Applicant

And

MS DENNEHY

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These reasons for judgment were delivered orally and have been corrected from the transcript. Grammatical errors have been corrected and an attempt has been made to render the orally delivered reasons amenable to being read.

2. I have to make a decision about parenting orders for X (X) who is 2½. His parents separated in February 2015 when he was six weeks old and he has spent no time with his father since then.

3. The father filed an application for parenting orders in June 2015.  The mother alleged that there had been serious family violence and the father was facing criminal charges and as a result no interim order was made for the father to spend time with X. 

4. The criminal proceedings took a while to resolve but ultimately they did last year. A family report was then ordered and the family consultant recommended that the child spend no time with and have no communication with the father. The father did not accept that recommendation and the matter was listed for trial. 

5. I made trial directions on 2 February 2017. The mother complied with them and filed a trial affidavit. The father did not file a trial affidavit and he is not here today. 

6. The father sent a letter into the Court this morning which reads as follows:

   Morning,

   Despite efforts to the contrary I will be unable to attend today citing ill health.

   I apologise for the inconvenience.

   Warm Regards[1]

   [1] Email dated 21 August 2017.

7. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to proceed in the father’s absence. The matter has been in the Court system for more than two years. The father offered no explanation for why he has not complied with the trial directions and his explanation for why he is not here today is woefully inadequate. He has missed many prior court dates and he did not attend the family report interviews, again without adequate explanation. 

8. The orders the mother sought were that X live with her, that she have sole parental responsibility for him and that he spend no time with and have no communication with the father. She also sought an order which would allow her to obtain a passport for the child. There is no suggestion that the mother wants to relocate overseas; like many Australians she just wants to be able to go on holiday. 

9. The orders the father sought in his application filed in June 2015 were that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility and that the child live with him and spend time with the mother every second week and for half of the school holidays. However he has not pursued his case in any meaningful way in the Court. 

10. From the mother’s perspective the issue in the case is family violence, whether the father poses a risk of harm to the child and whether given her experience of violence to herself and the child she can be expected to comply with orders that the child spend time with the father. 

The evidence

1. The mother relied on her affidavit filed on 9 June 2017. In terms of orders sought she ultimately adopted the proposal put forward by the Independent Children's Lawyer. 

2. A family report was prepared by Ms F, a Family Consultant, and it has been marked as Exhibit “E”.

Background

1. The mother is 26 and the father 29. They formed a relationship in (omitted) 2013 when the father was sharing student accommodation with the mother’s brother.

2. The mother fell pregnant in the first quarter of 2014, the parties commenced cohabitation in (omitted) 2014, X was born on (omitted) 2015 and the parties separated on 25 February 2015 when X was six weeks old. 

3. The mother alleged that the relationship was marred by the father’s violence. She described him being angry, yelling in rage, threatening and assaulting her and being cruel to a dog. She described an incident of road rage with a traffic controller. She said that the father was also violent to members of his family and that she saw him push his mother and sister, pull his sister’s hair and make threats. 

4. The mother alleged that when X was four weeks old the father picked him up and shook him and yelled at him. 

5. Between 23 and 25 February 2015 the father perpetrated a series of violent actions which led to the mother fleeing the home and going to the police.

6. The father was charged with numerous counts of common assault, one count of stalk intimidate and one count of committing an act of animal cruelty. That was the end of the relationship and the father has not seen the child since. 

7. The father pleaded not guilty to the criminal charges but he failed to attend court on the day they were listed for hearing and was convicted in his absence. He subsequently contacted the court and was given an opportunity to have the matter re-heard and he took part in the second hearing.

8. There were issues with the father’s behaviour in the Courtroom when he was cross-examining the mother. He swore and yelled that the mother was a piece of shit and threw a water bottle. He was convicted of all charges and in May 2016 was given a suspended sentence, community service and probation.

9. The father has lodged an all-grounds appeal which is due to go to court in November 2017. 

10. After the father was convicted, the parenting matter proceeded to a family report and was ultimately listed for trial.

11. In the context of the family law proceedings the father comprehensively denied all of the allegations of violence made against him. I am satisfied however on the balance of probabilities that the father was violent to the mother and on one occasion to X in the manner alleged by the mother.

12. The mother said as follows in her affidavit:

    The first time Mr Royle physically assaulted me was on 28 November 2014. We had just started living together in (omitted) at that stage. I was heavily pregnant, about 7 ½ months, and I was still working, and came home on my lunch break. Mr Royle was really agitated and angry, ranting about my parents and our living situation. He said ‘I’m too good to be stuck in this situation. It’s your fault that I’m stuck in this situation, so I need to do something about it.’ He started talking incoherently, pacing up and down and throwing his arms around, saying things such as ‘I need to get rid of you and the baby’, and ‘I can do it so nobody knows’, and ‘I need to get you in the car’.

    I was sitting on the bed, trying to plead with him to calm down. He hit me across the face very hard. He growled at me, saying ‘RUN’. I ran out of the house and drove off. When I came back, he claimed he couldn’t remember what happened and he promised it wouldn’t happen again.

    He would often rant and get angry about other people, saying ‘they have to die’ or ‘I have the right to kill them’. He would always say ‘I can kill people without being caught.’[2]

    [2] Paragraphs 82 – 84 of the mother’s affidavit filed on 9 June 2017.

13. The mother said that after X’s birth she became fearful for her and X’s safety because the father would become enraged if she attended to the baby against his wishes or tried to pick the baby up between feeds which the father deemed should occur only 4 hourly. She said as follows about the situation following X’s birth:

    For the next 5 weeks that we lived together, from the first day, Mr Royle was angry and aggressive most of the time. He would fly into a rage over little things, almost every day, such as finding a tea stain on a cupboard, or the bathmat not being hung properly. He was very controlling about minor details of our household and my interaction with the baby.

    He was also extremely possessive and intense in his relationship with me, and he reacted badly to me interacting with the baby. During these 5 weeks, I was terrified for my safety, and for X’s safety. I was also fearful for my parent’s safety, as he had made threats to me that he would kill them. He made those threats regularly in the time we lived together. He would often say that ‘people have three chances to do wrong by me, and then I am allowed to kill them’. After we started living together with my parents, he would say about my parents ‘they’ve had their three chances, now they can die’. I believed that he would kill my parents. He would say that about me too ‘you’ve had your three chances, and now you deserve to die’. He would say these things in a rage, and he would calm down later. Over these few weeks, I could not see how to escape the situation safely, and at the same time protect my parents and the baby. I tried to keep the situation calm and under control, hoping he would leave eventually.[3]

    [3] Paragraphs 37 and 38 of the mother’s affidavit filed on 9 June 2017.

14. The mother gave the following evidence about the father assaulting X:

    When X was 4 weeks old, he woke up at about 8.30am in the bassinette bedside our bed. I had only had about 1 hours’ sleep, and I was tired and slow to wake up. Mr Royle got X out of his bassinette and took him back into our bed beside me. X continued to cry, and Mr Royle started screeching at X “Why don’t you stop crying!” He shook him violently. I immediately grabbed X from Mr Royle. The baby was by now hysterical and I took him downstairs.

    Mr Royle came downstairs at around 10.30am that morning. He apologised, saying ‘his crying had just grated on me’.[4]

    [4] Paragraphs 41 and 42 of the mother’s affidavit filed on 9 July 2017.

15. On 18 February 2015 the parties took X to Sydney for a few days and the mother’s parents agreed to look after the parties’ house in their absence and feed their animals including a yabby. When the parties returned home they discovered that the yabby had died. The father was extremely angry about the death of the yabby and over the next three days he assaulted, threatened and terrorised the mother.

16. The mother said as follows about the events of 23-25 February 2015 in her affidavit but she also summarised the events as follows:

    When we returned, Mr Royle discovered that his yabby had died, and he went into a rage at me, about my parents letting the yabby die. This scene continued for 3 days, from 23-25 February 2015.

    Over the course of this event, Mr Royle would not let me leave with the baby, and threatened to kill me if I took X. He made many threats, sometimes saying ‘you are going to die’ and at other times ‘I am going to make X disappear and you will have to live with that’.

    He made these threats many times over the weeks that we lived together, in different ways. In the three days over 23-25 February 2015, the threats intensified.

    During this time, he choked me several times, and threw objects about, and pushed me across the room, and slapped me across the face. He also threatened to kill my parents and me. I was holding the baby for most of this time, while he was yelling and while he was throwing things at me and slapping me.[5]

    [5] Paragraphs 51-54 of the mother’s affidavit filed on 9 July 2017.

17. On 25 February 2015 the mother fled the house leaving X asleep in his bassinette and went to the police station. The police retrieved X and the father was arrested and charged with numerous offences.

18. The mother said that the father’s sister told her during the relationship that the father had assaulted her in the past and in February 2016 the father was convicted of assaulting his sister causing grievous bodily harm. The Family Consultant said as follows about this assault:

    In February 2016, the father was convicted of assaulting his sister and causing grievous bodily harm after he punched her in the face with a closed fist at her home in (omitted), leaving her with a split lip and facial bruising. He received a 2 year good behaviour bond and an apprehended violence order was made for her protection for a period of 9 months.[6]

    [6] Family Report paragraph 10

19. In submissions Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer mentioned that the father has a very sad and traumatic background and that is also referred to in some detail in the family report.

20. The father came to Australia with the paternal grandfather from (country omitted) when he was very young. When the father was about 11 there was some DoCS involvement in relation to the paternal grandfather’s mistreatment of the father. There was violence in the paternal grandparent’s relationship. The paternal grandmother has a history of mental health issues and attempted suicide by self-immolation not very long ago and was very badly burnt. 

21. The relationship between the father and his family remains fraught and difficult. I have referred earlier to the father’s conviction for assaulting his sister and tendered today was a COPS event from December 2016 when the paternal grandfather called the police complaining that the father was being abusive and would not leave the home.

X’s best interests

1. Any orders I make about X must be orders determined by treating his best interests as the paramount consideration and s. 60CC(2) and (3) of the Family Law Act set out the matters to which I must have regard in order to determine X’s best interests. 

2. The primary considerations in s. 60CC(2) are the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with each of his parents and the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.

3. In a broad general sense children benefit from having a meaningful relationship with each of their parents. One of the problems in this case though is that given the father’s behaviour and history it has to be seriously open to question whether he has the capacity to form a meaningful relationship with his son. 

4. The father says that he wants a meaningful relationship with X, at least he said that by filing his application in June 2015, but his behaviour prior to that and since then has not been the behaviour of someone who actually wants to have a relationship with a child.

5. The father would not initially acknowledge paternity of the child and the mother registered the child’s birth without involving the father and the child bears the mother’s surname. 

6. The father went on to file his application but subsequent to that he missed most court events. He did not attend the family report interviews and he provided no reasonable excuse for not doing so and he did not attend in circumstances where the interviews were rescheduled to meet his convenience. He has not complied with the trial directions and he is not here today. The father’s pattern of behaviour raises a serious issue about how much he does in fact want a relationship with his son. 

7. There is nothing to suggest that if I made orders giving the father the opportunity to do so he would necessarily comply with orders by for example going to a contact centre and obeying their rules.

8. I am not convinced in any event that this child would benefit from having a relationship with his father and as Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer pointed out this is also a case in which there has to be a concern that the child would be at unacceptable risk of harm in the father’s care.

9. The father has committed some very serious acts of family violence: to the child, to the mother and to his own family members.  He denies that he is violent so there is no likelihood at the moment of him changing his behaviour. He has also been violent to people who are not family members.

10. I cannot be sure that even supervision would keep the child safe. The mother gave evidence about the father being involved in a road-rage incident with a traffic controller. He is not someone who obeys rules.  There has to be a risk that even in a supervised setting the father could act out. 

11. That really disposes of the matter in terms of whether I should make an order about the father spending time with the child because the child would simply be unsafe if that occurred but I am going to discuss the additional considerations. 

12. The child is too young to have a view.

13. As far as the nature of his relationship with each of his parents is concerned, the family consultant observed a good relationship between the mother and the child. She said as follows:

    The Family Consultant was able to observe the child together with the mother and in the company of the maternal grandmother. The child appears to have a very positive attachment relationship with the mother and a warm and loving relationship with the maternal grandmother. The Family Consultant holds no concerns about the mother’s capacity to parent the child.[7]

    [7] Paragraph 87 of the Family Report

1. The child has no relationship with the father or any member of the paternal family.

2. I do not consider that inquiring into the extent to which each party has sought to spend time with or communicate with the child or to be involved in decision-making about the child would assist me.

3. In terms of financial support, the mother is solely supporting the child.  She has an exemption from seeking child support.

4. I must consider the likely effect of any change in the child’s circumstances. 

5. This child does not know his father and that is sad but if the father is a violent man there is no benefit to the child in me facilitating that relationship occurring.

6. One of the sad things in this case is that if this child was exposed to this father he could have the same childhood experiences as the father which seems to have had a traumatic and tragic outcome for the father. 

7. I also have to consider the impact on the mother of making an order that the child spend time with the father.

8. In the family report the Family Consultant said as follows:

   Ms Dennehy said that she has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and continues to experience flashbacks in regard to the violence that the father subjected her to, which included throwing objects at her, hitting her and choking her on multiple occasions. She continues to see a counsellor and has attended a family violence program to better understand the dynamics of violent relationships.[8]

   [8] Paragraph 72 of the Family Report

9. It is open to me to find that it could have an adverse impact on the mother, on her mental health and her parenting capacity, if she was required to facilitate the father having time with the child. 

10. Practical difficulty and expense does not assist me.

11. In terms of parenting capacity, the mother is an (occupation omitted). She is doing a very good job parenting her son. The family report writer was impressed with her.

12. The mother is appropriately opposing any order for the child to spend time with the father.  She does not have drug and alcohol issues and the only mental-health problems she has are the result of her relationship with the father. 

13. The father has very serious deficits in terms of parenting capacity.  He has a history of committing serious acts of family violence in relation to the mother and his family members. He was involved in a road-rage incident that the mother described. He has a conviction in June 2008 for destroy and damage property. 

14. The family consultant provided information about other problematic interactions involving the father. She said as follows:

    The subpoenaed material from the NSW Police indicates that several complaints were received about Mr Royle whilst he was living in student accommodation during 2013-2014, including complaints made by a real estate agent from (omitted) real estate, (who was keen to evict Mr Royle, who had reportedly threatened him during a verbal altercation) and by a visually impaired male housemate, who told police that he was being intimidated by Mr Royle. Mr Royle also reportedly intimidated another male student because he was gay.[9]

    [9] Paragraph 16 of the Family Report

15. Another issue of concern is the father’s alcohol use. The mother said that the father drank excessively during their relationship and was argumentative and aggressive; he has a conviction for low range PCA in December 2006, and according to the family report writer, a drink driving offence in 2008. 

16. There is also a November 2015 incident referred to in the family report where the father got into an argument with the police after he was stopped at a roadside breath test. The family consultant said as follows:

    On the next occasion that Mr Royle produced a reading over .05 during a roadside RBT in November 2015, he became argumentative and uncooperative with police, using a number of stalling strategies to delay his final testing back at the station, so as to allow enough time to pass to reduce his reading. Once he was deemed fit to drive, he apologised to the police for his behaviour, saying that he had done what was necessary to ensure that he did not lose his license again. (S5)[10]

    [10] Paragraph 14 of the Family Report.

17. There is likely to be merit in the mother’s claims about the father’s problem with alcohol and how it affects him. 

18. The mother said that the father used cannabis problematically. I cannot discount the possibility that the father has issues with cannabis use which could impact on his capacity to care for the child. 

19. There is also reason to believe that the father may have significant mental health issues. 

20. The mother said as follows about the father in her affidavit:

    He would get angry, and his face would appear to be vacant. He would call this mood “Red” and he would say “Red took over”. In this mood, Mr Royle was very frightening. He would hit himself repeatedly, while yelling at himself, changing his voice.

    Mr Royle would frequently talk to the ceiling in his bedroom or in my car and say things like “I know you can hear me”. If I ever asked who he was talking to he would just say “The Military”. Sometimes Mr Royle would make me go outside so he could discuss his role with the military, (omitted) and things about taking over the world. If he has a laptop on him when he would talk to the ceiling, he would type things into the browser bar and press enter. He told me this was how he sent messages to “them”. This happened frequently from early in the pregnancy.

    On the 27^th of November 2014, Mr Royle was driving his sister Ms M and me in my car. He was in a bad mood, glaring and silent the whole way. We got stopped at roadworks just outside of (omitted), and then we were allowed to proceed ‘slow’ past the Traffic controller. Mr Royle started to get shaky and angry and stopped the car suddenly in the middle of the roadworks, in front of a truck which was trying to pass us. He got out of the car, barefoot, and walked back to confront the traffic controller. I could see him yelling and waving his arms at the man. After a long time, he came back and started driving, while breathing heavily and still not speaking. I was too afraid to speak to him. Later that night, Mr Royle said he was worried that he had an “episode” in front of his sister, saying ‘she will see that I haven’t changed’.

    Mr Royle would get worked up into an angry state very often, and I would leave, and he would calm himself down after a few hours. He would often have sudden unpredictable mood swings.

    I asked him about whether he had seen a doctor, and he said he had not, because his mother could not afford it. He also said ‘I’m scared to get help, because they’ll lock me up and never let me out.’ He said this numerous times.

    During our relationship, I believed, as Mr Royle told me, that he was working for the (employer omitted). He said he was studying a (course omitted) and had 3 degrees and was commencing his 4^th. He said he owned a house where his family lived in Sydney. He said he had studied at (country omitted). He said he was an Aboriginal from (omitted). He said he was born in (omitted). He claimed his mother has been the (occupation omitted) for (omitted) and was a multimillionaire who owned houses all over the world. His sister later spoke with me, and contradicted a lot of these things. A week or two before X was born, Mr Royle admitted to me that he did not have a job, and had not completed a degree.

    Mr Royle constantly claimed he was going to take over the world. Sometimes he would say “I am going to wipe humans off the face of the planet because they don’t deserve to be here.” He claimed it would not be difficult to do so as he had the technology worked out but needed the funds to put it together and into action.

    Mr Royle frequently told me he had our house under surveillance and that he would tell me he used to do the same things such as ‘I used to work for the Australian Army. They recruited me when I was 15 because I was smart.’ He said ‘they would get me to do technological things for them.’ He said ‘I could disappear at any time if they’ve got a job for me to do.’

    He has also told me frequently that he was connected to the (omitted) outlaw bikie gang. He would often talk about the leader, who he called “(omitted).” He told me he sold meth for them over a period of time. He also told me he was a part of the group “(omitted)” and had something to do with “(omitted),” which he said were groups specialised in hacking into computers.[11]

    [11] Paragraphs 100 to 109 of the mother’s affidavit filed on 9 June 2017.

21. Ms F, a clinical psychologist, said as follows in the family report:

    He is currently presenting with behaviours and personality traits that would appear to suggest he may qualify for a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. 

22. Ms F went on to say as follows:

    The information obtained from the subpoenaed material along with the Affidavits prepared by the parents and the information derived from the mother during her interview, would appear to suggest that the trauma experienced by the father during his formative years may well have contributed to his current presentation, which suggests high levels of psychopathy. The father is currently presenting with certain behaviours and personality traits that would appear to suggest that he may well qualify for a diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder. It may be useful to explore this further, particularly by means of psychological testing/ personality profiling. [Note: the father would need to agree to be interviewed and participate in such testing in order to establish whether such a diagnosis is warranted.]

    Individuals with antisocial personality disorder frequently lack empathy and tend to be callous, cynical and contemptuous of the feelings, rights and sufferings of others. They tend to have associated anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, substance abuse disorders, somatic symptom disorder, gambling disorder and other types of impulse control disorders. They may also have personality features that meet the criteria for other personality disorders, particularly borderline, histrionic, and narcissistic personality disorders. Antisocial Personality Disorder is considered particularly resistant to treatment as individuals with this disorder show little remorse for the consequences of their acts and tend to feel indifferent towards their victims, believing them to be deserving of their fate. They hold the view that the end justifies the means, regardless of who gets hurt. This has enormous implications for future parenting capacity.[12]

    [12] Paragraphs 62 and 63 of the Family Report.

23. The other problem for the father is that all of the evidence suggests he was extremely poorly parented himself, so he has no parental role model to draw on to assist him to care for his child and he shook and yelled at the child when the child was four-weeks old.

24. Altogether the father totally lacks the capacity to parent this child, let alone safely parent him. 

25. As far as the child’s maturity, sex and background are concerned he is very young so he needs protection. The sad thing for the child though is that through his father he has (country omitted) heritage and the father is also (religion omitted). As a result of orders that the child spend no time with and have no communication with the father, the child will be cut off from any immediate connection with that part of his heritage because this is certainly a case in which it would also be unsafe to consider the child spending time with the grandparents. 

26. In regard to family violence I have referred to the allegations in some detail earlier. What they establish is that the father can be dangerous. He hurts people. He is violent. He threatens people. He is an extremely poor role model for the child. He was exposed to that kind of treatment at least to a degree as a child himself so it would be very sad if this child was exposed to anything similar.

27. The father has no remorse for his actions. He has no insight into the impact of his family violence on others and all in all the family violence in this case has a number of implications for the parenting orders. 

28. The mother said that X had been impacted on by his exposure to family violence.  She said as follows in her affidavit:

    I find that X reacts badly to certain loud or aggressive voices. He will get extremely upset, and will only be consoled by me, and will take a long time to settle down. I have consulted a doctor about this, and have been advised that it may be a reaction to feeling endangered.[13]

    [13] Paragraph 126 of the mother’s affidavit filed on 9 June 2017.

29. However there is no independent evidence to confirm that anything the mother has observed about X’s behaviour was the result of his exposure to family violence as a baby. 

30. There is currently an ADVO in place for the mother’s protection and there has been since she went to the police in 2015.

31. I must consider making the order least likely to lead to further proceedings. In this particular case that order is no time. I could not possibly consider attempting to introduce this child to the father.

32. The child currently has no relationship with the father. For X to have a relationship with the father it would require a period of reintroduction. It would require the father to be patient and calm during that period and also require him to be committed to accepting that time needed to build up. It would require the mother to be willing to facilitate time.

33. There is no prospect of any of those building blocks being in place. If I did try to make an order for the father to spend any time with X the chances are extremely high that the orders would breakdown and the order least likely to lead to further proceedings is an order for no time. 

34. The only other relevant matter is one I have briefly referred to. Sadly this is a case where there are no paternal family members in the background which would mean that the child could maintain a connection with the paternal family. 

Parental Responsibility

1. The presumption in s. 61DA of the Family Law Act does not apply. The only appropriate order is an order for sole parent responsibility.

Conclusion  

1. It is very sad for children to have no relationship with a biological parent. Experience in terms of adults who are adopted suggests that often children regret not knowing their biological connections. It is sad for X that he is will not know his father or his paternal family especially given that he has (country omitted) heritage through him and he is just not going to be connected directly with that part of his heritage.

2. However that has come about because the father is a dangerous individual. I am not convinced that he has anything at all to offer the child at present. He is violent. He is volatile. He is combative. The mother is afraid of him and would find it impossible to support a relationship and I have serious doubts about how committed the father is to having a relationship anyway. There would be no benefit for this child in me attempting to craft orders which would allow him to have a relationship with his father.

3. For all of the above reasons the orders of the court will be as set out at the beginning of this judgment.

I certify that the preceding eighty four (84) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Terry.

Date:         7 September 2017