Saarinen & Saarinen (No 3)
[2024] FedCFamC1F 325
•17 May 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)Saarinen & Saarinen (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 325
File number(s): BRC 9679 of 2020 Judgment of: HOGAN J Date of judgment: 17 May 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the father seeks that the children move from City B to live with him in Brisbane – Where the mother seeks the children remain living with her in City B and spend time with the father – Where the father voluntarily left City B in 2017 – Where there has been substantial conflict in the parental relationship – Where the father has a history of discussing and involving the children in the proceedings – Where the father sent numerous emails to the mother’s solicitor and the Independent Children’s Lawyer which were of an abusive nature – Where it is in the children’s best interests to continue to live with the mother in City B and spend time with the father – Where the mother is accorded sole parental responsibility.
FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION FOR REVIEW – Where the father sought to review a costs order made by a Senior Judicial Registrar – Where the father contended the Senior Judicial Registrar did not have power to make the order – Where the application is dismissed.
Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act2021 (Cth)
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)
Cases cited: Banks & Banks (2015) FLC 93-637; [2015] FamCAFC 36
CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172; [1998] HCA 67
D & D (Costs) (No. 2) (2010) FLC 93-435
M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69; [1988] HCA 68
McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93-405; [2009] FamCAFC 92
Medlon & Medlon (No. 6) (Indemnity Costs) (2015) FLC 93-664; [2015] FamCAFC 157
Morden & Coad [2019] FamCAFC 233
PBF (as child representative for A (Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania)) & TRF & LKL (2005) 33 Fam LR 123; [2005] FamCA 158
Prantage & Prantage (Costs) [2014] FamCA 850
Saarinen & Saarinen [2024] FedCFamC1F 112
Saarinen & Saarinen (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 142
U v U (2002) 211 CLR 238; [2002] HCA 36
Vigano & Desmond (2012) FLC 93-509; [2012] FamCAFC 79
Division: First Instance Number of paragraphs: 199 Date of hearing: 18, 19 & 20 March 2024 Place: Brisbane Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Walsh Solicitor for the Applicant: Sterling Law QLD Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Brereton Solicitor for the Respondent: Leyden Legal Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr Duplock Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Queensland Legal Practice ORDERS
BRC 9679 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MR SAARINEN
Applicant
AND: MS SAARINEN
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
HOGAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
17 MAY 2024
IT IS ORDERED BY WAY OF FINAL ORDER THAT:
1.All parenting plans and previous parenting orders are discharged.
2.The children, X, born 2010 and Y, born 2014 (“the children”) live with the mother.
3.The mother have sole parental responsibility for the children in respect of all major long-term issues, as that expression is defined in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
4.Each parent shall be responsible for the daily care, welfare and development of the children when they are living with, or spending time with, that parent.
5.The children shall spend time and communicate with the father as follows:
(a)provided that the father advises the mother in writing, no less than 30 days prior to the commencement of his time with the children, of his intention to spend time with the children pursuant to this aspect of the Order and provided the time takes place in the City B area: during the weekend nominated by C School as the “leave weekend” or “dedicated leave weekend” for that school Term and as follows:
(i)with Y:
A.if he is not an enrolled student at C School or is otherwise required, by the school at which he attends, to attend school on the Monday, then: from after school or 3:00 pm on Friday until school or 9.00 am on Monday; or
B.if he is an enrolled student at C School or is not otherwise required, by the school at which he attends, to attend school on the Monday, then: from after school or 3:00 pm on Friday until 5.00 pm on Monday.
(ii)with X: from after school or 3:00 pm on Friday until 5:00 pm on Monday.
(b)for the first week of the New South Wales gazetted Term school holiday periods at the end of Terms 1, 2 and 3, with the changeover at the start of this time to occur at noon on the first Saturday after school ends for the Term and changeover at the conclusion of this time to occur at noon on the second Saturday after school ends for the Term; and
(c)in the event that, during an odd-numbered year, the Easter public holidays occur outside of the New South Wales gazetted Term school holidays, then:
(i)provided that:
A.the father pays the costs of the children’s direct return flights between City B and Brisbane; and
B.the father provides the mother with a copy of the confirmed booking details of such flights no less than twenty-one (21) days prior to the commencement of his time with the children; and
C.the children’s flights depart City B for Brisbane no earlier than 4.00 pm on the Thursday immediately before Good Friday and arrive in City B no later than 8.00 pm on Easter Monday,
from after 4.00 pm on Easter Thursday until no later than 8.00 pm on Easter Monday; but
(ii)if the terms of Order 5(c)(i) are not met: provided the father advises the mother in writing, no less than twenty-one (21) days prior to the commencement of his time with the children, of his intention to spend time with the children pursuant to this Order and provided that such time takes place in the City B area: the children shall spend time with the father from 4.00 pm on the Thursday immediately before Good Friday until 5.00 pm on Easter Monday.
(d)during the New South Wales Christmas school holidays:
(i)in every year in which Christmas Day falls in an odd numbered year: from noon on 24 December until noon on 7 January; and
(ii)in every year in which Christmas Day falls in an even numbered year: from noon on 7 January until noon on 21 January.
6.The changeover arrangements for the purpose of Orders 5(b) and 5(d) shall be as follows:
(a)provided that the father pays the costs of the children’s direct return flights between City B and Brisbane and that he provides the mother with a copy of the confirmed booking details of such flights no less than twenty-one (21) days prior to the commencement of his time with the children and provided that such flights depart City B for Brisbane no earlier than twelve (12) hours before the start of the children’s time with him and arrive in City B no later than twelve (12) hours after the end of the children’s time with him: the children may travel as unaccompanied minors on direct air flights between City B and Brisbane; but
(b)in the event that the terms of Order 6(a) are not met: the father shall collect the children at the Town D Police Station at the commencement of their time with him and the mother shall collect the children at the Town D Police Station at the conclusion of their time with the father.
7.Each parent shall, in the event of undertaking any long-distance travel with the children, including after changeovers, notify the other of their safe arrival within three (3) hours of the same.
8.Each of the parents shall encourage and facilitate telephone communication between the children and the other parent, as requested by the children, whilst the children are in that parent’s care.
9.The children shall communicate by telephone or FaceTime/Skype with the parent with whom they are not living or spending time in a manner as agreed between the parents in writing and failing agreement as follows:
(a)each Wednesday and Friday at 7.00 pm; and
(b)each Sunday at 9.00 am; and
(c)on each of the children’s birthdays at 8.00 am; and
(d)on Christmas Day at 10.00 am.
10.For the purpose of Order 9:
(a)the parent with whom the children are not living or spending time shall initiate the communication and all times referenced shall be New South Wales time; and
(b)the parents shall afford the children reasonable privacy when they are communicating with the other parent; and
(c)in the event that either parent is unavailable, for any reason, to facilitate communication with the children, that parent shall give the other advance notice of their unavailability and shall provide an alternative time to facilitate make-up communication.
11.Each parent shall keep the other informed of their current residential address and mobile telephone number and shall advise the other parent of any change to the same within twenty-four (24) hours of any change taking place.
12.Each parent shall provide the other with the number of an emergency contact person to be used in the event that either of the parents cannot be contacted and shall advise the other parent of any change to the emergency contact person or their contact number within twenty-four (24) hours of such change taking place.
13.The father shall, within one (1) hour of each occurrence, notify the mother of any medical emergency or significant injury suffered by the children whilst in his care.
14.The parents shall communicate with one another primarily by email and shall only use text messages and telephone calls where email is unavailable or where there are circumstances of urgency.
15.Without the prior written consent of both parents, neither parent shall subject the children, or allow them to be subjected, to any medical therapy that is not regarded as orthodox by the medical profession.
16.Pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the father is hereby restrained, and an injunction shall issue restraining him, from discussing these proceedings with the children.
17.Pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the parents are hereby restrained and an injunction shall issue restraining them from:
(a)denigrating each other to or in the presence of the children; and
(b)discussing with the children any issues associated with the parenting of the children about which they are in dispute, including the content or operation of these Orders.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT
18.Save as is otherwise ordered herein, no party is permitted to use the documents provided to them in the course of this proceeding for any purpose other than this proceeding or any appeal in respect of these Orders.
19.The Independent Children’s Lawyer is discharged unless a Notice of Appeal is filed by any party within the time prescribed or such other time as allowed by Order.
20.All outstanding parenting applications are otherwise dismissed and removed from the list of cases requiring finalisation.
21.Pursuant to s 65DA(2) and s 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders and details of who can assist parties to adjust to and comply with an Order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached and these particulars are included in these Orders.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:
22.The Application for Review filed by the father on 14 March 2024 is dismissed.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT
23.In the event that any party seeks an order that another party pay the costs of and incidental to the proceedings commenced by Amended Amended Initiating Application filed on 18 November 2022:
(a)any such party shall, within twenty-eight (28) days of today, file and serve:
(i)any Application in a Proceeding setting out the relief sought; and
(ii)any affidavit necessary to support such application; and
(iii)written submissions in support of such application for costs; and
(b)the party against whom an order for costs is sought shall, within a further fourteen (14) days thereafter, file and serve:
(i)any affidavit necessary for the determination of any such application for costs; and
(ii)any written submissions in answer to the submissions filed and served by the party seeking an order for costs; and
(c)the party seeking an order for costs shall, within seven (7) days of being served with the submissions relied on by the party against whom an order for costs is sought, file and serve any further written submissions, strictly in reply, to the submissions served by the party against whom an order for costs is sought,
and any such application for costs shall be considered in Chambers.
IT IS NOTED THAT:
A.There is no Court known by the name “Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia”.
B.The design of the seal affixed to this order issued by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) has been determined by the Attorney-General pursuant to the undated Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Seal) Determination 2021 signed by the Attorney-General.
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 Saarinen & Saarinen has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HOGAN J:
These proceedings require the determination of those parenting orders which are in the best interests of 14-year-old X, who was born 2010, and nine-year-old Y, who was born 2014.
The children’s father contended that it is in the children’s best interests to move from living with their mother in City B to living with him in Brisbane; in the event the mother relocated to live in Brisbane, he ultimately proposed that the children live with their parents in an equal‑time week-about parenting regime. The mother contended that the children’s best interests will be served by continuing to live with her in City B (as they have for all of their lives) and by spending time with their father during school holidays and, if he travels to City B and the time is spent in its surrounding environs, on one weekend in each school term.
At present:
(a)the boys live with their mother, who works part-time (so that she can be available to the children) in an administration role, on property located on the outskirts of City B and spend almost daily time with their maternal grandparents, who live in a separate residence on the same property; and
(b)the father, who is a stay-at-home father and is not employed for remuneration outside the home, and his partner (Ms E) live in rented premises in Suburb G with their three‑year-old son J (for whom the father cares whilst Ms E is employed on a full-time basis) and, for no less than 50 per cent of the time, with Ms E’s nine-year-old daughter, K; and
(c)the distance between the parents’ homes is hundreds of kilometres.
A very brief overview, including of previous parenting arrangements and interim parenting orders
The children’s parents met in City B and lived there before and after the children were born. Following the parental separation in May 2016, the children (who were then six years of age and one respectively) continued to live with their mother in City B; they spent regular time with their father.
On 21 July 2016, the parents reached a parenting agreement[1] (the July 2016 Agreement) as a result of the family dispute resolution in which they participated. The terms of this agreement included that they would share responsibility in relation to decisions about matters relating to the children’s long-term care, welfare and development and that they would: support each other’s role in their relationships with the children; behave in a civil, respectful manner in the presence or hearing of the children; have civil and respectful communication at changeovers and during phone conversations; not encourage the children to keep secrets from either parent; not quiz the children about things that happened when they were with the other parent; and not communicate through the children.
[1] Exhibit 1, pp 137 to 140.
The July 2016 Agreement also provided the children would live with the mother and spend time with the father as particularised – namely:
(a)insofar as X was concerned: from 9.00 am Saturday until 6.00 pm Monday in week one and from 4.00 pm Sunday until 6.00 pm Monday in week two; and
(b)insofar as Y was concerned: from 9.00 am until 5.00 pm on Saturday and from 9.00 am Sunday until 6.00 pm Monday in week one and from 4.00 pm Sunday until 6.00 pm Monday in week two; and
(c)insofar as both children were concerned: the father had the option to spend time with the children between 2:30 pm and 5.00 pm each Thursday when possible.
In addition, the July 2016 Agreement also specified the time the children were to spend with each of their parents on special/celebratory occasions such as Christmas, Easter, Mother’s and Father’s Day and birthdays.
It seems the children spent time with the father in accordance with the terms of the July 2016 Agreement until, following an unsuccessful attempt to have the mother agree to an equal-time parenting regime, the father relocated from City B to live in Brisbane in early 2017.
After the father moved to live in Brisbane, the mother and children remained living in City B.
It is uncontroversial that, from after the father moved to live in Brisbane in early 2017 until the end of 2019, the children spent time with him in Brisbane for half of the school holidays; they also spent time with him on weekends when he visited City B. I accept the mother’s evidence to the effect that this was reasonably successful for those two years.[2]
[2] Affidavit of the mother sealed 14 February 2024, paragraph 6.
The parents and the maternal grandmother were involved in an altercation (about which more is said elsewhere in these Reasons) during the children’s transition into their father’s care in early January 2020.[3] After the children returned to the mother’s care and the father advised that he intended to enrol them in schools in Brisbane, the mother became concerned that he may not return them to her – she proposed that the children’s time with the father be supervised until the parents could enter into consent orders about the children’s parenting regime.[4]
[3] Affidavit of the mother sealed 14 February 2024, paragraphs 131-140.
[4] Affidavit of the mother sealed 14 February 2024, paragraphs 141-145; annexure pages 148-149.
The father declined to accept supervision being imposed over the children’s time with him. He commenced proceedings in July 2020 for parenting orders, seeking (amongst other things) that the children move to live in Brisbane.[5]
[5] Initiating Application filed 23 July 2020.
I accept that, after the school advised the mother that the father communicated with the children in late 2020 and had told them, in effect, that he was going to collect them from school at lunchtime, the mother collected them from school prior to lunchtime; I also accept that, a short time later, the father advised the mother’s solicitor by email that all communication between him and the children was to occur through F Contact Centre.
The consequence of the parental impasse about the issue of supervision and the COVID-19 pandemic was that the children did not spend time with the father until after interim parenting orders were made on 9 December 2020[6] – in terms which provided, in essence, that:
[6]By consent insofar as they provided for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the major long-term issues relating to the children and that they live with the mother but not insofar as they provided for the children’s time with the father.
(a)the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the major long-term issues relating to the children; and
(b)the children live with the mother; and
(c)the children spend time with the father:
(i)for half of the school holidays in the manner provided for in the Order; and
(ii)during school terms:
(A)if the father paid for the children’s return flights between City B and Brisbane and gave the mother three weeks’ advance notice of the confirmed flights: on each alternate weekend, from after school Friday until Sunday afternoon; or
(B)if the father failed to provide the mother with three weeks’ advance notice of the children’s confirmed return flights: on the third weekend in each calendar month, from Friday after school until 3.00 pm on Sunday, with the father to collect the children from school on Friday and the mother to collect the children from outside the Town D police station on Sunday at 3.00 pm.
I accept that, after the December 2020 order was made, the children travelled to Brisbane to spend time with their father between:
(a)9 January 2021 and 26 January 2021 (during the Christmas school holidays); and
(b)5 February 2021 and 7 February 2021; and
(c)19 February 2021 and 21 February 2021; and
(d)19 March 2021 and 21 March 2021; and
(e)3 April 2021 and 10 April 2021 (during the school holidays); and
(f)30 April 2021 and 2 May 2021; and
(g)5 June 2021 and 6 June 2021; and
(h)18 June 2021 and 20 June 2021; and
(i)26 June 2021 and 3 July 2021 (during the school holidays); and
(j)17 December 2021 and 3 January 2022 (during the Christmas school holidays); and
(k)8 April 2022 and 17 April 2022 (during the school holidays); and
(l)20 May 2022 and 22 May 2022; and
(m)3 July 2022 and 10 July 2022 (during the school holidays); and
(n)12 August 2022 and 14 August 2022; and
(o)24 September 2022 and 3 October 2022 (during the school holidays); and
(p)25 November 2022 and 27 November 2022.[7]
[7] Affidavit of the mother sealed 14 February 2024, paragraphs 353-354.
I also accept that, after further interim parenting orders were made by consent on 6 December 2022, the children subsequently spent time with their father between:
(a)28 December 2022 and 8 January 2023 (during the Christmas school holidays); and
(b)15 January 2023 and 26 January 2023 (during the Christmas school holidays); and
(c)19 May 2023 and 21 May 2023; and
(d)30 June 2023 and 7 July 2023 (during the school holidays); and
(e)23 September 2023 and 30 September 2023 (during the school holidays); and
(f)15 December 2023 and 5 January 2024 (during the school holidays).[8]
[8] Affidavit of the mother sealed 14 February 2024, paragraph 354-355.
APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES
In these proceedings, being proceedings for a parenting order[9] in relation to the children, I may, subject to s 61DA[10] and s 65DAB[11] and Division 6 of Part VII of the Act, make such parenting order as I think proper.[12] I must have regard to the Objects of Part VII of the Act and the principles which underpin those Objects.[13] In deciding whether to make a parenting order, I must regard X and Y’s best interests as the paramount consideration.[14] The matters to which regard must be had in determining those parenting orders which are in the children’s best interests are found in s 60CC of the Act. The requirement to “consider” each of these matters does not necessarily mean that each must be the subject of any particular discussion, particularly where the evidence leads inexorably to a particular conclusion.[15]
[9] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 64B.
[10] Presumption of equal shared parental responsibility.
[11] Parenting plans.
[12] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 65D.
[13] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60B.
[14] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CA and s 65AA.
[15]See: Banks & Banks (2015) FLC 93-637 (whilst said in the context of a consideration of interim proceedings, there is no reason why the underlying principle does not apply to the final disposition of proceedings).
Similarly, it is unnecessary to refer specifically to all of the evidence of each of the witnesses called in each of the parents’ cases: whilst specific reference is made to aspects of such evidence, I have had regard to all of the same in arriving at those findings which must necessarily be made, in the context of the dispute about the proper parenting orders to be made.
A broad summary of the competing proposals
At trial the father proposed[16] that the orders which are in the children’s best interests are orders which would accord the parents equal shared parental responsibility for the major long-term issues relating to the children and:
(a)if the mother continued to live in City B – would see the children live with him in Brisbane and spend time with her from Friday afternoon until Sunday afternoon on the first and third weekends of the calendar month and for half of the school holidays (with changeover to occur in the Town H region) and communicate with her by telephone or FaceTime every Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday; or
(b)if the mother relocated to live within 30 kilometres of his home in Brisbane – would see the children live with him and spend time with the mother for two weeks during each school term (being the second and fourth weeks) and for half of the school holidays and communicate with her as provided above.
[16]Outline of Case Document (Final Hearing) sealed 13 March 2024; Amended Amended Initiating Application sealed 18 November 2022.
Despite the formal position being as outlined in paragraph 19(b), I understood the father’s evidence (and that of Ms E) to include that, if the children were ordered to live with him in Brisbane and the mother subsequently moved to live in Brisbane, the children should live in an equal-time, week-about parenting regime.
The father also proposed that orders be made requiring both parents to keep the other informed about certain information (such as residential addresses and contact numbers) and to facilitate each parent obtaining medical and educational information about the children. He proposed that the parents be ordered not to denigrate or abuse each other in the children’s hearing or presence and that each be required, by order, to always demonstrate “utmost respect” to the other to ensure that the best interests of the children were always considered paramount. He proposed that both parents undertake not to cause, facilitate or otherwise allow the children to view or be exposed to “nudity, adult content or content of a discriminatory nature” and that, if the parents could not agree about the children’s medical treatment, they take steps to act upon “any recommendations unless otherwise agreed in writing”.
At trial, the mother initially sought orders as set out in the Amended Response to Initiating Application sealed on 14 February 2024; in broad summary, she proposed that the children continue to live with her in City B and that they spend time with the father during school holidays in the manner prescribed in the Response. During the course of submissions, Counsel for the mother advised that, provided she was given notice and the time took place in the City B environs, the mother did not oppose the children spending time with the father on the one weekend each school term that is designated by X’s school as a “leave” weekend or “designated leave” weekend.
The Independent Children's Lawyer ultimately supported the orders sought by the mother.
The benefit to X and Y of a meaningful relationship with both parents[17]
[17] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC(2)(a).
The Act does not define the term “meaningful relationship”, nor does it prescribe criteria on which the court should rely to assess how a child’s parents have, or should have, a meaningful involvement in that child’s life. In McCall & Clark,[18] the Full Court concluded that the preferred interpretation of ‘benefit to a child of a meaningful relationship’ is the prospective approach. That is, the court must consider and determine whether there is a benefit to the children in having a meaningful relationship with each of their parents, such finding not being dependent simply on a lack of danger of physical or psychological harm arising from time and/or communication with each parent. [19] If I determine that such benefit exists, then I must consider whether the benefit needs to give way to the requirement to protect the children from physical or psychological harm.[20]
[18] (2009) FLC 93-405.
[19]Vigano & Desmond (2012) FLC 93-509, [128]-[129] per Bryant CJ, Strickland & Murphy JJ.
[20]Vigano v Desmond (2012) FLC 93-509, [128]-[129] per Bryant CJ, Strickland & Murphy JJ; Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC(2A).
Given the position of each of the children’s parents (and the Independent Children's Lawyer) in advocating that the children continue to spend time with the parent with whom they will not primarily live, I accept that there is a benefit to the children in having a meaningful relationship with both of their parents.
Despite the father’s criticisms, I am easily satisfied that the mother has supported the children in having an ongoing relationship with him. I am also easily satisfied that she will continue to do so into the future if the children remain living primarily with her. Given the father’s attitude toward the mother – as revealed in his correspondence to her over time and aspects of his evidence – I am not nearly as confident that, if the children moved to live primarily with him, the father would truly support them in having an ongoing, meaningful relationship with their mother.
The imperative of protecting X and Y from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence[21]
[21] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC(2)(b) and 60CC(2A).
Authority makes it clear that the resolution of allegations of abuse are “subservient and ancillary” to this Court’s determination of that parenting order which is in X and Y’s best interests.[22] However, an assessment of such allegations is clearly necessary when the prescribed statutory framework imposes an imperative of protecting them from harm.[23]
[22] M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 and the numerous authorities which have followed it.
[23] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC(2)(b).
There is no suggestion that either parent presents any current risk, associated with such things as substance abuse, violent behaviour, child abuse or neglect, mental health problems or criminal behaviour, to the safety of their children.
Whilst the mother asserted that, from around 2015 until their 2016 separation, there were instances where the father verbally abused her after having consumed alcohol,[24] it was not submitted on her behalf that his current use of alcohol meant that the children would be at an unacceptable risk of harm if they continued to spend unsupervised time with him.
[24] Affidavit of the mother sealed 14 February 2024, paragraphs 104-109.
Whilst the mother said, when interviewed for the first Family Report on 24 June 2021, that she believed the father was a “good father”, her evidence included that she no longer thought this: she said, in essence, that:
(a)his attempts to “weaponize” the children; and
(b)his continual use of the court processes; and
(c)his determination to treat the children as if they are adults and to discuss matters about the court proceedings with them; and
(d)his failure to pay child support as assessed; and
(e)the content and tone of his emails and texts to her,
had the potential to be detrimental to the children's well-being and safety.
Despite these concerns, the mother continued to propose that the children spend regular, unsupervised time with the father. As I understood it, it was, at the very least, implicit in her position that:
(a)the time she proposed the children spend with the father would ensure that they were relatively protected from the father’s attempts to adversely influence them, treat them as adults and involve them in discussions which should more appropriately occur between their parents; and
(b)moving to live with the father would result in the children being much more exposed to these aspects of his conduct and that such increased exposure is not something that the Court would be persuaded is in their best interests.
Whilst the father was critical of aspects of the mother’s parenting – including, in particular, her refusal to accede to his wish that the children relocate to live in Brisbane – his proposal also involved the children spending significant time in the mother’s care.
The father: his contentions; his involvement in X and Y’s life; his capacity to meet their emotional, intellectual and other needs; his attitude to them and to the mother and to the responsibilities of parenthood; his household[25]
[25] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC(3)(b), (c), (ca), (f), (i) and (m).
When interviewed for the second time by Mr L on 10 July 2023, the father outlined the bases for his proposal for the children to move to Brisbane to live with him – which included that:
(a)the mother had generally been obstructive about parenting arrangements; and
(b)the children would have access to superior schools and, consequently, would have a greater opportunity to maximize their potential; and
(c)the children would have a greater opportunity to spend more time with J and K, with whom they have close relationships, which should be encouraged; and
(d)the children would be safeguarded from exposure to the maternal grandparents’ involvement with certain practices, which continued to concern him.
Despite his expressed concerns about the maternal grandparents’ involvement with certain practices, the father did not seek any orders restraining the maternal grandparents from interacting with the children: his position was, instead, that orders be made to require all adults to be fully clothed whilst spending time with the children and to ensure that the children are not exposed to nudity, adult content or content of a discriminatory nature.
It is, I think, sufficient to record that I accept the evidence given by the maternal grandmother about the manner in which she and the maternal grandfather have previously engaged in and with certain practices; given the nature of the father’s evidence about this issue and the absence in his case of any witness able to give direct evidence about the allegations recounted by him, I am not remotely persuaded that the maternal grandparents have ever exposed the children – or any other children – to either their expression of their views or their practice of such beliefs. I also note and accept that the mother and father lived with the maternal grandparents in their home for approximately eight years and that, despite knowing of their participation in certain practise on occasion during this time, the father never expressed any concern about the maternal grandparents’ involvement with certain practices.
The father’s unwavering view is that moving to live with him in Brisbane will enable the children to take advantage of educational opportunities that are superior to those available to them in City B. Despite this, his case did not include any expert evidence about the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the educational opportunities which may be available to the children if they were required to disengage from their lifelong engagement with the New South Wales education system and engage with the Queensland education system.
The father’s view is also that, if they lived in Brisbane, the children would have access to superior medical facilities, speedier access to both medical and allied medical professionals and better entertainment, extra-curricular and sporting opportunities than if they remain living in City B. In contrast, the mother contended that the children’s medical and allied medical needs had been adequately met during their lives in City B; she suggested, in essence, that, whilst different opportunities in terms of extra-curricular, sporting and other activities may be available to the children in Brisbane, they were not necessarily better or superior to those available to them in City B – for example, the school in Brisbane into which the father proposed enrolling both children over time was significantly larger in size to any school at which the children have attended to date and she was concerned that this may, of itself, have associated issues; further, whilst more specialised sporting teams (in terms of age availability) were likely to be available to the children in Brisbane, a particular team in which at least one of them is involved in City B is comprised of fathers and sons, which afforded exposure to an inter‑generational aspect that may not be as easily available in Brisbane.
The father also contended that, if the children moved to live with him in Brisbane, they would have a greater opportunity to continue to develop their relationships with him, Ms E, J and K, as well as with his family and friends who live in Brisbane and in another region than they would have if they remained living with their mother in City B. In the event that the mother remained living in City B – as she said she would, given that she has a job and accommodation there and the maternal grandparents also live there – it is axiomatic that the children would spend less time with her: they would, in such a scenario, live with the parent from whom they have not received their primary parenting at any time during their lives.
Given that the consequence for the children of orders being made in the terms sought by their father would involve them living with him rather than, as they have done for all of their lives to date, living with their mother, it is, I think, particularly important to consider the father’s attitude to the mother – because it is to this attitude that the children would inevitably be more exposed if they moved to live with their father than if they remain living with their mother and continued to spend time with him (in the manner proposed by either parent).
Attitude to the mother and exposing the children to the same; involving the children or either of them in discussions about the court proceedings and issues to be determined in the same
The father’s evidence included that, in or around late 2020, he explained to X and Y what was happening about him not spending time with them; whilst he said he did so without denigrating their mother or involving them in adult issues, his subsequent conduct in:
(a)taking X to a Brisbane school during the school holidays, knowing that the mother did not agree with his proposal that the children move from City B to live in Brisbane and attend school here; and
(b)assisting the children to write affidavits – which I find that he did; and
(c)having the “house” discussion with them referred to elsewhere in these Reasons,
suggests to me that it is highly unlikely that he was able to refrain from ensuring that they were made aware of his view about the cause of the hiatus in their interactions – namely, that this was a consequence of the mother’s conduct.
The father also said that the children insisted that he continue to attempt to spend time with them – he considered that their comments led him to consider that they had been “indoctrinated” by the maternal family members to believe that he did not want to see them or spend time with them.[26] Whilst I accept that the father formed this view, I do not accept that the mother or the maternal grandparents have “indoctrinated” the children against their father.
[26] Affidavit of the father filed 25 August 2023, paragraph 52.
I also note that, despite apparently thinking that the mother had indoctrinated the children against him, the father did not, when asked by Mr L (who authored the Family Reports in this matter) during his 24 June 2021 interview about his views of the mother as a parent, hesitate in telling him that she is a good mother.[27]
[27] First Family Report, paragraph 103.
However, despite making this comment, the father’s evidence also included that, in or around June 2021, he started to detect “a pattern” of the children consistently becoming ill before they were to travel by air to spend time with him or that they would be sick when they arrived to spend time with him during the holidays – he said it always took “some rehabilitation” by him “to get any value from time I had to spend with [X] and [Y]”. To the extent that the children were, on occasion, ill, I am not remotely persuaded that this was as a consequence of something that their mother did or failed to do or that it was the consequence of her deliberate actions to have them be unwell during their time with their father.
I also note that the father’s evidence included that:
I developed strong concerns that there may be an emerging situation of Munchausen disease by proxy and if there are other instances of the Children becoming sick at convenient times, I would like to see further investigations conducted to ensure the safety and wellbeing of my Children in [Ms Saarinen’s] care….[28]
[28] Affidavit of the father filed 25 August 2023, paragraph 44.
There is no expert evidence to suggest that the mother suffers from any psychiatric condition, let alone one as serious as that previously known as “Munchausen-by-proxy”; I reject any suggestion that she has acted deliberately to cause the children to be unwell at any time when they have been in her care or that she has in any way deliberately harmed the children. I also consider it inconceivable that, if the father truly believed what he swore to in his affidavit, he would suggest that the children live in an equal-time parenting regime with their mother if she moved to live in Brisbane or even that they spend any unsupervised time with her at all.
The father’s evidence also included the following:
[In] or about January 2022 the children and [Ms E] and I had a house discussion about the ongoing obstructive behaviour of [Ms Saarinen] [the mother] to the abilities of the children to spend time with me. It was agreed that I would continue the legal case and minimise the weekends that they were required to travel as it had been made too expensive to afford, the Children missed extracurricular activities and were obstructed at every turn by the Mother causing great distress to the children and their siblings.[29]
[29] Affidavit of the father filed 25 August 2023, paragraph 68.
Little more needs to be said other than to record the obvious – namely, that the father clearly had no hesitation in involving the children in a discussion during which he was critical of the mother and clearly sheeted home to her all responsibility for the way in which, and the frequency at which, the children were then spending time with him.
As well as involving both children in a “house discussion” about his views (shared by Ms E) that their mother was obstructive vis-à-vis them spending time with him, the father’s evidence also included that he and X have discussed and agreed that he (the father) would move within Brisbane to allow X to be enrolled to attend N School or O School if the mother was to not to take up residency in the catchments for either of these schools.[30] That the father engaged with X in this manner despite knowing, as I consider he clearly did, that the mother did not agree to relocating to live in Brisbane and did not agree to the children moving to live in Brisbane provides a clear demonstration of the extent to which his actions contradict his assertions of not involving the children in discussions about “adult issues”.
[30] Affidavit of the father filed 25 August 2023, paragraph 69.
Given the father’s evidence about his involving the children in discussions about moving to live in Brisbane, I accept the mother’s evidence about her concern that he has attempted to manipulate the children into wanting to relocate to Brisbane – I also accept her evidence to the effect that the children have told her that the father spoke with them about amazing schools in Brisbane and that he had once taken X to visit one of the schools.[31]
[31] Affidavit of the mother sealed 14 February 2024, paragraphs 28, 357(n).
Any thought that the father choosing to involve the children in discussions about matters that would more appropriately be the subject of parental discussion and determination (such as them relocating from where they have lived all of their lives to live in Brisbane) was limited to the issue of the location of their residence and their attendance at school is disavowed by the evidence that, in a communication to the mother on 8 January 2020, the father advised her that:
After your efforts in [Town D] and claim of two sides to every story it was appropriate to share with boys my side of the family break up and care arrangements which has certainly lifted a weight off their shoulders as well as mine.
The reference to “your efforts in [Town D]” is clearly a reference to the changeover on 8 January 2020, about which more is said elsewhere in these Reasons. Further, in considering the father’s decision in January 2020 to tell the children his “side” of the “family break up”, it should not be forgotten that these parents had separated in May 2016 (at which time X was six years of age and Y was one year old) and the father had relocated from City B to live in Brisbane in early 2017, leaving the children living there with the mother.
I accept that, when they were in their father’s care during the school holidays at the end of 2022, the father assisted the children to write and sign affidavits about their interview by the Independent Children's Lawyer.[32] I accept Mr L’s concerns about the father’s involvement in having the children write the affidavits that they did; I consider that his conduct in this respect raises very significant questions about the soundness of his judgement and I accept Mr L’s opinion that it was not appropriate to have the children prepare affidavits in the context of the parental dispute about their future parenting regime. I reject the father’s attempts to justify this conduct, which provides a stark example of his willingness to involve the children in the parental litigation and insight into the way in which he would likely approach issues involving the children and adults outside their family if the children were to live primarily with him in the future.
[32] Affidavit of the father filed 25 August 2023, paragraph 75.
I accept that the father did not communicate with the mother before he bought an iPhone for X and provided it to him during the school holidays at the end of 2022. I accept that, in an email sent on 21 February 2023, the mother’s solicitor advised the father that the mother had posted this phone back to him that day because X would not abide by her household rules for its use. This correspondence also invited suggestions surrounding teenager phone ownership and recounted the mother’s view that there is a fine balance between respecting X’s privacy and ensuring his online safety; it also informed that the mother required parental controls to be on devices whilst the children were in her care.[33]
[33] Exhibit 1, p 144.
I accept that, on 27 February 2023, the father responded to the 21 February 2023 email in terms which included:[34]
[34] Exhibit 1, pp 171-173.
Dear [Mr P],
I do find it hard to take you sheeple seriously these days.
I’m not sure what the purpose of this letter is from you, are you requesting the authorisation of the theft of [X’s] property by me? It would seem you have authorised the theft and distribution of stolen goods by the postal service as the representative of [MS SAARINEN] is this correct?
That said I will arrange the return of [X’s] property to you the legal representative of the RESPONDENT for the return of the property to [X]………
……………..
[X] has followed the household rule to my knowledge, He has expressed to me that whilst his mother demanded to know his passwords, he would only let her look at his device whilst he was present. This seems in keeping with the advice he received from the Police and I around password protection. It also highlights the trust issues that he has with his mother, very sad.
……………..
I am sure many of [X’s] friend trust that their mother has the best interests at heart nor have aided in their abduction, and the ability to have a relationship with their father without constant interference, so it would by deduction reason that they are in a completely different position to [X]. These friends are also able to enjoy a balanced view of their lives with their parents and are not crying themselves to sleep as evidenced in the first family report. They are also not required to fend for themselves against a corrupted ICL, who has worked opposing their expressed interests for profit.
…………..
I guess the Postal service is still going to be a secure service for [X’s] communication desires and his ICL should advise him of such.
Note none of the above communication is to be interpreted as approval of the abduction of the Children in the case BRC9679/2020 and I reserve all rights pertaining to Division 14 section 87 of the Crimes Act 1900 No. 40. Nor the authorisation of the theft of or deception of the device referred to as mobile phone, which I will return directly to your office for the prompt return to [X] by yourself.
The father’s use of the term “sheeple” to refer to the mother (amongst others) provides a clear demonstration of his underlying view of her. Lest it is thought that such a pervasively derogatory view is of relatively recent origin, the tenor of his communication with the mother (as summarised in Schedule 1 to these Reasons) is illuminative.
I accept that the father has not paid child support for the children to the mother since August 2018; I also accept that he makes no financial contribution to the children’s education expenses, or the costs of their clothing, sporting equipment or sports’ lessons[35] and that, as at 14 February 2024, he had a child support debt of $9,030.02.
[35] Affidavit of the mother sealed 14 February 2024, paragraph 42.
Whilst the father’s evidence included the assertion that he stopped paying child support after learning, in August 2018, that the children would be living with the maternal grandparents[36] and that he will not pay for the children to reside in an environment that is “abusive or at risk of inflicting abuse”,[37] I am entirely unpersuaded that he is justified in unilaterally ceasing to make any financial contribution to support the children other than when they are spending time with him. I also note that, during that aspect of his cross-examination which included whether he had considered, for the children’s benefit, undertaking paid work so that he could pay for their flights to and from Brisbane, the father referenced working for remuneration as being “modern slavery” and said that he did not know “that that’s even able to be considered”.
[36] Affidavit of the father filed 25 August 2023, paragraph 37.
[37] Affidavit of the father filed 25 August 2023, paragraph 38.
Given the father’s attitude to working for renumeration, it is apposite to record that his evidence included that various business ventures about which he spoke are yet to bear financial fruit.
It is also important to note that the father’s repeated references in his evidence to the mother “abducting” the children is the terminology he chose to explain her leaving with the children, at the time of the parental separation in May 2016, to live in a home other than the former matrimonial home. That the father has continued, some nearly 8 years later, to deliberately use this word provides a clear insight into the care that needs to be taken in assessing his evidence generally.
Attitude to the maternal grandparents
In early 2021, the father made a report to City B police[38] that in the previous 18 months the children had been exposed to certain practices from the grandparents; he reported that a neighbour from the adjoining real property had to remove his son from his own yard because the son was able to see the grandparents in their yard; he also believed that the children may be exposed to the grandparents’ practices; according to police records, the father said that he had been told this had occurred at least six times in the previous 18 months and that, as a result of these incidents, the grandparents’ neighbours erected an eight foot tall fence to mitigate their children seeing the grandparents.
[38] Exhibit 1, p 105.
I accept that the police records include the following:
It is unclear as to the real motive for the [father] to have come in today to make this report, there are no records of any previous […] issues reported by the informant neighbour and [the grandparents] have no adverse history at all… It is more than likely that [the father] is using the third hand information to make a report which in turn he may hope involves FACS or assist him in his family court matter.
Whilst it is arguably unnecessary to form a definitive view about the father’s motivations in making this report to police, the conclusion reached by the police is certainly far from fanciful and has much to commend it.
I accept that, when interviewed by Mr L in June 2021, the father expressed having some difficulties with the maternal grandparents – he suggested the maternal grandmother had been (and remained) a controlling influence over the mother and that this had created additional and unnecessary tension between the parents; he also said he thought the maternal grandmother’s control over the mother posed risks to the children, including arising out of her alleged “indoctrination” of them against him.[39] Mr L also recorded in the first Family Report that the father relied somewhat on his assertions about the maternal grandparents’ involvement with certain practices as providing a further reason why the children should move to live with him in Brisbane.
[39] First Family Report, paragraph 95.
As noted elsewhere in these Reasons, I accept the evidence given by the maternal grandmother about the way she and the maternal grandfather previously behaved vis-à-vis certain practices. I also accept, as I consider clear from the content and tenor of the father’s written communications to the mother and her solicitor (a summary of which is contained in the Schedules annexed to these Reasons) that the father has, on occasion, threatened to publicise his allegations about the maternal grandparents’ alleged conduct to the mayor of City B and generally within that city’s local community.
I accept that, during an exchange in which the father referred condescendingly to the mother as “dearest mother of the year”, he also said that he prayed that her parents had little further impact so that the boys were not “fuckwits”; when cross-examined about this and asked whether it amounted to abusive language, the father’s first response was that it may be “deemed” to be that; when asked if he accepted that it was abusive language, he said that he did and – I consider sarcastically – said “please forgive me”.
I accept Mr L’s evidence to the effect that, if the children adopted the father’s views about the mother and the maternal grandparents and joined in his beliefs and assumptions in this respect, this could potentially harm their relationships with their mother and, of course, their maternal grandparents.
I note that Mr L was asked, when cross-examined by Counsel for the father, to explain why he had not interviewed the maternal grandparents in the course of his engagement in this matter; he was also asked whether he had raised the issue of the grandparents practices with the children when he interviewed them. I accept Mr L’s evidence about why he did not do either of these things – in particular, in relation to not asking the children about their grandparents’ practices, I accept his evidence to the effect that, when interviewing children, he likes to ask them to tell him about their experiences and that he does not like to interrupt this recitation and ask questions because this breaks the narrative and can cause children to be anxious and shut down during the interview process; I also accept that Mr L did not specifically ask the children about this issue because it was not something he had identified as being a significant factor for the family as, whilst they live on the same property, the children do not occupy the same dwelling as their grandparents and it was not something that he had identified, during the course of his interviews, as posing a risk to the children.
I note that there is nothing in Mr L’s two reports to suggest that either child raised this issue with him or made any mention about it. Given the absence of information from the children and the maternal grandmother’s evidence about the way in which she and the maternal grandfather previously expressed their beliefs, it seems to me that there would have been every prospect of Mr L telling the children something that they knew nothing about if he had, in fact raised, this issue with them – as I have inferred, from the fact of the question being asked on his behalf, the father so clearly believes he should have.
Attitude and approach to engaging with other adults and those whose views differ from his own
An appreciation of the father’s attitude and approach to engaging with other adults can be gained by looking to his communications to the Independent Children's Lawyer and the mother’s solicitor.
The father’s emails to the Independent Children's Lawyer
I accept that the children were in their father’s care on 24 January 2023.[40] I accept that, on 26 January 2023, the Independent Children's Lawyer emailed the parents to advise that, having received correspondence from X on 24 January 2023 and due to the nature of the same and in order to address his concerns immediately, she had made arrangements to meet with both children again at the City B Community Centre on 27 January 2023.[41]
[40] Exhibit 1, p 141.
[41] Exhibit 1, pp 141 and 142.
I accept that, in his email to the Independent Children’s Lawyer (copied to the mother’s solicitor) sent on 27 January 2023,[42] the father asserted, amongst other things, that X had showed anger and disappointment about being required to study a particular subject as a compulsory subject for the next four years. I also accept that, in this email, the father said that:
Please be advised that the AFP [the Australian Federal Police] have been notified and discussions of the actions taken by yourself on and around the […] 2022 detailed.
I’m of the understanding that the request for an MAR to discover the true contents of the meeting of the colleagues on the day, is a process before it is executed and will obviously take considerable time to unveil if any fraudulent activity lies in the contents of the video meetings.
Feel free to provide me with a transcript of the 20 odd minute goodbye video meeting for analysis of the need to proceed with this action. In order to prevent further waste of my time and taxpayer dollars.
[42] Exhibit 1, p.141
The father also asserted that the court had been notified “I WILL NOT BE STANDING under any fraudulent orders” (which he explained, during his cross-examination, meant that he would not accept them as valid); he also said: “the children have been made aware of this”.
I accept that, at some time after the Independent Children’s Lawyer met with the children in City B on 27 January 2023, the father wrote to her[43] in terms which included the assertion that the children had commented to him that she had been “quite aggressive and defensive of them calling you out on your misrepresentation of their stated best interest”. The correspondence continued to assert that the comical part of the children’s account was that the Independent Children’s Lawyer “whinged” about not making much money whilst she sat with a “[luxury]” handbag. I accept that this correspondence also included the following assertion:
As [the luxury goods company] was instrumental in the collapse of this family unit through corruption and deception we all found it ironic.
With time spent with [X] and [Y] a thing of the past, I now begin the hunt through the police and attorney general’s office to ensure this gluttonous behaviour at the expense of children’s well-being is held to account.
[43] Exhibit 1, pp 146 and 147.
Such comments establish not only the father’s repeated involvement of the children in discussions about this litigation and its processes but also that his conduct in expressing threats to others has not been confined to the maternal grandparents.
The father’s correspondence to the mother’s solicitor
I have caused a summary of some of the father’s correspondence to the mother’s solicitor over the time the parents have been engaged in these proceedings to be included in one of the Schedules attached to these Reasons because I consider the same to provide clear examples of the father’s generally derogatory attitude toward the mother and her legal representatives and the difficulties associated with attempts to communicate with him.
An appreciation of the father’s attitude toward the concept of respectful communication is, in my view, clearly shown in his correspondence, sent 9 February 2023, to the mother’s solicitor in the following terms:[44]
Hi Cunt,
Please find by way of service correspondence with the associate judges office over the school holiday period.
As I have expressed to the ICL in regards to the misrepresentation to the court on 6 December 2023, I have become the long process with the AFP and the Attorney‑General’s office of recovering the digital communication post the children’s ICL meeting.
And when we do!
[44] Exhibit 1, p 158; see also p 169.
Subsequent correspondence to the mother’s solicitor referred to him as “[Mr P]”; whilst it was not taken up with the father specifically during his cross-examination, I have been left with the very real suspicion that there is no coincidence between the earlier insult of “cunt” and the father’s subsequent limitation of address to Mr P by using only the first letter of his surname.
Whilst frustration associated with being in litigation may provide an explanation of some sorts for the father’s deliberate decision to refer to Mr P in such a derogatory manner, it does not remotely excuse his conduct; further, it gives rise to concerns about whether the children would likely be exposed to the father’s type of communication to others (and have it modelled to them) if they lived primarily with him or even in an equal-time parenting regime or he was afforded equal shared parental responsibility for the major long-term issues relating to them.
Mr L’s evidence
I accept Mr L’s evidence to the effect that the issue associated with the father’s views is not so much that they appear to be fixed but, rather, that there is a demonstrated intolerance to views which differ from them. I accept Mr L’s concerns about the impact of this on the father’s relationships with the children as they move into adolescence and start the process of individuating from both of their parents – as he said (in essence), whilst it would be normal at that stage for the children to start challenging their parents’ views about things, it would be very concerning, in terms of the impact on their relationships with the father and their well-being, if such challenges were met by him responding in the same way as he has responded to the mother, her solicitor and the Independent Children's Lawyer and there would be a risk that the children may be exposed to emotional harm as a result.
I also accept Mr L’s evidence to the effect that, given the nature of some of the father’s views associated with what is commonly referred to as “sovereign citizens”, there is a distinct possibility that, if the children live primarily with him – or, I extrapolate, were more significantly exposed to such views than they are at present, by spending more time than they currently do in his care – they may not be as adapted to living in the world as it currently exists than if this was not the case.
Ms E
I accept that, when interviewed by Mr L on 24 June 2021, Ms E described the current parenting dispute to Mr L as “tragic”. She added that, “those boys are everything to him [the father]”. I accept she articulated that she hoped that, eventually, the mother and father could share the parenting of their children, much as she does with K's father. I also accept that she suggested that this could be a viable option if the mother was willing to move to Brisbane.[45]
[45] First Family Report, paragraph 111.
I accept that Ms E has echoed the father’s reported concerns about the maternal grandparents; she has clearly adopted and accepted the father’s accounts about the maternal grandparents, including to the extent that she reported to Mr L that they had had to leave their previous home in City B because of the maternal grandfather’s behaviour.[46] There is no evidence other than the father’s assertions about information allegedly provided to him by another to substantiate this assertion.
[46] First Family Report, paragraph 112.
I accept that, when interviewed by Mr L again in July 2023, Ms E spoke positively of her relationship with the father; she explained to Mr L that she had had little direct involvement with the mother – her view was that her role should primarily involve supporting the father and his parenting aspirations. Whilst I also accept she said that, as she had been a single mother in the past, she would sometimes encourage the father to be sensitive to the mother’s likely experiences, the content of the father’s correspondence to the mother does not suggest that such encouragement has often – if at all – fallen on receptive ground. Similarly, reference to the father’s responses when the mother advised him of information about the children (as adverted to in the Schedules attached to these Reasons) causes me to be fairly circumspect in considering Ms E’s opinion that both parents are “reasonable people”.
In addition, the content of the father’s correspondence to the mother, in which he clearly expressed his views of her as a person and as a parent, seemed to me to undercut Ms E’s expressed hope that these parents will be able to resume what she regarded as the relatively communicative and cooperative parenting relationship which she thought had existed during the first couple of years after their separation.
Perhaps understandably, it is clear that Ms E generally supports the father's assertion that it could be very difficult to negotiate with the mother in relation to the particulars of visitation arrangements.[47] She also clearly supports his view that the children’s best interests would be better met by them moving to live in Brisbane, rather than remaining living with their mother in City B.
[47] Family Report dated 14 July 2023, paragraph 100-101.
I accept that, as expressed most recently to Mr L, Ms E’s views included that the children adore their father and are at an age where they needed him; she thought that, if the court decided that it was appropriate for X and Y to live in Brisbane, it was likely that the mother would relocate accordingly and that, if this happened, it would be appropriate for the children to live in a week-about parenting regime.[48]
[48] Family Report dated 14 July 2023, paragraph 103.
Whilst others may well disagree, I found Ms E’s evidence when cross-examined about the likely impact on the mother of moving to live in Brisbane – which she does not want to do and which would completely disrupt her life, her employment and her interactions with family and friends who live in City B – to be lacking in insight. I was certainly left with the very distinct impression that Ms E thought the mother should simply move to live in Brisbane, although when asked whether she would consider moving to live in City B, she raised nearly exactly the same points that the mother raised in opposition to such a proposal – namely, the impact on her employment and her child’s attendance at school and the disruption of their lives in Brisbane. Of course, a matter which additionally impacts on Ms E’s unwillingness to relocate to live in City B is her obligation to continue to support her daughter spending significant and substantial time with her father.
My assessment of the degree to which Ms E supports the father generally has persuaded me that it is highly unlikely that she would seek to countermand the tenor of his communications with the children about their mother if the children moved to live in the home she shares with him. Further, her participation in the “house” discussion the subject of consideration elsewhere in these Reasons certainly suggests that she joins with the father in considering it appropriate and beneficial to the children that they be involved in, and exposed to, the comments the father reported as having been made during that meeting.
The mother: her contentions; her involvement in X and Y’s life; her capacity to meet the children’s emotional, intellectual and other needs; her attitude to the children and to the father and to the responsibilities of parenthood[49]
[49] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC(3)(b), (c), (ca), (f), (i) and (m).
I accept that the mother genuinely believes that the children should continue to live predominately in her care in City B;[50] I accept that they are very well settled there and, on all the evidence, are thriving there. I accept the children are involved in many different sporting and extra-curricular activities and that they have a wide network of support from close family, friends, teachers and sporting coaches. I also accept that both children are excelling academically and that they are well liked by their teachers and peers.[51]
[50] First Family Report, paragraph 102.
[51] Affidavit of the mother filed 14 February 2024, paragraph 16.
I accept that the mother is settled in City B and, as she explained to Mr L when interviewed, cannot envisage X and Y living away from her. I also accept she considers that relocating to Queensland would be extremely challenging for her and, given this, that she cannot commit herself to such a move if the father was successful in his application for orders that the children live in Brisbane.[52]
[52] Family Report dated 14 July 2023, paragraph 48.
I accept that the mother genuinely considers that it is not in the children’s best interests to move to live in Brisbane. I also accept that she has significant and genuine concerns that, should the children move to live with their father, he will not reliably support their relationships with her or them spending time with her. Given the nature and tenor of the father’s communications, his conduct in involving the children in the issues the subject of the parental dispute and these proceedings and his willingness to expose the children to his adverse views of the mother and her conduct, such concerns are, in my assessment, well-founded.
Whilst the father asserted that, on 3 March 2021, the mother refused to allow him to observe, via telehealth, X’s examination by a specialist,[53] I accept the mother’s evidence to the effect that, when she asked the physician whether the father could attend using FaceTime, the practitioner’s preference was to examine the child and then contact the father – I accept that, following the examination, the mother and the doctor called the father and the father spoke with the doctor for 10 to 15 minutes.[54]
[53] Affidavit of the father filed 25 August 2023, paragraph 60.
[54] Affidavit of the mother filed 14 February 2024, paragraph 180-181.
I accept that, in March 2021, the parents disagreed about whether the father had provided the mother with the required notice for the children to travel; I accept that the mother subsequently contacted the travel agent to advise that the children would not be travelling that weekend. I consider the parental approaches to this incident – as well as to the other occasions on which they respectively sought advantage from the operative parenting orders or, having obtained a concession, then reverted to insisting on the implementation of the operative parenting orders – to be more a reflection of their difficulties in communicating than an indicia of the absence, on the mother’s part, of support for the children’s ongoing relationships with the father.
I accept the mother’s evidence to the effect that she maintains a good relationship with members of the extended paternal family and that she ensures that the children remain in contact with them via, amongst other things, regular FaceTime communications every couple of weeks.
I accept that, when interviewed by Mr L in July 2023, the mother said, when asked, that she could not envisage a time when she and the father would be able to establish and maintain a productive co-parenting alliance. The nature of the father’s communications with the mother, including those summarised in the Schedule attached to these Reasons, certainly provides ample support for such a view.
The maternal grandparents
I accept the children share a close relationship with the maternal grandparents and see them on an almost daily basis; I accept that the maternal grandmother in particular assists the mother with the children’s care on occasion – for example, when one needs to be collected from school, whilst the other needs to be taken to a particular commitment.
The children: their views and the nature of their relationship with each of their parents and others[55]
[55] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC(3)(a), (b), (d), (g) and (m).
I accept that, despite the parental conflict, the children have good and well-established relationships with both of their parents. Mr L confirmed, when cross-examined, that he still held the view that the children are strongly attached to both of their parents.
X
I accept that the contents of X’s 2021 (Year 5) and 2022 (Year 5) school reports demonstrate that he: was a conscientious, respectful and mature student who achieved excellent results across the board; was motivated and displayed an outstanding work ethic; consistently displayed lovely behaviour, beautiful manners and kindness toward other members of the class and teachers; demonstrated a deep love for science, mathematics and geography and a well‑developed scientific knowledge; was a highly independent learner who continually extended himself in activities; had excellent general knowledge and had demonstrated outstanding critical and creative thinking skills. I accept the school noted that his attitude, behaviour and manners were a great credit to him.
Given the mother’s primary parenting of him, I consider them also to be a credit to her approach to discharging all of the responsibilities of parenting. I also conclude that she significantly supported X to achieve what has been reported.
I accept that, when then 11-year-old X was interviewed by Mr L in June 2021, he spoke of having a career in advanced mathematics, quantum physics or, alternatively, as a professional cricketer or soccer player. He knew his parents were not friends; when asked, he said he was never frightened of anyone in his family; he said his mother was the stricter of his parents but, save for this, his parents’ expectations were pretty much the same; when asked to envisage who he would speak to if he had a significant problem that needed to be discussed with an adult, he said “maybe mum, or dad, I don’t know”.
I accept that Mr L noted that X expressed fondness for Ms E and that he seemed to have a genuine interest in J.[56]
[56] First Family Report, paragraph 134.
I accept that, when asked about the parenting regime that was then in place, X suggested that it involved too much travel: he said he would prefer to stay in one place – but would also like to spend equal amounts of time with each of his parents. I accept he told Mr L that he thought it would be good to live in Brisbane because he prefers “the lifestyle” (although, when asked, he was unable to provide examples of this or to elaborate further about the bases for his expressed preference) and his father had told him that the city had more opportunities.
I accept that X also told Mr L that he would want his mother to move to Queensland to enable him to spend as much time with her as he would with his father – if she remained living in City B, he would be less certain about his desire to move to Brisbane.[57]
[57] First Family Report, paragraph 135.
I accept that, when asked about his three wishes, X’s first wish was to live in Brisbane; his second wish was to be cared for by his mother and father on the basis of an equal-time parenting regime and he was unable to think of a third wish.[58]
[58] First Family Report, paragraph 137.
I accept that X's Term 1, 2023 school report from C School shows that he was generally “excellent” in terms of his effort and application, conduct in class, demonstration of respect and cooperation, organisation and preparation and completion of homework. Where he was not “excellent”, he was “very good”. Again – and not to detract in any way from X’s efforts – the mother must be accorded significant credit for the manner in which her parenting of both children has supported and allowed them to achieve as they both have.
I accept that X has been able to participate in various weekend activities organised for other students at C School and that, with his mother’s financial support and the school’s practical support, he has been able to participate in national academic competitions.
I accept that, when then 13-year-old X was interviewed for the second time by Mr L on 10 July 2023, he indicated that the rules and expectations in each of his parents’ homes were generally similar; he reiterated that he never felt frightened of anyone in his family. I accept Mr L’s report that X was quick to say that he had a strong preference to finish his high school studies at O School – he also told Mr L that he had visited the school when spending time with his father.[59]
[59] Family Report dated 14 July 2023, paragraph 80.
I accept Mr L’s account that X has a clear view that his parents do not get along and that he attributes this to the fact that they want different things – for example, his mother wants them in City B whilst his father wants them in Brisbane.
I accept X told Mr L that he misses his father when he is in City B and that he misses his mother when he is in Brisbane – although he explained that he missed her somewhat less, possibly because he was able to spend significantly more time with her.
I accept Mr L’s account that X’s position, if it was up to him, was that he would move to Brisbane and his mother would move with him – he was confident that she would not remain in New South Wales without him and Y. I also accept, though, that he suggested to Mr L that, if his mother was determined to remain in New South Wales, he would still want to move to Queensland.[60]
[60] Family Report dated 14 July 2023, paragraph 87.
SCHEDULE 3: Father’s Correspondence with the Mother’s Solicitor and the Independent Children’s Lawyer
Dates Time Source 18 May 2020 Email to Mr P:
“In regards to your correspondence which Past events are you referring?
The assault & parental alienation by your client the mother & the grandmother on me and the children at the park in [Town D] in [early] 2020 during a handover of the children. Or the emotional & psychological mismanagement of [X] by his mother resulting in his hospitalisation in late 2019? Or lack of supervision of [Y] in Feb 20 by your client resulting in surgery for a broken [bone].
…
It may however be the reoccurrence of illnesses post that date where a health professional treating [X] contacted me directly after having to remove your client from patients room in order to treat [X] without anxious psychological interference into his treatment.
…
Whilst I can consent to your client continuing to delude the children about such things as the Easter bunny, Tooth fairy and Santa Claus, I do not consent to to your client lying to the children and telling them that they aren't able to see me due to the corona virus or any other excuse, as opposed to them being restricted to seeing me at a community centre in [City B] under supervision. Depriving them & me of basic human rights via threats directed through your office.
…
I as a sovereign private individual will not be communicating with you or entering into negotiations with your client through your firm from this point, as you have not shown that you are acting in the best interests of the children by unreasonably harassing me via legal mail, authorising restricted access to my own children to a community centre in [City B] under supervision or face police interference. A court will always consider facts and act in the best interests of the children which is what is obviously needed here. This is why they have authority in this jurisdiction not your office.
If your client has sort treatment for her anxiety disorder and wishes to resume mediation. Let her contact the mediator who finished the mediation early as a wasted effort, she may be able to take advantage of prepayment and expertise in order to re-engage with a proper effort.
Please also note your clients statements in your letter of 15 May 2020 in regards to my children are untrue.
As it is obvious that your client has not handled the news of a new sibling for the boys well, please forward this video as evidence to the actual feelings they possessed about the pending arrival, taken one day after suffering this alleged abuse by me in [Town D], which it seems they are bound to be absent from on your instruction. Further restricting them of their human rights.”Affidavit of the father filed 25 August 2023, page 70 2 June 2020 Email to Mr P:
“On advice in regards to the orders and restrictions I will be pursuing in court. I first offer this cheaper alternative set of draft orders for your client to engage in proper shared responsibility of our children [X] and [Y].
Due to the restricted access forced and further requesting consent by your client and office the communication with children will remain as it stands currently unless matter resolved by return consent or ruled upon in the court in due time. Temporary orders will encompass communication alternatives.
As per my advice your shocking willful negligence in regards to restricting access without proper cause nor clarification of broad accusations through ignoring direct questioning leaves me with no alternative than the actions sought through the courts.
These will be the minimum orders for which I will agree, it do not restrict additional temporary arrangements being offered by your client in order to facilitate convenience and synchronization in regards to school calendar year.
It does not restrict either any improved offer from my minimum standard, as it should be noted these will not be the case outcomes sought through the courts.”Affidavit of the father filed 25 August 2023, page 72 8 June 2020 “[Mr P],
Indeed, it is unfortunate that your client has expressed this unwillingness to improve the opportunity for the children to recover and prosper.
However, questionable the motives of your advice to me, it does not remove my children from the precarious situation that you and your client have them residing currently.
Please advise your client not to get emotional about the impending court orders or restrictions, as I secure a safe and healthy environment for my children to be raised.
If your client has a new methodology for doing such it would be negligent of one of you or both not to provide this detail.
Please note, again I have tried to work within the framework you provide for the benefit of the children and least imposition on the […] Family members prior to court.”Affidavit of the father filed 25 August 2023, page 28 and 35 25 June 2020
Email to Mr P:
“Please advise your client that I require written advice from the treating psychologist that [X] no longer requires treatment, because I am not of the same view, and do not wish to take your clients verbal instructions on the matter. Please provide contact details of the psychologist so that I can make contact with them and seek their professional validation of your statement. My diary notes indicate contrary to this through discussions with your client and [X] and therefore I am concerned that your client has simply ceased this treatment on her own accord and this can be extremely detrimental to [X].
With regard to the upcoming school holidays, it is extremely important for both of the boys psychological wellbeing that they meet their new brother, and that the ongoing restricted access to me as their father ceases.
After speaking with the [City B] police, about avoiding my exposure to further physical and verbal abuse by your client and her mother, I request that your client put my children on a plane in [City B] to Brisbane for the second week of the school holidays. Upon confirmation, I will provide ticket details and interstate Covid-19 permits.”Affidavit of the father filed 25 August 2023, page 27 13 July 2020 Email to Mr P:
“Unfortunately you have not been clear. Can you confirm that you in your professional obligation have advised your client to as to the unlawful nature of her actions and demands.
In doing so I can confirm that these restraints are happening outside your legal advice.
Now that you threaten official restraint, I inform you that I have had recent neighbourhood confirmation of sexual offending occupancies in group situations at the residence of your client during [a] festival. I will contact the Major and MP as a personal courtesy to meet and discuss the implications of my findings on my beloved [City B] community. I should expect that you make yourself available for those meetings.
It is with this that I offer you take the relocation activity out of the consent orders and offer a new secure accomodation and restrictions to protect my children from these activities whilst ln [City B] in line with my equal share requirements documented in my consent orders.
This will not however avail yourself of my complaint to your governing body and only relocation and restriction will ensure such, nor my registering these listed offences with family and child services and police if I deem the appropriate action or undertaking by you and your client do not come for-with.”Affidavit of the father filed 25 August 2023, page 76 14 July 2020 “Dear Mr P,
Please instruct you client as to fact I do not accept the denial of sexual offences and have been the name of children that were unfortunately exposed to one of these gatherings.
I will now take a further meeting after grandparent restriction with the journalist I will be working with in order to bring this matter to light.
I will not be threatened or bullied by you or your client into consent orders that are not in the interests of my children.
In reality any restrain order is of no concern as I have already been unlawfully restrained and will be met with orders against your client and her mother for [early] 2020 assault on me and the children.
I do not understand how an educated man can not work out if I don't require relocation in consent orders that you need to present me with an alternative set of orders to fulfil my requirements of the consent orders.
Thank you for your prompt reply and I await your new draft orders.”Affidavit of the father filed 25 August 2023, page 77 and 79 23 September 2020 Email from the father to Mr P:
“…
I have resumed the negotiation directly and rested my legal representation as a self litigant as you have repeatedly gone against instruction and communicated with the offices of [W Lawyers] not in writing as requested. Then when you have been caught admitting to the Human Right Abuses of my children you and your client have attempted to change your story to suit obstruction as per usual. Hence placing my supporting representation in this negotiation in the awkward position of having to relay the recorded conversations being both costly on my behalf and obstructive on your behalf.
…”Affidavit of the father filed 25 August 2023, page 32 and 39 1 October 2020 Email from the father to Mr P about his grandfather (the paternal great grandparents) passing away and asking that they come to spend time with the paternal family:
“…
In order for the children to spend time with their paternal family, I request your client to bring the boys to the [City B] police station on Saturday 3rd October 2020. I will sign an undertaking to return the boys to your client on Saturday 10th October 2020 at [City B] police station if you wish to provide.
Your client is not welcome at any of the family events due to her behaviour not aligning with the paternal family values, and my family have requested that this be clearly communicated to your client to avoid any embarrassment or awkwardness for the family or her should she assume to turn up with or without the children.
Should your client again refuse to co-operate with the paternal family it will be used as further evidence in the matters before the court to her willingness to be obstructive. She has signed an undertaking to not abuse the children's rights and should be reminded of that.
…”Affidavit of the father filed 25 August 2023, page 29 and 36 26 October 2020 The father sent an email to the solicitor for the mother as follows:
“Dear [Mr P],
Please have your client [MS SAARINEN] cease and desist in regard to manipulation, coaching or observing my private digital communication with my children. It is not in their best interest to be used to support the mother's emotional needs.
After spending time with my children for the first time in 9 months in order to attend the children's great grandfather's funeral. The children were able to enjoy the natural surroundings of my family and where we are not influenced by the maternal family. They expressed to my partner [Ms E] that their mother was not going to let them see me, since I have witnessed the damage for the boys further on their return to [City B] both mentally and emotionally and will surely lead to future illness.
It is also stressful for myself and my family to witness the boys being forced on what and how to communicate with their father by the mother and her parents in their home, for the purposes of these proceedings.
With this in mind please find an alternative safe environment in [City B], perhaps the [F] Contact Centre or alike, where the children can continue their communication with their Father and family without hindrance, interruption or coaching from the maternal family.
Please communicate your response by close of business Tuesday 27th October 2020 in writing the options for places and times you can arrange with instruction for your client, or the school they attend.
This will be the only way that I will consent to communication until such time that the court has ordered a way for this to occur should it find in the best interest of the children for continued time and communication with their Father.
Please do not hesitate to call should you or your client fail to understand any element of this letter.
Regards[Mr Saarinen]”
Affidavit of the mother filed 14 February 2024, page 188 2 February 2021 The father sent an email to the mother’s solicitor with the subject line “Protection of sex offenders” as follows:
“Dear [Mr P],
I would like to voice my concern in regards to your position in the defence of alleged sex offices committed against children in regards to the matter [Saarinen v Saarinen]. A man in your position is above obvious client responsibilities, above all responsible to children as a mandatory reporter. You have now been detailed the alleged sex offences by me in a phone conversation about the matter at approximately 11 am [on a date in] February 2021, and given the opinion to me that it may be not enough of a significant sexual offence to warrant the removal of the children from the properties on which the parents of your client reside.
In regards to your defence of the alleged sex offenders to parade on their property in full view as not serious enough for the court to award custody is at least an appalling position to defend.
I should imagine that the parents of the children involved in these alleged offences that would not be their position in regards to the seriousness of the incidents.
In regards to our discussion of the orders in a review of the transcript and orders post our phone conversation the children are flying to Brisbane on this weekend 5th Feb and returning 7th Feb as per documents forwarded to [Ms Saarinen]. As per orders the 3rd weekend of the month I will collect them from the school on Friday the 19th Feb and return them to [Town D] or alternately arranged on Sunday the 21st at 3 pm.
As per phone conversation, I look forward to continued negotiation of final orders once you have spoken with your client.
Regards
[Mr Saarinen]”Affidavit of the mother filed 14 February 2024, page 210 4 March 2021 Email from the father in response to Mr P saying that the mother was not provided with three weeks notice and if that is correct Order 10a is not enlivened for the time sought:
“Dear [Mr P],
As your client found during the 3rd weekend of February the orders are a minimum and are intended as a framework for progression of the relationships and as discussed by instructions of the orders. The premise of 10a is proceeded by 10 and your client has failed to inform or be reasonable on that account.
It would seem that you have failed in your negotiation process to realise that the request that you make in your letter 2/3/2021 for above the terms of the order is reliant on your following the spirit of the orders in relation to the best interest of the children and your obligations under your own oath to protect children from alleged paedophilic activities or exposure.
With this, I inform you that following our discussion in the previous phone call that the evidence had been collected on the grandparents and mother in respect to the best interest of the children in their exposure to alleged paedophilic activities.
Following the safety for the abused by the maternal family of sale of [Z Street City B] by your clients, the matter will now be handed over to the relevant criminal authorities in order to have the best interest of the children determined by an authority other than yourself as you have not shown a willingness nor your client to work within the best interest of the children to maintain the relationship with their paternal family even when given the minimal guidelines outlined as mandatory by the court.
The cost to the grandparents is on them, you and obviously your client as in there attempt to escape historical alleged child sex offences by moving my children to a more protected, remote and dangerous living facility in [City B] does not in my view work in the best interest of the children and it is with this basic simple premise that we so polarly differ.
Your client and your behaviour is not conducive to a business like relationship in the best interest of the children and only highlights the inability for your client to share or reasonably allow for equal shared parental responsibility and I encourage you both to correct that.
Regards”Affidavit of the mother filed 14 February 2024, page 230 31 March 2021 In response to Mr P saying that: he cannot assist further with the interpret the orders; he does not think there is any ambiguity; the dates proposed would conflict with school holidays; and that he should obtain legal advice if he is of the view the mother is in breach, the father says:
“Please find an attached link for the nsw school term on the government site.
shall also send a image should you be to incompetent to navigate theAffidavit of the mother filed 14 February 2024, page 244 4 April 2022 Email from the father in response to Mr P where he says his instructions are limited to the conduct of the court proceedings and will not be discussing day-to-day issues, the fathers says:
“Dear [Mr P],
Unfortunately for you I do not give a fuck what you think nor how you want to conduct yourself since the 10 February 2020.
Perhaps if you had advised your client to conduct herself like a normal human being, with the best interest of the children then you would not find yourself in this predicament.
As explained earlier your day is coming in the courts of this land.
If your client has ceased to be represented by you please advise accordingly as your reply does not clarify this.
Regards
[Mr Saarinen]”Affidavit of the mother filed 14 February 2024, page 368 4 April 2022 The father in a letter to the Independent Children’s Lawyer:
“…As the court and Judge Tonkin have been colleagues notified I WILL NOT BE STANDING under any fraudulent orders.
The children have been made aware of this....”Affidavit of the mother filed 14 February 2024, page 456 27 January 2023 “Hello […] and colleagues,
Noted the information of the meeting today.
[X] has raise further concerns about his schooling for this year requiring him to study [a specific subject] as a compulsory subject for the next 4 years for which he showed anger and disappointment to levels I'm sure you will not see given his quiet nature in unfamiliar surroundings.
However ask him about physics, space chemistry or such to unleash his true passion.
Please be advised that the AFP have been notified and discussions of the actions taken by yourself on and around the 24th of November 2022 detailed.
I'm of the understanding that the request for an MAR to discover the true contents of the meeting of the colleagues on the day, is a process before it is executed and will obviously take considerable time to unveil if any fraudulent activity lies in the contents of the video meetings.
Feel free to provide me with a transcript of the 20 odd minute goodbye video meeting for analysis of the need to proceed with this action. In order to prevent further waste of my time and taxpayer dollars.
As the court and Judge Tonkin have been colleagues notified I WILL NOT BE STANDING under any fraudulent orders.
The children have been made aware of this.
I have returned the children to their mother in [Town D] yesterday as per the hand written orders I consented in the court sessions of the 6th December 2022.
Have a nice day in [City B].
[Mr Saarinen]”Affidavit of the mother filed 14 February 2024, page 456 Approximately 8 February 2023 Handwritten letter:
“Dear […],
Please find attached by way of service, correspondence with the associate judges office.
As you are well aware by now after your meeting with the children on Friday 27th January 2023, in [City B]. They have commented to me since that you were quite aggressive and defensive of them calling you out on your misrepresentation of their stated best interest.
The comical part of their account was that you whinged about not making much money, whilst you sat with a [luxury] hand bag. As […] was instrumental in the collapse of this family unit through corruption and deception we all found it ironic.
With time spent with [X] and [Y] a thing of the past, I now begin the hunt through the police and attorney generals office to ensure this glutenous behaviour at the expense of childrens wellbeing is held to account.
Yours sincerely,
[Mr Saarinen]”Affidavit of the mother filed 14 February 2024, page 459 and 460 Approximately 9 February 2023 Handwritten note
“Hi Cunt,
Please find by way of service correspondence with the associate judges office over the school holiday period.
As I have expressed to the ICL in regards to the misrepresentation to the court on the 6th December 2023. I have begun the long process with the AFP and the Attorney generals office of recovering the digital communication post the children’s ICL meeting.
And when we do!
Yours sincerely,
[Mr Saarinen]”Affidavit of the mother filed 14 February 2024, page 472 27 February 2023 Email from the father to the mother’s solicitor
“Dear [Mr P],
I do find it hard to take you sheeple seriously these days.
I'm not sure what the purpose of this letter is from you, are you requesting the authorisation of the theft of [X's] property by me? It would seem you have authorised the theft and distribution of stolen goods by the postal service as the representative of [MS SAARINEN] is this correct?
That said I will arrange the return of [X's] property to you the legal representative of the RESPONDENT for the return of the property to [X] at [V Street City B] which is only a few hundred metres travel distance for you.
So let me get this straight the children who both own wifi enabled ipad's which have the same parental controls activated (without a tech agreement for the past 8 or so years) as the phone I provide for [X] as his Christmas present, just that the control authorisation lies with the paternal parent rather than the maternal parent, yet the protection of our privacy, as has been evidenced by yourself in the courtroom to be breached as well as orders, is not okay?
[X] has followed the household rule to my knowledge, He has expressed to me that whilst his mother demanded to know his passwords, he would only let her look at his device whilst he was present. This seems in keeping with the advice he received from the Police and I around password protection. It also highlights the trust issues that he has with his mother, very sad.
[X] received tutorial from cyber-crime AFP officers and also examples of the terrible Nigerian scams that the young teenage boys are targeted for, and why therefore to avoid all these type of requests from friends or not. [X] and I also read through the Safer living for Queenslander's manual that was provided to me by QPS officers […] which we attended during the holiday time with Father, agreed outside the courtroom on the 6th December 2022. This manual details Safety Online, protecting devices, encryption uses, spam scam survey fakes and much more. Which leaves me with great confidence that [X] will use the device as directed by his Father.
The hypocrisy is not only comical your email is blatantly incorrect. The phone was used in conduction of his facetime conversations through the entire holiday period whether with me or his mother, so to say she was not aware till his return is a blatant lie. As his Mother has always monitored his facetime conversations, she was also well aware that [X] had asked for a phone for Christmas for the exact purpose of being able to resume his normal (prior to Child abduction 10.02.2020) conversations in private with his father, without the abusive intimidation of his mothers constant observation.
[X] received payments at Christmas from his grandparents and indeed his mother towards a phone purchase. So I refute the position that she had begun discussions, and indeed the children already had in there possession a less sophisticated mobile telephone for their travels. I am sure many of [X's] friend trust that their mother has their best interest at heart nor have aided in their abduction, and the ability to have a relationship with their Father without constant interference, so it would by deduction reason that they are in a completely different position to [X]. These friends are also able to enjoy a balanced view in their lives with their parents and are not crying themselves to sleep as evidenced in the first family report. They are also not required to fend for themselves against a corrupted ICL, who has worked opposing their expressed interests for profit.
Rather you than me, as this reminds me of a couple of noble older folk I have had discussions with around the stolen generations and how they were haunted to their last days by this removal of the children even though, the justification by way of the mothers running from the forests with freshly raped and beaten young girls and boys asking for the children to be taken would seem on face value to be enough to warrant a separation and put into perspective the frivolous nature of your crusade.
In regard to vaccination I do not consent, due the injection of Aluminium, Aluminium Phosphate or Aluminium Hydroxide toxic metals into [X]. I am open to further provision of the methodology for the removal of these toxins from [X's] body if he was to undergo the treatments proposed by the mother. Please provide for my assessment at earliest. He has received extensive treatment for the removal of heavy metals and toxin damage in the past in my care, as that seems to have finished now, I think it prudent you provide the products and methods for approval prior to consent for the vaccination.
I guess the Postal service is still going to be a secure service for [X's] communication desires and his ICL should advise him of such.
Note none of the above communication is to be interpreted as approval of the abduction of the Children in the case BRC9679/2020 and I reserve all rights pertaining to Division 14 section 87 of the Crimes Act 1900 No. 40. Nor the authorisation of the theft of or deception of the device referred to as mobile phone, which I will return directly to your office for the prompt return to [X] by yourself.
I will provide official documentation for future communication as consent for electronic communication in regard this case is now withdrawn. You may still supply a version of any correspondence to […@...] to assist in speed of response however it may only be a PDF copy of official postal correspondence sent to [Mr Saarinen]
[…]”Affidavit of the mother filed 14 February 2024, page 474-478 17 November 2023 Email to Mr P and Ms CC:
“Please also refrain from sending any further fraudulent, misleading or adhesive contract offers.
Perhaps you misunderstood my statement of my door being open for negotiations; this pertains to final orders only where the children live in Brisbane.
[Y] has asked me about the Christmas holidays as he has been invited to a birthday party on the 7th of January 2023 in [City B]. I have not clarified the times of the party with his mother as yet. This does not fit in with your proposed offer to contract. I have no desire to travel with the boys in the dangerous Christmas weekend traffic that the mother continues to insist upon as a disturbance to our Christmas period. The orders from 2020 and established times they have spent with father prior to 2020, are simple in half school holidays so I can do either th 20th December 2023 meet in [Town H] at Police Station at 6:30pm returning to same on the 6th January 2024 12:30pm or the second alternative is the evening of the 7th January 2024 again at [Town H] Police Station and returning to same on the 29th of January 2024 at 12:30pm.
Please also notify your client that her new (discovered by the children) contact with [Mr AA], my step-daughter [K's] father, for whatever purpose is distressing for [K]. This is in breach of the mothers 5 year undertaking of 2020 in the Brisbane Magistrates Court and has caused harm to the relationship between [K] and her father, and we have spent the last week while she was at our house consoling her and did not want to return to her fathers house.
Look forward to hearing from you.”Affidavit of the mother filed 14 February 2024, pages 512 and 513 23 November 2023 Email to Mr P and Ms CC:
“Please explain!
This does not fall within the school holiday period.
After 4 years why are now willing to negotiate outside of school holiday period. Is it a desperate play to avoid prosecution or something? I would reflect on trying to limit the prosecutions to yourselves inside Australia rather than implicating superiors and others within the Commonwealth as the implications for punishments escalate tremendously.
Just to make it clear I will not be consenting to any orders under duress of you withholding the children. I have given two separate dates and been offered before and after the dates I had requested, giving me evidence there is no reason or reasonable explanation as to why either of the school holiday terms I outlined could not be adhered too.
That said if you supply a hand written contract offer signed by the parties of agreed times and dates then I will take for consideration on or before the 7th December.
This will not however constitute consent under the Family Law Act 1975.
Look forward to hearing from you.”Affidavit of the mother filed 14 February 2024, pages 510 and 511 27 November 2023 Email to Mr P:
“[Mr P],
This is an incorrect statement made or question asked [Mr P].
You might simply read and follow the instructions one point at a time.
Am I understood now?”Affidavit of the mother filed 14 February 2024, page 509 27 November 2023 Email to Mr P:
“Again as I said previously.
Write a hand written contract (not consent orders) for the times I have outlined that your client will agree too.
This will be a contract for the school holidays.
It will therefore not affect any of the proceedings. It may be given my authority on the 7th of December 2023 to be consented depending on the other orders made. It may be irrelevant or need adaptation before giving my consent on that day you client and the ICL can then give the children assurance that they will not be withheld from their father as previously occurred.
It's pretty simple offer and acceptance which you have not offered anything that I can accept.
Nor have you given reason for the removal of children from school on the dates suggested.
I am more than happy to hear on these matters rather than simply being ignored by you or your client.”Affidavit of the mother filed 14 February 2024, page 508 10 February 2024 Email to Mr P and Ms CC:
“Whilst I was entertained by the show in the court the other day, you may not supply the associate of [the Senior Judicial Registrar] in order to inform the statutory identity he was sitting as, with the attached documents as the orders are disqualified on the following basis. As you will see below Senior Judicial Registrar has no place to make a judgement or orders.
I would have thought you would have been obliged by your professional code of practice to advise your client of this before embarking on invoicing for engagement.
…
This in itself constitutes a violation of the Crimes Act of impersonation of an Officer of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Again my door is always open for negotiation of consent orders.
Have a nice weekend.”Affidavit of the mother filed 14 February 2024, pages 516 and 517
0