Saxon & Saxon
[2023] FedCFamC1F 229
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Saxon & Saxon [2023] FedCFamC1F 229
File number: SYC 4279 of 2019 Judgment of: HENDERSON J Date of judgment: 12 April 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim – Where there are two children of the marriage – Where the mother seeks a recovery order for the return of the older child – Where there are risks to the older child living with either parent and currently an unacceptable risk of him returning to his mother’s care – Where the older child is expressing that he would kill the mother and then himself if returned to her care – Recovery order dismissed – Orders made for a further interim hearing after therapeutic intervention has occurred.
FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTIONS – Where the children are aware of various court proceedings – Injunctions ordered restraining discussion of and showing documents from court proceedings.
Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CA, 60CC(1), 60CC(2), 60CC(2A), 60CC(3), 68B. Cases cited: A v A (1998) FLC 92-800; [1998] FamCA 25.
Fitzwater & Fitzwater [2019] FamCAFC 251.
Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286; [2006] FamCA 1346.
Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-092; [2022] FedCFamC1A 97.
M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69; [1988] HCA 68.
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 115 Date of hearing: 28 March 2023 Place: Sydney Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Blackah Solicitor for the Applicant: Marsdens Law Group The Respondent: Litigant in person Solicitor Advocate for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Ms Smith Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Legal Aid NSW ORDERS
SYC 4279 of 2019 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS SAXON
Applicant
AND: MR SAXON
Respondent
order made by:
HENDERSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
12 APRIL 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The mother’s application for a return of the child X, born 2009, to her care, is dismissed.
2.Orders 2-15, 26-31 of the orders made on 22 May 2022 are suspended.
3.Pending further order:
(a)X, born 2009, is to live with the father;
(b)Y, born 2012, is to live with the mother; and
(c)The father spend supervised time with Y, as supervised by O Supervision Service, each alternate weekend, commencing on the first weekend after these orders are issued, for a period of up to four hours, with the costs of supervision to be paid equally between the parties.
4.When spending time with Y pursuant to Order 3(c), the father is to ensure that X attends with him, should X choose to do so.
5.The father is to do all acts and things necessary:
(a)To direct Mr C of B Counselling to provide the mother with all information concerning X as requested by her; and
(b)To have X attend upon Mr C at such frequency and on such occasions as is recommended by Mr C to address the following issues:
(i)X’s attitude towards the mother, including threats of harm to her and himself;
(ii)Restoring the relationship between the mother and X; and
(iii)Any other issue(s) Mr C deems relevant to X’s therapy;
6.Leave is granted to the Independent Children’s Lawyer to provide a copy of these orders and the Reasons for Judgment to Mr C.
7.Pursuant to section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the mother and the father are hereby restrained by injunction, whether themselves, their servants or their agents:
(a)From discussing these proceedings, any proceedings they have been involved in, any Court event or outcome of any Court proceedings, with either X or Y; and
(b)From showing any document, orders or material filed in these proceedings, or to be filed in these proceedings, or so filed in other court proceedings;
and the mother and the father are to ensure that no third person so does, and if they do, they are to remove the child from that third person.
AND THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:
8.The proceedings be adjourned to 10.00am on 16 October 2023 for a possible further interim hearing.
9.If either party or the Independent Children’s Lawyer seeks to agitate a further interim hearing as listed in Order 8, they are to file and serve an Application in a Proceeding and an affidavit in support by no later than 4.30pm on 11 September 2023.
10.Leave is granted to the Independent Children’s Lawyer to approach Chambers for an urgent listing.
11.Leave is granted to all parties to issue as many subpoena as they deem appropriate.
12.The father is to file a Response to an Application in a Proceeding within 14 days of these orders.
AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.Pursuant to sections 62B and 65DA(2) 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 are set out in ‘Annexure A’ and those particulars are included in these orders.
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 Saxon & Saxon has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HENDERSON J:
In the matter of Saxon, an interim application was made by Ms Saxon (“the mother”), for the return of the parties’ eldest child, X, born 2009, to her care and that the current interim parenting arrangements for Mr Saxon (“the father”) to spend time with X and Y, born 2012, be suspended.
THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS
The mother effectively seeks a recovery order in respect of X to return to her care and that both X and Y (collectively referred to as “the children”) live with her and spend no time or communicate with the father. The mother also seeks sole parental responsibility for the children and that the children continue to engage in therapeutic intervention, citing that the children are at an unacceptable risk of emotional and psychological harm from the father.
The father’s case is that X continue to live with him, that X and the mother engage in therapeutic intervention, that he spend alternate weekend time at minimum with Y, noting his position on a final basis that Y should live with him and X, and that he and Y engage in therapeutic intervention in regards to their relationship.
The position of the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) was that X should remain living with the father at this stage, given the significant risk of harm posed to him in returning him to the mother, being that:
(1)X may act upon threats he has made since late 2022 to various psychologists, the Department of Communities and Justice (“DCJ”), and the father, that if he is returned to the mother, he will kill the mother and kill himself;
(2)If that threat was carried out, Y would be collateral damage in such an event; and
(3)X is engaging with Mr C, psychologist, whilst in the father’s care, and such an engagement is a positive as it is an imperative that he and the mother engage in therapeutic intervention to repair their relationship.
Ultimately, the ICL’s submission was that in all the circumstances and at this time, X remaining living with the father is the least-worst option, given there are also significant risks to X remaining in the father’s care, which were submitted to be as follows:
(1)X’s mental health may continue to decline;
(2)X’s extremely negative attitude to the mother may continue to fortify and their relationship risks being permanently fractured; and
(3)X will continue to suffer the significant emotional cost the father submitted he was suffering in being separated from Y.
This emotional loss and harm is also being suffered by Y as evidenced by the mother’s material. As is so often the case, the children are suffering from their parents’ behaviour.
DOCUMENTS AND EXHIBITS
The material read was as follows:
(1)For the mother (as stated in her Case Outline):
(a)Case Outline filed on 28 March 2023;
(b)Application in a Proceeding filed on 27 February 2023;
(c)Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk filed on 27 February 2023;
(d)Affidavit of Ms Saxon filed on 27 February 2023;
(e)Affidavit of Ms Saxon filed on 22 March 2023; and
(f)A tender bundle of documents, containing documents produced under subpoena from the following:
(i)B Counselling;
(ii)D Hospital;
(iii)Dr E;
(iv)NSW Police;
(v)F Psychologists;
(vi)G School;
(vii)The DCJ; and
(viii)A report of Dr H dated 16 December 2019.
(2)For the father, noting no Response to an Application in a Proceeding was filed:
(a)Affidavit of Mr Saxon filed on 26 February 2023; and
(b)Affidavit of Mr Saxon filed on 27 March 2023.
(3)For the ICL (as stated in her Case Outline):
(a)Case Outline filed on 28 March 2023; and
(b)Documents from the mother’s tender bundle of documents, being pages 5-6, 13, 21, 25, and 28.
There was only one exhibit tendered in the hearing: for the father, a chain of emails between him and Mr C from 17 March 2023 to 23 March 2023 (Exhibit F1).
SHORT CHRONOLOGY
These proceedings were commenced on 2 July 2019 by the mother in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (as it was then known).
On 16 September 2019, the matter was transferred to the Family Court of Australia (as it was then known).
Despite the father being a party to the proceedings, on 26 June 2020, the matter was listed for an undefended hearing on 24 July 2020 in respect of parenting.
When the matter came on for undefended hearing, the father attended and an ICL was appointed. Leave was also granted for the father to provide a report prepared by Dr H dated 16 December 2019 to any therapist, psychotherapist or psychologist he engages with.
On 26 August 2021, orders were made by consent for the father to spend supervised time with the children each alternate Sunday for three hours, to be supervised by O Supervision Service, and to also continue to attend upon a psychologist or psychiatrist. The matter was also stood over to February 2022 to allow the father’s time with the children to progress and this therapeutic intervention to continue.
On 21 February 2022, orders were made by consent to further adjourn the matter to 18 May 2022 to allow the parties to engage in a Legal Aid mediation.
When the matter came before me on 18 May 2022, I made orders adjourning the proceedings to March 2023, noting that the parties were progressing well in their endeavours to resolve the matter, particular in circumstances where there was a progression of the father’s time with the children immediately extending to unsupervised time and extending to overnight time in December 2022. Further, the parties agreed to attend a further mediation in early 2023 to further progress settlement in the matter.
On 20 May 2022, interim orders were made by consent in Chambers (“the current orders”) which provided for the father’s time to continue to progress. Commencing on 10 December 2022, the children were to spend overnight time with the father unsupervised each alternate weekend, in addition to other time during school holidays and special occasions, for the father to submit a hair follicle test and carbohydrate-deficient transferring (CDT) test during 10 November 2022 to 10 December 2022, and continue to attend upon Dr K. It was agreed that the children would travel with the mother to Country J in early/mid-2023, and the father would have make-up time. The matter appeared to be progressing well and was on track to final resolution.
The proceedings are now completely derailed.
On 26 February 2023, an affidavit was filed by the father, foreshadowing an interim application being filed by the mother on 27 February 2023, which was listed on 28 February 2023.
When the matter came before me on 28 February 2023, the Application in a Proceeding was adjourned to 28 March 2023 for an interim hearing on the ICL’s submission that she required time to issue subpoenas in relation to X’s functioning, given the father’s evidence that X had threatened to kill the mother and then himself if he was returned to her care.
Given X’s age, I deemed it prudent to grant this short adjournment. At the hearing, X and Y were 13 years old and 11 years old respectively.
THE PARTIES’ MATERIAL
When the matter was before the Court on 28 February 2023, the mother pressed for orders that X return to her care and that the father’s time with the children be suspended.
The father’s position, noting he had not filed a formal Response to an Application in a Proceeding, was that X remain with him and Y spend time with him and X in accordance with the current orders.
At that time, X was expressing significant reluctance to return to the mother’s care and had expressed to the father that if he was made to return to the mother, he would kill the mother and then kill himself.
Events have moved further since 28 February 2023, as X’s position is apparently even more firm now and he continues to threaten that if he returns to the mother care, he will kill her first and then kill himself. X told officers at the DCJ that he does not trust the mother, that she has lied to him, that he hates her for controlling his life, and is worried about Y’s safety living with her.
The mother continues even more urgently to press her application that X return to her care as she is extremely concerned as to X’s hardening attitude towards her, his apparent deteriorating mental health whilst in the father’s care, and that he and Y are suffering emotional distress as they do not see each other and spend no time together. The mother also seeks continued therapeutic intervention for her, the father and the children, and therapy to resolve the clear rift in her relationship with X, as well as assist Y with his concerns regarding his relationship with the father.
The father’s solution to this most concerning situation is that X continue to live with him, that X and the mother engage in family therapy, that Y spend at least alternate weekends with him, if not live with the father and X, to ameliorate what the father describes as X’s extreme distress in not living with his brother as he “cries every day” about this, and that he and Y engage in therapy to restore their relationship.
The ICL posited in her Case Outline and submitted orally the following:
(1)The threats made by X possibly present an unacceptable risk of harm for X and the mother if carried out;
(2)Y, who would be in the household if these events occurred, would be collateral damage and he would suffer significant psychological and emotional harm;
(3)The Court could not disregard X’s threats at this stage and on the evidence available;
(4)Both X and Y have expressed to their therapists their emotional suffering in not spending time with each other;
(5)X remaining with the father and continuing his therapeutic intervention is the only prospect of eventually repairing his relationship with the mother;
(6)Therapy will continue for X whilst he lives with the father and it is an unknown if it would continue if he were living with the mother, given his extremely strong adverse reaction to that possibility; and
(7)Y spending supervised time with the father would provide the children with time together but protect Y from the following:
(a)Y’s concerns regarding the father;
(b)The ICL’s concerns regarding the father; and
(c)The mother’s clear concerns regarding the father’s behaviour and the deteriorating mental health of X and his hardening attitude towards her whilst he has been in the father’s care;
The mother is properly most concerned that Y does not become part of X’s extremely negative attitudes towards her.
The mother has been the children’s primary carer throughout the marriage and post-separation.
The parties separated on a final basis in March 2018. The father was mentally unwell at this time and was also convicted of an assault charge. The father was given a suspended sentence.
Unsurprisingly, the mother was most concerned about the children spending time with the father, given his aberrant behaviour, particularly with respect to the assault charge.
Dr H prepared a report in this matter dated 16 December 2019. In that report, he describes the father telling him that around the time of his offence, he was on “a period of craziness”, and a combination of drug use, increased libido and other lifestyle factors, caused him to be in “somewhat of a fog” and “thought it was okay […]”.
The father told Dr H he had also excessively used an illicit drug leading up to this event and occasionally a different illicit drug, and he had begun to visit massage parlours twice a week. In the report, Dr H reports the father experiencing sexual frustration with the mother.
The father was unable to provide Dr H with a good explanation for why he engaged in the assault, but went on to tell Dr H the various factors that caused him to be in the “fog”, including that he was burnt out from work, that he could not utilise his normal coping method of long runs due to an injury, and that he was prescribed a strong opiate-based medication for other pain.
After referring to the father’s “fog”, Dr H goes on to say:
10.… He [the father] said for some reason he thought it was okay to [behave as he did]. He said he now understands that it is not okay. He assumes that there was some kind of thrill but it is unclear what he was feeling at the time. However he did not report that incident as incorporated into any [other] behaviour […].
11.I was concerned by the above remarks […] It appeared the offence was more likely an event occurred at a time when his inhibitions were low due to a combination of psychological disturbance and drug use […] He acted in an inappropriate and uncharacteristic way.
(As per the original)
Dr H goes on to report the father saying he was unhappy in his life, in his marriage, and in his parenting, and feeling angry and sad.
At the time of the interview with Dr H, the father was reported to be questioning his purpose in life and what he wants to do, but wanted to be there for the children, particularly that he felt guilty about his lack of involvement as a parent in the children’s lives when they were younger.
Under the sub-heading ‘Formulation’, Dr H opined:
66.[Mr Saxon] presents as a somewhat psychologically fragile man despite being energetic and hard driving at times. It seems to me that his early childhood was actually quite miserable for him. As a consequence it seems that he developed a mood disturbance that over the years has migrated into a [mental] Disorder. …
67.[Mr Saxon] [sic] has pleaded guilty to an offence […] in which he seems to have been experiencing a degree of [irregular behaviour] at the time and a certain amount of excitement at his behaviour. The offence appears isolated and his risk of any [recurrence] is low, it is likely that the offence occurred in the context of his ongoing psychological disturbance and that remains a major issue in terms of considering his psychological state.
(As per the original)
When discussing whether the father poses a risk of harm to the children, and if so, the degree of risk:
73.It is my view that [Mr Saxon’s] risk in regards to [reoffending] is negligible. He is a low risk offender. … I do not believe that his sons are at any risk of harm from [Mr Saxon], nor do I believe that over the passage of time will any of his son’s friends be at harm from [Mr Saxon], despite the offence. …
74.In regards to his mental health there is an obvious parenting risk if [Mr Saxon’s] condition were to be untreated, or if he were not to have insight into it. Up until recently it does not appear that he did have insight into this condition but following a fairly frank exchange in our second interview I believe he now is aware of and appears to accept the reasons that I have given him for why I believe he suffers from a [mental] Disorder. He appears to be prepared to make use of psychotherapeutic intervention in order to manage that.
…
76.In the context where [Mr Saxon] was to have day time contact with his children I do not see any concern in regard to his mental illness. If he were to move towards overnight contact with his children any such move would have to be part of a step up plan. As part of that step up plan there would need to be a report from his treating clinician that [Mr Saxon’s] psychological state has settled and that he was aware of and able to engage in management strategies for any mood disturbances that might occur. For any period of time that he spends with his children he should be both drug and alcohol free as drugs and alcohol can be triggers for mood disturbance and mood variability. …
(As per the original)
The father was treated by Ms L, psychologist, who has now become his partner.
To his credit, the father initially continued his psychological intervention, alcohol and drug testing and signed undertakings. To her credit, the mother agreed for time with the children to be resumed, given she had properly, in the interests of the safety of the children, not let them spend time with the father until he had engaged appropriately with therapeutic intervention and had signed the relevant undertakings. Time with the father slowly increased, progressing towards overnight time in December 2022; things were progressing well. Ms L appeared to be a stabilising influence and the children were enjoying their time with the father as attested to by the mother.
The mother says that on 22 May 2022, the children returned home from spending time with the father and told the mother that they had shared a conversation with him and Ms L on the following issues:
(1)The mother’s use of barristers in these proceedings;
(2)The father’s use of a prohibited substance;
(3)The father’s child support payments;
(4)The mother lying in documents filed in these proceedings regarding the father’s living situation; and
(5)Providing a version of events surrounding the father’s arrest of assault.
The mother made it clear in her material that she had shielded the children from the father’s conduct, telling them these were “adult concepts” and they did not need to be concerned. X was demanding to know what the mother meant by “adult concepts” in terms of why she separated from the father and concurringly from that day onwards, X began to use the phrase “self-harm”.
Later in the week, following the children’s return from the father, a parent of X’s friend contacted the mother, concerned that X had been “bragging” about the father’s arrest to their child. The children continued to spend time with the father. This was the first cluster of concerning incidents for the mother.
X, as is not uncommon, unfortunately, was at times struggling with school during 2022 and the mother’s boundaries and rule settings. The mother, as is not uncommon and as is appropriate, sought to minimise his use of screen time, playing video games and the like, and that is clear from the notes from Mr M, the school psychologist at G School, whose notes form part of the mother’s tender bundle.
On 12 November 2022, X raised with the mother his disappointment regarding his school results. The mother made suggestions to X, to which X’s temper increased and directed anger towards Y. The mother subsequently banned X’s use of technology for the day, which X “did not enjoy”.
On 13 November 2022, the children and the mother went to a café and discussed X’s schooling. X then had a temper outburst after a suggestion from the mother that he reduce his screen time. These are arguments that most parents have with their teenage children and appeared to be nothing out of the ordinary. These are the second cluster of concerning incidents for the mother. At noon, the children then spent time with the father as per the current orders.
The mother tells the Court that X and Y went to the father’s house on 13 November 2022. The father contacted the mother telling her that X was threatening self-harm and harm to her if X was returned to her. The mother, sensibly believing X, and particularly that he was safe in the father’s care, agreed to X remaining with the father, given the dispute she and X were having about screen time and his schoolwork.
X has not returned to the mother’s care since that time. Initially, X and the mother communicated well, with X telling her what he needed for school and other activities regularly, however, he would not spend time with her or return home.
The mother wrote a letter to X’s teacher on 20 February 2023, after an incident occurred during class some on 15 February 2023. The notes from Mr M indicate that a teacher, with good intentions, told X about the letter, which upset him and has caused him some distress and the father said X began to feel unsafe. Although understandable from the mother’s point of view, this merely added fuel to the fire, given the father has done little to put the mother’s understandable concerns in X not returning home in context for his son.
Upon a reading of the father’s affidavit filed on 27 March 2023, it is clear that X’s mental health has significantly deteriorated whilst in the father’s care. Since January 2023, X has been under the care of Mr C and will soon be seen by a psychiatrist. X continues to threaten self-harm, to kill himself and the mother if he is returned to her care. X has had significant time off school whilst in the father’s care and is struggling both academically and socially at school, as is apparent from Mr M’s notes. The school has been most supportive and patient in encouraging X to attend school in the normal course.
The father, telling me from the digital Bar table, that X “cries every day” because he misses Y, was both poignant and of concern, given the father’s material did not tell me what he had said to X to assist him or outlined any steps he has taken to enable X to see Y, other than his position that Y live with him or at least spend time with the father in accordance with the current orders. The current orders are not being carried out, in that X is living with the father; a position never contemplated under the current orders. Arrangements for overnight time with the father were just about to begin when X self-placed. The futility of seeking partial compliance in these fraught circumstances with the current orders escaped the father.
This is an interim hearing and I cannot make findings of contested facts. However, the following is clear on the evidence of the father, the report of Dr H, and material produced under subpoena from the DCJ.
The father may have taken advantage of X’s distress in the mother setting appropriate and proper boundaries for him and has used this as an opportunity to keep X from the mother, as the father would assert, without foundation and improperly was done to him, by the mother post-separation. This suggested motive is apparent from the father’s affidavit filed on 26 February 2023, where he says:
45. …
•As a Father, it is a blessing to spend so much time with my son [X].
•I have missed him immensely over the years, and being able to reconnect and live together has been both healing for me and him.
•Despite these actions of his Mother, and the trauma it is causing us, I love every minute of my day with him.
•I only want to see him smile.
•We both just really miss [Y].
(As per the original)
It is clear on the evidence of the father, the report of Dr H, and material produced under subpoena from the DCJ that he does not like the mother and believes she poses a risk of harm to the children, and says that X has good reason not to feel safe in her care. One example of this is contained in the father’s affidavit filed on 26 February 2023:
15.On 13th November 2022, [X] had been arguing with his mother about his school marks.
…
f.Since the 13th November, [X] is adamant that he never wants to return home to his mother.
i.I have tried to encourage him to have a relationship with her, as long as he feels safe to do so, however, as you will see below, [X] has valid concerns about this relationship.
(As per the original)
Further in this affidavit, the father expressed a view:
45. …
•I have been and continue to try and resolve these issues but I am losing hope.
…
•However, based on the actions of the Mother, her inability to meet his emotional needs, her constant use of federal and state resources to try and disrupt [X] and I, the time and energy wasted, the continued false allegations, financial waste and ongoing stress, [X] has stated that he wishes to have no relationship with his mother, ever again.
•He is deeply traumatised and hurt by her actions since November 2022.
(As per the original)
It is apparent from the father’s affidavit filed on 27 March 2023 that his goal is now to have both X and Y live with him, which would potentially result in neither child seeing the mother.
Such a position is juxtaposed to the mother’s position. The mother took a child-focused and protective position to shield the children from possible harm, by preventing them from spending time with the father, given that Dr H reported the father having an untreated mental health condition and that he had perpetrated an unacceptable act to which he pled guilty.
Further, when the father carried out the recommendations of Dr H, she agreed for time to resume slowly, initially supervised, then progressing to unsupervised time, and from December 2022, to overnight unsupervised time. The mother has, apart from her letter to X, done everything humanly possible to have X returned to her care and the children be together, something both parents agree the children wish.
The father did little to assist X when he made these concerning disclosures to him initially and moved slowly to get psychological assistance for X, rejecting the first psychologist put forward by the mother, whom Y is now seeing, being Mr N.
The evidence tends to establish that what has now occurred is that the mother has been denied time with X, as was the father post-separation. Yet, in 2019, the father told Dr H that he was not a particularly involved father and at the time of separation, he did not enjoy parenting and did not enjoy his marriage. Given his behaviour towards a young, vulnerable child, his untreated medical condition and his comments, it is hardly the fault of the mother that the father did not see the children for three years as the father asserted. The mother was acting protectively and appropriately and this sadness lies at his feet and was experienced by both X and Y, not just him alone. Unfortunately, X is now the one suffering from the father’s somewhat self-absorbed and self-promoting behaviour.
The father’s affidavits tend to support an argument that there is no harm or risk of harm to X in the mother’s care, other than X’s now florid statements, which have been repeated to Mr M (the school psychologist), Mr C (his psychologist), the DCJ, and to the father, that he will kill the mother and then kill himself if he is returned to her care.
This deteriorating behaviour has flourished under the father’s care and there is some force in the opinion expressed in a letter sent by the mother’s legal representatives to the father’s legal representatives dated 14 December 2022:
… we question the Father’s genuineness in his view that [X] ought not to be returned to the Mother. Such a view cannot coincide with the Father’s actions. The Father has made no attempts to secure any support for [X], other than when prompted by the ICL. To that end, it is unclear whether any support has actually come to fruition since the Father’s text message [in late] 2022.
(As per the original)
The DCJ have become involved in the matter, and the subpoena material produced by them identify that Mr C informed Mr M that he tried having X obtain a referral from the Community Adolescent Outreach service, so that X could undergo a psychiatric assessment. The notes contained in the subpoena material produced by the DCJ read as follows:
Significant behavioural or emotional/psychological problems
… [Mr C] has diagnosed [X] with depression, and his suicidal ideations as Moderate to High Risk and is hoping to influence [Mr Saxon] to take [X] to his GP for a mental health assessment and possibly consider medication and/or a formal psychiatric assessment. …
(As per the original with clarification)
The notes and emails from Mr M appear that he has been pushing for X to have external support from a psychologist or psychiatrist for some time. It should have been apparent to the father the necessity of him obtaining psychological assistance for X forthwith, and yet, he complained in his affidavit that this tardiness was due to the mother not accepting a psychologist he put forward. The mother provides in her affidavit that it was X who messaged her, refusing to see Mr N as he would not feel safe “because [the mother] booked it”.
Fortunately, Mr C was retained and this intervention appears to be going well in that X has a relationship with Mr C. The father still has not obtained psychiatric assistance for X, leaving that to Mr C to arrange.
A report produced by the DCJ dated 10 March 2023 reads as follows:
… [X] told DCJ that his father was ‘very stressed by his mother’s family and mother, and had smoked [a prohibited substance], and had not [behaved inappropriately]’. …
(As per the original)
X should not have been told these facts. X thought the father had murdered someone because of the hushed tones when people around him spoke about the father.
X told the DCJ that he resents being separated from the father for three years when he asserts he should not have been. This is where the father should have stepped in, as a parent, with the best interests of X at the forefront, and told him that what the mother did was the right thing because he was not well and had not been well and needed that time to get better. The father did no such thing. Instead, he told X his version of why this was so, adding to X’s belief the mother was lying to him and unfairly treating the father.
The officers at the DCJ revealed that X had refused to return home after a visit with the father, stating he hated the mother due to her rules around gaming and homework. These are not unusual complaints of a teenager about a parent, yet have now escalated into, “I will kill my mother and kill myself if I’m ordered to return”.
X expressed suicidal and homicidal ideation towards the mother in reports prepared by the DCJ. X expressed extreme anger towards the mother for controlling his life. X expressed ideation regarding the family having a car accident and only him and Y surviving. X was extremely distressed about having not seen Y for some time, suggesting the mother is controlling Y. Sadly, X could not think of a future. The reality is the mother is doing now for Y what she did for both boys, protecting Y from their father’s behaviours.
X last saw Y in late 2022, when the father drove him to the mother’s house and waited outside for him. The father reported the visit was not successful. The DCJ report went on to say the only time they observed X to become distressed was when he spoke about Y, being concerned for him and missing him. The father has done little to allay those concerns, and I did not see any step he took to help X understand this sadness. To do so may of course put him in a bad light with X. The father’s response to this tragic set of circumstances is, ‘[Y] should live with me and X. That will solve this problem’.
X is not doing well in the father’s care, emotionally, psychologically or socially. On 15 February 2023, there was an incident in class, and it is clear that he is sorely missing his brother. Rather than assisting X to understand the importance of rules surrounding homework and screen time, the father has used this rift in the relationship between X and the mother to his perceived advantage.
The father’s affidavit filed on of 27 March 2023 is of concern in what it does not tell the Court. The father refers to X being now frightened and scared for Y, worried about his safety in the mother’s care. The father also asserts that he is not a risk to the children and everybody that he has engaged with in their capacity to provide him therapeutic assistance have not reported him as a risk. The father also says he is saddened because Y does not want to speak to him now and that X says to him:
I know mum is in the background controlling [Y], like she did with us for 3 years when we talked to you dad, so I don’t feel safe calling [Y], it’s a waste, it’s worthless, mum is controlling him now, what can we do Dad?
(As per the original)
There are no words in the father’s material said directly by him to X to allay his ungrounded fears; fears which may now be firmly believed by him.
The father’s assertion that he and Ms L must live apart because they were frightened of the mother is aberrant nonsense. The father also complained that the mother told the DCJ he had committed a certain type of assault, when he pled guilty to a lesser assault charge and was convicted. This difference may be of little concern to an officer at the DCJ and was not worthy of complaint.
The father’s fixation is now on restoring time with Y in accordance with the current orders. The father does not understand that this will not happen given what has occurred with X whilst in his care. There is nothing in the father’s affidavit filed on 27 March 2023 of how he is trying to assist X to restore his all-important relationship with the mother, a woman who was his primary carer; a matter that is clear because, to use the father’s words to Dr H:
He in fact did not enjoy fathering as much as he should have.
(As per the original)
The father’s explanation for telling X about his prior history is contained in his affidavit filed on 26 February 2023:
27. …
h. …
…
vii.The reason I shared the events with [X] was to remove his distress around not knowing the truth.
viii.[X] has asked me what I did back in 2017 before, for which I agreed that it was best that he did not know.
ix.However, I could see that his lack of knowledge was causing him too much distress, so I reluctantly explained the shameful experience and outcome.
x.[X] was immediately relieved to know his father was not a murder or a rapist.
xi. His comment being “Is that it?”
xii. He has not asked me again.
xiii.However, [X] now has serious concerns about what the Mother will do if he makes one mistake in his life.
xiv. Will she lie about me too?
xv. Will she disown me?
xvi. Will she take [Y] away from me again?
xvii. This causes him extreme anxiety.
(As per the original)
The mother has told no lie. The mother has not disclosed “adult concepts” to the children to protect them. The father tells me nothing of how he allayed X’s unsupported, unsubstantiated fears which have come about whilst in his care.
Although the father deposes in his affidavit filed on 26 February 2023 that X is “adamant” to never go back to the mother,[1] I could see no valid concerns in regard to his safety in the mother’s care, although X may now believe he does.
[1] See above [53].
Y has been seeing a psychologist, Mr N, since early 2023. Mr N wrote to the mother, saying the following:
…
This email is to confirm that [Y] has attended 3 sessions for psychological therapy.
These have occurred on the 14/1/2023, 18/2/2023 and the 4/3/2023. [Y] has been attending for psychological support adjusting to the changes in his family as his brother [X] moved in with his father who is separated from his mother. [X] … initiated the move to his fathers, as he became angry at his mother setting boundaries on his use of the computer … [h]e moved to his father who has less parent boundaries. … [X] was initially referred to me by his mother as she was worried about his mental health since moving in with his father. [X] and his father are reported to have declined the referral.
[Y] expressed some concerns with [X] living with Dad at the initial assessment and stated he missed his brother. [Y] also stated that his communication with his father is odd and sporadic and he does not truth him. The focus of therapy is to improve [Y’s] resilience and adjust the situation with [X] and his father.
On the 21/3/2023, [X’s] father, [Mr Saxon] called me and asked if I was treating [Y]. He was initially police but became more belligerent as time went on. He stated that he though I needed his consent for me to see [Y], which I suggested that I thought the current court orders inferred that as [Y] and [X] were under their mother’s custody that I did not need his consent. He became insistent that this was the case and required me to seek his consent. I terminated the call as it was going no where and informed [Mr Saxon] prior to this that I would be seeking clarity on the consent according to the court orders.
(As per the original)
Although the first session Y attended was on 14 January 2023, the mother obtained a mental health plan for Y on 23 December 2022.
Despite X making these most concerning threats and these threats ramping up, the father did not, as was recommended, move quickly to obtain a psychiatrist for X. Even by 17 March 2023, Mr C is still having to provide the father with options for X to see a psychiatrist. It appears that X may be seen by a psychiatrist by 6 April 2023.[2]
[2] Exhibit F1.
In early 2023, the father was advised by Mr M to take X to hospital because X was expressing suicidal ideation and the father took him to D Hospital. He was discharged the same day, to be referred up for outpatients. It is reported in the notes of D Hospital:
child has been sad and angry for not seeing bro for 2/12 as mother withheld his brother … states planning to kill mum & selfharm
…
[X] was living with mum and brother
- but late last year ran away after argument with mum about screen time and school
…
- [X] reports that if he was made to go back to mum, he would kill her and himself
(As per the original)
These notes from D Hospital are most enlightening in regards to the father’s attitude to the mother and his views generally about the seriousness of X’s mental health:
- SW [social worker] advised that consent does not need to be obtained from children under 14 to make contact with parents. SW advised SW will contact her just to confirm the arrangements. [Mr Saxon] not happy with SW contacting [Ms Saxon], asking why this is necessary, SW explained against that FLCO [family law court order] in place ordering that [Ms Saxon] has custody, [Ms Saxon] has been contacting hospital staff asking for updates.
- SW asked [Mr Saxon] why he does not want SW to call [Ms Saxon]. [Mr Saxon] telling SW that [Ms Saxon] is “mad” and that all SW will get is “emotional rubbish.” [Mr Saxon] was upset about this and told SW that he will not allow [X] to go home to [Ms Saxon], “he hates her.”
- SW asked why [X] “hates” his mother. [Mr Saxon] told SW that when their relationship ended, [Ms Saxon] refused to allow [Mr Saxon] access to the children and that she told them a lot of lies about [Mr Saxon].
(As per the original)
That is a total fabrication. The mother was acting protectively. It is important to note that nothing in the above extract was said by X, but only by the father.
When the father was informed that given the Court orders provide that X live with the mother, the mother needed to know what was happening, the father is reported in the notes to have had the following reaction:
[Mr Saxon] not happy with this, he told SW, “she’ll lie, god knows what shit will come out of her mouth ... Good luck, that’s all I can say.” [Mr Saxon] then got up and walked out of the room.
(As per the original)
This is the attitude of the father to the mother in early 2023, and it is difficult to accept that this is not the same attitude expressed to X at the father’s home concerning the mother.
A further concern with this attitude is that the father is either uncaring or cannot see the importance of exploring all avenues to assist X’s mental health functioning. Instead, the father is focused upon what he says are the wrongs perpetrated upon him by the mother. The father is also at pains to tell the Court in his affidavit filed on 27 March 2023 all the “lies” allegedly told by the mother, with one heading reading as follows:
20.Mothers Lies, Manipulation and the Disastrous Consequences for The Children
(As per the original)
It is correct that until the ICL pressed the father, he had done little about having X attend a psychologist. The following is contained in the father’s affidavit filed on 26 February 2023:
40.On 23rd December 2022, a psychologist (who we will not name to avoid a potential interruption from the Mother) from [B Counselling], confirmed an appointment for [X].
a.He states that [X] does not require consent from both parents as “[X] is of age to not require consent”.
b.This provides me with an APS document that supports his position.
c.This is a huge relief to me, as I had spent considerable time and energy securing [Ms P], only for the Mother to cancel her for no valid reason.
…
(As per the original)
This evidence is inconsistent with the father’s conversation with Y’s psychologist, Mr N.[3] The father insisted that Mr N required his consent for Y to have sessions with him. It appears there is one rule for the father and another rule for others. The father continues to say:
40. …
d.[X] is excited to have a new therapist booked but becomes extremely distressed in knowing that his mother might try and cancel this one too.
(As per the original)
Why would X know the mother had cancelled an appointment with a therapist, if she had done so, unless the father told him? There are no boundaries with the father and X concerning the mother and this litigation.
[3] See above [78].
The father also adds this complaint of the mother in his affidavit filed on 26 February 2023:
41.On 24th December 2022, I encouraged [X] to go and see his bother for christmas, as I believe it unlikely that the Mother will allow contact over christmas.
(As per the original)
There are messages annexed to the mother’s affidavit filed on 27 February 2023, allegedly between her and X in early 2023:
THE MOTHER: Hi from [Q Town] honey, how are you? Just checking in to say hi and let you know that we love you and hope to see you soon. Please send me a message now and then to let me know you are okay. Love you, Mum PS Dad has a psychologist appointment booked for you on Sat at 1pm
[X]: I’m fine mum I’m safe and I’m happy. I don’t want to see the physiologist you booked me as I don’t feel safe
THE MOTHER: Hey honey, that is an odd thing to say. Why do you not feel safe going to this psychologist? Do you know him?
[X]: Because you booked it
(As per the original)
And then the mother writes back, under the impression it is the father who has been replying:
THE MOTHER: [Mr Saxon] it’s completely unacceptable that you have taken over [X’s] phone and are messaging pretending to be him. You are blocking him from speaking with me, his mother, which is unacceptable.
(As per the original)
The father’s complaint made about the mother not bringing Y to see him are extraordinary if this is the behaviour the father has engaged in, and where X has not spent time with the mother.
THE LAW
The mother’s Application in a Proceeding is made under Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”).
The paramount consideration of a Court exercising jurisdiction under Part VII of the Act is that any order must be made in the best interests of the children.[4]
[4] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CA.
In determining what is in the best interests of X and Y, I must consider the matters set out in sub-sections 60CC(2) and (3),[5] which relevantly for me in this truncated hearing are:
[5] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC(1).
60CC How a court determines what is in a child’s best interests
…
Primary considerations
(2) The primary considerations are:
(a)the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents; and
(b)the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
(2A)In applying the considerations set out in subsection (2), the court is to give greater weight to the consideration set out in paragraph (2)(b).
Additional considerations
(3) Additional considerations are:
(a)any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child’s maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views;
(b) the nature of the relationship of the child with:
(i) each of the child’s parents; and
(ii)other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
(c)the extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity:
(i)to participate in making decisions about major long term issues in relation to the child; and
(ii) to spend time with the child; and
(iii) to communicate with the child;
…
(d)the likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:
(i) either of his or her parents; or
(ii)any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living;
…
(f) the capacity of:
(i) each of the child’s parents; and
(ii)any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs;
(g)the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child’s parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant;
…
(i)the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents;
(j)any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family;
(k)if a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child …
(l)whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child;
(m) any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant.
In Goode & Goode,[6] the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia (as it was then known) set out a pathway for how interim proceedings are to be conducted and that pathway relevantly for me in this truncated hearing is:
82. In an interim case that would involve the following:
(a) identifying the competing proposals of the parties;
(b) identifying the issues in dispute in the interim hearing;
(c) identifying any agreed or uncontested relevant facts;
(d) considering the matters in s 60CC that are relevant …[7]
[6] (2006) FLC 93-286 (Bryant CJ, Finn and Boland JJ).
[7] (2006) FLC 93-286 at [82].
In M v M,[8] the High Court of Australia said the following with respect to “unacceptable risk”:
In resolving the wider issue the court must determine whether on the evidence there is a risk of sexual abuse occurring if custody or access be granted and assess the magnitude of that risk. After all, in deciding what is in the best interests of a child, the Family Court is frequently called upon to assess and evaluate the likelihood or possibility of events or occurrences which, if they come about, will have a detrimental impact on the child’s welfare. The existence and magnitude of the risk of sexual abuse, as with other risks of harm to the welfare of a child, is a fundamental matter to be taken into account in deciding issues of custody and access. …
… [T]he test is best expressed by saying that a court will not grant custody or access to a parent if that custody or access would expose the child to an unacceptable risk of sexual abuse.[9]
(In-text citations omitted)
[8] (1988) 166 CLR 69 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ) (“M v M”).
[9](1988) 166 CLR 69 at 77–78.
The test of “unacceptable risk” goes beyond risk of sexual abuse, to physical or emotional harm, for other reasons.[10]
[10] Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-092 at [56] (Alstergren CJ, McClelland DCJ, Aldridge, Austin and Tree JJ), citing A v A (1998) FLC 92-800 at [3.14]–[3.15], [3.24] (Fogarty, Kay and Brown JJ).
In Isles & Nelissen, the Full Bench of the Full Court of Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia provided clarity with respect to the standard of proof to establish whether there is an “unacceptable risk” to a child. The Full Bench said the following:
84In this instance, the primary judge inferred the existence of an unacceptable risk of harm to the children from a combination of facts and circumstances, including: the elder child’s plausible but unproven allegations of sexual abuse by the father; the evidence of the father’s sexual interest in other adolescents; and evidence of the father’s interest in child exploitation material.
85The assessment of risk is an evidence-based conclusion and is not discretionary. The statement to the contrary by the Full Court in Bant & Clayton … is rejected as being incorrect. Sometimes it can be difficult to discern the difference between the exercise of discretion and an evaluative judgment, though a discretionary decision is one in which no single factor or combination of considerations will necessarily dictate the result. The finding about whether an unacceptable risk exists, based on known facts and circumstances, is either open on the evidence or it is not. It is only the overall judgment, expressed in the form of orders made in the children’s best interests, which entails an exercise of discretion. That discretionary judgment is influenced by the various material considerations enumerated within s 60CC of the Act, of which the evidence-based finding made about the existence of any unacceptable risk of harm is but one.[11]
(In-text citations omitted)
[11] Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-092 at [84]–[85].
The Full Bench goes on to cite, with authority, the dissent of Austin J in Fitzwater v Fitzwater,[12] which his Honour said the following:
138The assessment of risk is a predictive exercise and while it is, naturally enough, liable to be influenced by factual findings about past events, the contemplation of risk entails the foresight of possible harm. It is an oddity to expect that the mere possibility of future harm can or should be proven as a probability, as has been implied before. Risks of harm must be heeded even if they are improbable eventualities.
139Speaking of the risk of some future occurrence is just another way of expressing the chance of it happening. The concept of chance lies along a continuum, encompassing all outcomes which lie in the range between highly probable and remotely possible, assuming the polar extremes of certainty are ignored. In the current context, the higher the chance of the children’s sexual abuse, the greater the risk of their physical or psychological harm. At some point on the continuum the risk of such harm becomes so potent it cannot be tolerated: it is unacceptable.[13]
(In-text citations omitted)
[12] [2019] FamCAFC 125 (Strickland and Aldridge JJ; Austin J dissenting).
[13] Fitzwater v Fitzwater [2019] FamCAFC 251 at [138]–[139] (Austin J).
Having determined that the evidence tends to show that the father has personally done little to assist X to resume his relationship with the mother, there is still an overarching and looming question for me: can X’s threats to kill the mother and himself, if forced to return to the mother’s care, expressed by X to the DCJ, at D Hospital, to Mr M, to Mr C, and to the father, which I accept have been expressed, be disregarded? If they cannot be, then there is a clear unacceptable risk of X returning to the mother’s care.
Even if I was able to find that this sad situation has been engineered by the father entirely, it does not assist me in disregarding very serious threats of harm to the mother and X himself that have been consistently expressed since November 2022, particularly given he is 13 years old.
It is an imperative that X has the therapeutic assistance he needs, which he is likely to now receive, given the Court is involved and the ICL is on board. This therapeutic assistance is not only crucial for X’s mental health, but also to repair the relationship between him and the mother, and this will occur at the father’s home, of that I am confident.
I am not confident that the father will be able to support X in coming to the realisation that the mother presents no risk of harm to him. However, I have given the parties a further interim hearing allocated in six months’ time. This will allow those providing the therapeutic intervention to X to be in a position to put necessary evidence to the Court on this issue to enable me to make the best order for X’s ongoing care and living arrangements. It is simply the father’s obligation to ensure X knows that, from his point of view, the mother presents no risk to him and that she has always acted protectively towards him and Y, for they are the facts in this matter.
Consistent with the ICL’s submission, the only way forward is for therapeutic intervention between X and the mother to occur so that the damage suffered by X whilst in the father’s care can be in some way, if not be undone, at least ameliorated. This intervention can only occur if X continues in the short-term, at least, to live with the father.
Even if I was inclined to the view that what X is saying is nothing but a front, without a proper assessment of this boy from a skilled psychologist or psychiatrist and their opinion on this fraught issue being received into evidence, I cannot take the risk that he would not carry out these threats.
There is a significant risk of harm to X remaining in the father’s care, being his emotional and psychological health and deteriorating relationship with Y, but that risk is less acute than the risk for X returning to the mother’s care of killing himself and the mother, with Y being collateral damage.
In weighing up the potential risk of harm, that being a primary consideration,[14] I have formed the view, consistent with the ICL’s position, that the least-worst risk of harm to X is in remaining with the father, given he has now engaged in therapeutic intervention. There will be family therapy, which the father says he is positive about occurring, and hopefully, this may begin to repair the significant rift which has occurred between X and the mother and is forming in relation to Y and the father.
[14] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC(2)(b).
The father’s application that Y spend unsupervised time with him or live with him is not an order in Y’s best interest and presents a risk of harm to him for the following reasons:
(1)Y says he does not trust the father and finds the father odd on the phone with him;
(2)There is a risk that the father will involve Y in what he sees as the wrongs done to him, in X’s mental health issues, and Y’s relationship with the mother may be severed; and
(3)Y may suffer emotional harm in being conflicted with what the father and X are telling him about the mother, with what he knows of the mother being his primary carer and his closest emotional attachment.
It is important that Y spends time with X and that he sees the father, but this time must be supervised, for I do not want Y to be exposed to X’s current view of the mother and the father’s clear view of the mother. This would be psychologically and emotionally harmful to Y, therefore time must be supervised, as put forward by the ICL and agreed to by the mother.
X should be made aware that the mother’s actions were protective and appropriate, and that the father presented an unacceptable risk of harm to him and Y for many years. Unfortunately, the former risk of harm from the father to the children has now morphed from possible abuse or exposure to abuse into psychological and emotional abuse at a significant level by involving the children in “adult concepts” between he and the mother, an incapacity to assist the children to understand the complexities of adult relationships and behaviours, and the necessity for parents to protect their children from possible risks of harm.
This inability of the father to understand the needs of X and place X’s needs at the forefront, and his conduct and actions, have been a significant reason why X and the mother’s relationship has deteriorated to such a low level.
The case law is clear. The test, as provided in M v M, is whether there is an unacceptable risk of harm to a child from spending time with or living with a parent. The father spending no time with Y is an order I would consider, however, that too comes with some risks. Supervised time between Y and the father will protect Y from the risks that are evident in the father’s manipulative behaviour, due to his intense dislike of the mother and his view that she has perpetrated a harm upon him and ameliorate those risk and provide the boys some time together.
Despite clear risks to X living with the father, being possibly a complete severing of relationship with the mother, continuing deteriorating mental health together with difficulty attending school, X must remain living with the father for his own protection and that of the mother, and to avoid Y becoming collateral damage. There is a clear, unequivocal, and unacceptable risk of harm to X that if he were to recommence living with the mother, that he would kill the mother and himself and I cannot discount the possibility he will act on these threats.
Further, X’s expressed views, at this time, are to live with the father. However, the weight I attach to these views cannot be assessed by me at this time.
The best opportunity that X has to receive the therapeutic assistance is if he lives with the father at this time and that has been a significant factor in this decision.
I find the mother has the greatest insight into the needs of the children, which is clear from her material, which is thoughtful and careful, and clearly places the children’s needs at the forefront.
The father has a limited capacity to put the needs of the children before his own, as is demonstrated by him involving X in issues between he and the mother, an inability to assist X to realise there is no reason why he should be fearful of the mother, and to understand that boundary setting by a parent is appropriate and in a child’s best interests.
I am concerned about the children having knowledge of various court proceedings, and I will make an order restraining the parties from discussing any court proceedings or showing any documents filed to the children.[15] Such an order will assist the children repairing the relationship with the parents.
[15] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 68B.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, I make the orders as set out in the forefront of these Reasons for Judgment.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and fifteen (115) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Henderson. Associate:
Dated: 12 April 2023
0
3
0