Sperry and Ennos

[2018] FCCA 2109

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SPERRY & ENNOS [2018] FCCA 2109

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Interim parenting – where serious allegations of coercive and controlling family violence – whether Father should spend time with Child at a supervised contact centre pending receipt of an Expert’s Report, or no time at all – no contact or communication ordered.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA

Cases cited:

Eaby & Speelman (2015) FLC 93-654

Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346

MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4

Saleh & Saleh [2016] FamCAFC 100

SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13

Applicant: MR SPERRY

Respondent: MS ENNOS

File Number: WOC 447 of 2017

Judgment of: Judge Altobelli

Hearing date: 10 July 2018

Date of Last Submission: 10 July 2018

Delivered at: Wollongong

Delivered on: 7 August 2018

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Melea Mullard Lawyers

Solicitors for the Respondent: Legal Aid NSW

Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Lukes Law

ORDERS

1. Pending further order, the Child [X], born 2013 live with the Mother.

2. The Child have no contact or communication with the Father, pending the release of any Expert Report in these proceedings.

3. On a without admissions basis, the Father as soon as possible enrol in a counselling program for Perpetrators of Domestic Violence and thereafter engage in and complete any course of counselling or program as recommended by the service and shall advise the Independent Children's Lawyer of the contact details of such services and his compliance with this Order.

4. Pending further order and on a without admissions basis, the Father is restrained from:

   (a)Contacting or communicating with the Mother, Ms Ennos by any means whatsoever, including through third parties, except through his Solicitor.

   (b)Approaching the Mother, Ms Ennos or being within 100 metres of her, her place of residence or place of work, except for the purposes of Court, including at Court ordered interviews.

   (c)Taking into his care the child, [X], except as ordered by the Court.

   (d)Attending at or being present at any school attended by the child, [X] from time to time.

5. Within 28 days the Mother enrol the child into a Pre-School of her choice, for the child to commence in Term 3 2018, if possible.

6. Within 28 days the Mother use her best endeavours to engage with a Family Support Service in her local area and engage in counselling for domestic violence and a healthy relationships program, and advise the Independent Children's Lawyer of the contact details for these services and her compliance with this Order.

7. Pending further order, the Father undertake (by provision of urine screen in accordance with the Australian/NZ standard 4308:2008 or any subsequent approved standard) urinalysis for drug screening within 48 hours of receipt of a request to do so from the Independent Children’s Lawyer with such request to be communicated by email, or facsimile transmission to the Solicitor for the party or the party directly and provide copies of the results of the tests to the other party and the Independent Children’s Lawyer within 48 hours of receipt of same.  For the purposes of this Order if the father becomes unrepresented he shall within 24 hours of same provide to the Independent Children’s Lawyer details of his mobile phone number and email address.

8. That liberty be granted for the parties to file an Order appointing an Expert in Chambers.

9. That if the parties cannot agree on a proposed Expert, then the matter be re-listed at the request of the Independent Children's Lawyer and upon her filing an Application for the appointment of an Expert.

10. The proceedings are transferred to the Federal Circuit Court, Parramatta Registry, to be listed for directions on a date and time to be fixed.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT WOLLONGONG

WOC 447 of 2017

MR SPERRY

Applicant

And

MS ENNOS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This case is about [X], born 2013 and 5 years old at the time these Reasons for Judgment are published.  This Judgment explains why the Court has ordered that her Father should have no contact or communication with her, pending receipt of an Expert Report. 

Background

1. The Mother is 49 years old and the Father is 46 years old.  They commenced a relationship in 1990, separated in 1991 or 1992, reconciled in 1996 or 1997, and appeared to have finally separated late in 2013.  The parents have two older children, Mr C, 26, and Ms S, 20.  On any account of the parents’ relationship, it was a turbulent one. 

2. It is common ground that [X] has not seen her father since 4 October 2016.  He commenced the present proceedings on 26 April 2017, but the present interim hearing was not held until 10 July 2018.  He contends that there were difficulties effecting service on the Mother, although it is not in contention that the adult children knew where the Mother was and that the Father was in contact with the adult children. 

3. In any event, the delay in the Father bringing the present application, and then diligently pursuing it, is not an issue that obstructs the ultimate determination of the issue of whether he should be spending time with his daughter.

4. Each parent makes serious allegations against the other.  The Father alleges that the Mother has mental health issues which has affected her capacity to care for the child.  The Mother contends that the Father has perpetrated serious and sustained coercive and controlling violence which includes psychological and financial abuse, controlling behaviour and physical abuse. 

The Competing Proposals

1. Up until the interim hearing itself, the Father’s proposal was set out in his outline of case document filed 5 July 2018.  His proposal was that the Mother, who had relocated from the Region 1 area of New South Wales to Western Sydney, return [X] to the Region 1 area, failing which a recovery order would issue.  Provided the Mother returned to live in the Region 1, [X] would continue to live with her, but spend time with the Father initially for six hours on each alternate Saturday and each alternate Wednesday, but after three months, each alternate weekend from 10:00am on Saturday until 4:00pm on Sunday, and each alternate Wednesday from 10:00am until 4:00pm.  The Father also proposed that in the event that the Mother did not return to live in the Region 1 area, that [X] would live with him, and spend time with the Mother whenever she travelled to the Region 1 region including each alternate weekend.

2. Notwithstanding the proposal outlined above, shortly after the matter came on for hearing on 10 July 2018, and after the Court had enquired of Ms Stevens, representing the Father, whether the Father maintained his proposal given the evidence that was referred to in the tender bundle prepared by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, Ms Stevens wisely sought further instructions.  Thus, by the time submissions commenced, the Father’s proposal, on a without admissions basis, was that he would spend time with [X] at a supervised contact centre.

3. The Mother’s proposal was that there be no contact or communication between [X] and her father, at least pending receipt of an Expert Report.  She also proposed that this matter be transferred to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at Parramatta, the venue closest to the home of both [X] and herself.

4. The Independent Children’s Lawyer’s proposal was presented on a number of alternate bases.  Mrs Luke, a highly experienced Independent Children’s Lawyer, proposed as a first alternative that there be no contact or communication between [X] and her Father, pending receipt of an Expert Report.  If the Court, however, did not accept her primary submission, then she would support an order for supervised contact, at a supervised contact centre. 

The Evidence before the Court

1. In the Father’s case, he relied on:

   a)Initiating Application, filed 26 April 2017;

   b)Notice of Risk, filed 26 April 2017;

   c)Affidavit of Mr Sperry, sworn 12 April 2017 and filed 26 April 2017; and

   d)Case Outline, filed 5 July 2018.

2. The evidence in the Mother’s case consisted of:

   a)Response, filed 15 June 2018;

   b)Notice of Risk, filed 15 June 2018;

   c)Affidavit of Ms Ennos, sworn 14 June 2018 and filed 15 June 2018;

   d)Case Outline, filed 5 July 2018.

3. The only other evidence consisted of the tender bundle prepared by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, which became exhibit ICL1.  The bundle consisted of a 10 page summary of the subpoenaed documents, followed by a substantial bundle of the relevant documents summarised.  The Court treats the 10 page summary as an aide-memoire.  There was no objection to the tender of the bundle.  It was not contended that the summary did not accurately represent the documents produced on the subpoena.  Indeed, the Court’s own examination of the tender bundle and summary confirms the reliability of the summary.  The summary is reproduced as the first schedule to these reasons.  The Court expresses its appreciation to the Independent Children’s Lawyer for preparing such a comprehensive and useful summary of the relevant evidence. 

Chronology

1. The Independent Children’s Lawyer also prepared a comprehensive chronology, which was contained within her case outline document.  Whilst there is some overlap with the tender bundle, the chronology does serve a different purpose and was extremely useful to the Court, particularly in the way that it draws together the assertions made by both parents, cross-referenced to independent sources, many of which (as it turns out) are within the tender bundle.  The chronology is reproduced in the second schedule to these reasons.

2. The chronology will be briefly summarised.  The Mother’s assertions of the Father’s control commenced from 1991, the year after they commenced their relationship.  The first assertion of a threat of violence occurs in June 1991 when the Father pulled a pen knife out of his pocket and allegedly said:  “I don’t want you to ever go out without my permission again.  No more makeup.  I don’t care if you are pregnant, I don’t want you wearing makeup.  If you do, I am going to come around to your house and whoever opens the door I’m just going to start stabbing.”

3. Like most of the assertions made by the Mother, the Father denies the same.  There was a physical separation, however, which the Father admits.

4. Their first child, Mr C, was born in 1991, and they separated for a number of years.  The Mother commenced another relationship, which bore a child, Ms C, now 24 years old.  That relationship ended in 1995.

5. The parents must have resumed some form of communication after 1995 because the Mother asserts that even before they reconciled in 1996, AVO proceedings were taken out at Town B Local Court based on threats made by the Father to the Mother.  The proceedings were ultimately not pursued by the Mother because, according to her, the Father threatened to kill her nieces and nephews, and her mother.  The police records are incomplete, perhaps unsurprisingly given the length of time that has elapsed since the alleged events.  Nonetheless, the documents that were included in the tender bundle tend, in general terms, to corroborate the Mother’s assertions of the Father’s abuse and threats, from 1995 onwards.  The Mother ultimately did not pursue many of the opportunities that she had.  The Father denies these incidents, and indeed alleges that many of them are fabricated.  When the totality of the evidence is considered, however, a clear pattern emerges, and the Mother’s ultimate contention that she was fearful of the consequences to her and the children by pursuing protection by way of an AVO or separation, becomes a more than reasonable hypothesis.

6. After the parties reconciled in 1996 or 1997, there is a clear record of the abuse and conflict continuing.  Ms S was born in 1997.  The Father makes allegations about the Mother’s parenting capacity arising out of her decision to allow her daughter Ms C to live with her father.  The Mother’s perspective was that she felt it unsafe for Ms C to live in what was a violent home environment.

7. It seems as if there were further separations, and reconciliations between the parties and, probably in 1999, they once again reconciled.  The police appear to have become involved in disputes in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004.  There is a recurrent theme in these records of the Mother being reluctant to involve the police, and then to pursue matters through the police, for fear of the consequences.  In 2011, there is a record of a consultation with the Mother’s doctor in which she confided to domestic violence ongoing for more than 20 years.  The note creates the impression that she was so afraid of the Father that she did not wish to discuss it, even with her own doctor.

8. The Mother’s involvement with support services commences from 2011, and the records from 2013 onwards are in considerable detail, and record the extensive support that was given to the Mother to leave the relationship. 

The Applicable Law

1. The applicable law is found in Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In determining parenting matters under Part VII of the Act the Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration: s.60CA.

2. The objects and principles of Part VII are set out at s.60B:

   60B  Objects of Part and principles underlying it

   (1)     The objects of this Part are to ensure that the best interests of children are met by:

   (a)     ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child; and

   (b)     protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and

   (c) ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and

   (d)     ensuring that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.

   (2)     The principles underlying these objects are that (except when it is or would be contrary to a child’s best interests):

   (a)     children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together; and

   (b)     children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with, and communicate on a regular basis with, both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development (such as grandparents and other relatives); and

   (c) parents jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children; and

   (d)     parents should agree about the future parenting of their children; and

   (e)     children have a right to enjoy their culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture).

   (3)     For the purposes of subparagraph (2)(e), an Aboriginal child’s or Torres Strait Islander child’s right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture includes the right:

   (a)     to maintain a connection with that culture; and

   (b)     to have the support, opportunity and encouragement necessary:

   (i) to explore the full extent of that culture, consistent with the child’s age and developmental level and the child’s views; and

   (ii)     to develop a positive appreciation of that culture.

3. At the very core of Part VII of the Act is the creation of a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in s.61DA. Section 61DA provides:

   61DA  Presumption of equal shared parental responsibility when making parenting orders

   (1)     When making a parenting order in relation to a child, the court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.

   (2)     The presumption does not apply if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent of the child (or a person who lives with a parent of the child) has engaged in:

   (a)     abuse of the child or another child who, at the time, was a member of the parent’s family (or that other person’s family); or

   (b)     family violence.

   (3)     When the court is making an interim order, the presumption applies unless the court considers that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances for the presumption to be applied when making that order.

   (4)     The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that satisfies the court that it would not be in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.

4. If the presumption applies, the Court is required to consider certain things:

   65DAA Court to consider child spending equal time or substantial and significant time with each parent in certain circumstances

   Equal time

   (1)     If a parenting order provides (or is to provide) that a child’s parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, the court must:

   (a)     consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child; and

   (b)     consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents is reasonably practicable; and

   (c) if it is, consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order) for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents.

   Substantial and significant time

   (2)     If:

   (a)     a parenting order provides (or is to provide) that a child’s parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child; and

   (b)     the court does not make an order (or include a provision in the order) for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents; and

   the court must:

   (c) consider whether the child spending substantial and significant time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child; and

   (d)     consider whether the child spending substantial and significant time with each of the parents is reasonably practicable; and

   (e)     if it is, consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order) for the child to spend substantial and significant time with each of the parents.

   (3) will be taken to spend substantial and significant time with a parent only if:

   (a)     the time the child spends with the parent includes both:

   (i) days that fall on weekends and holidays; and

   (ii)     days that do not fall on weekends or holidays; and

   (b)     the time the child spends with the parent allows the parent to be involved in:

   (i) the child’s daily routine; and

   (ii)     occasions and events that are of particular significance to the child; and

   (c) the time the child spends with the parent allows the child to be involved in occasions and events that are of special significance to the parent.

   (4)     Subsection (3) does not limit the other matters to which a court can have regard in determining whether the time a child spends with a parent would be substantial and significant.

   Reasonable practicality

   (5)     In determining for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) whether it is reasonably practicable for a child to spend equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the child’s parents, the court must have regard to:

   (a)     how far apart the parents live from each other; and

   (b)     the parents’ current and future capacity to implement an arrangement for the child spending equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the parents; and

   (c) the parents’ current and future capacity to communicate with each other and resolve difficulties that might arise in implementing an arrangement of that kind; and

   (d)     the impact that an arrangement of that kind would have on the child; and

   (e)     such other matters as the court considers relevant.

1. Because s.65DAA refers to the best interests of the child the Court must then go back to consider s.60CC which specifies how the Court must determine what is in a child’s best interests.

   Determining child's best interests

   (1)  Subject to subsection (5), in determining what is in the child's best interests, the court must consider the matters set out in subsections (2) and (3).

   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.

   Note:         Making these considerations the primary ones is consistent with the objects of this Part set out in paragraphs 60B(1)(a) and (b).

   (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;

   (ca)  the extent to which each of the child's parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent's obligations to maintain 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;

   (e)  the practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child's right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis;

   (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;

   (h)  if the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child:

   (i)  the child's right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture); and

   (ii)  the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right;

   (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 or a member of the child's family--any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order, taking into account the following:

   (i)  the nature of the order;

   (ii)  the circumstances in which the order was made;

   (iii)  any evidence admitted in proceedings for the order;

   (iv)  any findings made by the court in, or in proceedings for, the order;

   (v)  any other relevant matter;

   (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.

The Case Law

1. In MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4, the High Court referred to s.65DAA(1) and said

   9.  Each of sub-ss (1)(b) and (2)(d) of s 65DAA require the Court to consider whether it is reasonably practicable for the child to spend equal time or substantial and significant time with each of the parents.  It is clearly intended that the Court determine that question.  Sub-section (5) provides in that respect that the Court "must have regard" to certain matters, such as how far apart the parents live from each other and their capacity to implement the arrangement in question, and "such other matters as the court considers relevant", "[i]n determining for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) whether it is reasonably practicable for a child to spend equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the child's parents".

2. A little later in the judgment the High Court said:

   13.    Section 65DAA(1) is expressed in imperative terms.  It obliges the Court to consider both the question whether it is in the best interests of the child to spend equal time with each of the parents (par (a)) and the question whether it is reasonably practicable that the child spend equal time with each of them (par (b)).  It is only where both questions are answered in the affirmative that consideration may be given, under par (c), to the making of an order.

3. At [15] the High Court emphasised the need for a practical approach:

   15.    Section 65DAA(1) is concerned with the reality of the situation of the parents and the child, not whether it is desirable that there be equal time spent by the child with each parent. The presumption in s 61DA(1) is not determinative of the questions arising under s 65DAA(1). Section 65DAA(1)(b) requires a practical assessment of whether equal time parenting is feasible.

4. The Full Court’s decision in Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346 provides some guidance about the interpretation of Part VII and the way to proceed in interim hearings.

   68. In our view some of the comments of the Full Court in paragraph 18 are still apposite. For example, the procedure for making interim parenting orders will continue to be an abridged process where the scope of the enquiry is “significantly curtailed”. Where the Court cannot make findings of fact it should not be drawn into issues of fact or matters relating to the merits of the substantive case where findings are not possible. The Court also looks to the less contentious matters, such as the agreed facts and issues not in dispute and would have regard to the care arrangements prior to separation, the current circumstances of the parties and their children, and the parties’ respective proposals for the future.

   …

   72. In our view, it can be fairly said there is a legislative intent evinced in favour of substantial involvement of both parents in their children’s lives, both as to parental responsibility and as to time spent with children, subject to the need to protect children from harm, from abuse and family violence and provided it is in their best interests and reasonably practicable. This means where there is a status quo or well settled environment, instead of simply preserving it, unless there are protective or other significant best interests concerns for the child, the Court must follow the structure of the Act and consider accepting, where applicable, equal or significant involvement by both parents in the care arrangements for the child.

   …

   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 and, if possible, making findings about them (in interim proceedings there may be little uncontested evidence to enable more than a limited consideration of these matters to take place);

   (e) deciding whether the presumption in s 61DA that equal shared parental responsibility is in the best interests of the child applies or does not apply because there are reasonable grounds to believe there has been abuse of the child or family violence or, in an interim matter, the Court does not consider it appropriate to apply the presumption;

   (f) if the presumption does apply, deciding whether it is rebutted because application of it would not be in the child’s best interests;

   (g) if the presumption applies and is not rebutted, considering making an order that the child spend equal time with the parents unless it is contrary to the child’s best interests as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in s 60CC, or impracticable;

   (h) if equal time is found not to be in the child’s best interests, considering making an order that the child spend substantial and significant time as defined in s 65DAA(3) with the parents, unless contrary to the child’s best interests as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in s 60CC, or impracticable;

   (i) if neither equal time nor substantial and significant time is considered to be in the best interests of the child, then making such orders in the discretion of the Court that are in the best interests of the child, as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in s 60CC;

   (j) if the presumption is not applied or is rebutted, then making such order as is in the best interests of the child, as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in s 60CC; and

   (k) even then the Court may need to consider equal time or substantial and significant time, especially if one of the parties has sought it or, even if neither has sought it, if the Court considers after affording procedural fairness to the parties it to be in the best interests of the child.

5. In the Full Court’s recent decision in Saleh & Saleh [2016] FamCAFC 100, the Court considered how disputed and untested allegations of family violence are treated in interim parenting proceedings. The Court made a number of important points, including:

   a)Section 60CC requires a Court, when considering what parenting order to make, to ensure that whatever order is made, it does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence. This is a requirement that does not really depend on there being findings of family violence, but focuses on risk, which can exist independently of disputed allegations;

   b)Section 61DA is in mandatory terms: “the Court must apply a presumption” that is in the best interests of a child for there to be an order for equal shared parental responsibility. Section 61DA(3) states that the presumption still applies “unless the Court considers that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances” for the presumption to be applied in making an interim order. Section 61DA(3) provides a discretion not to be exercised in a broad exclusionary manner, but only in circumstances where limited evidence may make the application of the presumption, or its rebuttal, difficult. It requires a cautious approach, especially in the context of s.60CG.

   c)Paragraph [68] in Goode, where the Full Court warns against inappropriately being drawn into matters of contentious fact, does not mean that merely because facts are in dispute, the evidence on the topic must be disregarded, and the case determined solely by reference to the agreed facts: Eaby & Speelman (2015) FLC 93-654.

   d)An acknowledgement that at an interim hearing, a Judge will sometimes have little alternative than to weigh the probabilities of competing claims and the likely impact on children in the event that a controversial assertion is acted upon or rejected.  It is not always feasible to simply ignore an assertion because its accuracy has been put in issue: SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13. This applies especially to family violence allegations.

   e)There is no requirement for corroboration or objective support for an allegation of family violence.  Family violence often takes place in private, in circumstances where no corroboration is available.

   f)A reference to the civil standard of proof is entirely inapt in the context of disputed family violence allegations in interim hearings.

   g)It is unwise to simply ignore family violence allegations and find that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applies.

The Cases Outlined

1. The Father’s submissions at the interim hearing need to be understood in context.  As foreshadowed earlier in these Reasons, the Father’s actual proposal made during submissions was that he have supervised contact with his daughter.  This was explained to the Court on the basis that he has not seen her or communicated with her for nearly two years, and it was conceded, therefore, that it might be challenging for [X] to resume contact with her father in those circumstances. 

2. On the Father’s behalf, and no doubt in response to the formidable evidence contained in the tender bundle in relation to family violence, it was conceded that there were significant verbal arguments during the relationship, and there was destruction of property, e.g. holes in walls.  On his behalf, it was submitted that the arguments were reciprocal and that the police were involved in a manipulative fashion.  His solicitor submitted, for example, that there was a significant gap in the police records, suggesting that nothing had occurred for many, many years during the relationship.  She pointed to examples in the police records of the police declining to become involved, or only becoming involved reluctantly, thus suggesting some scepticism on their part. 

3. Thus, the Father’s case as presented during submission was that the real basis for supervised contact was primarily to reintroduce the Father into [X]’s life.  It was submitted that he had a good relationship with her before separation and that the opportunity should be given to [X] to resume this relationship in the safe environment of a supervised contact centre so that the Court could be satisfied about their relationship.

4. The Court observes, of course, the quite dramatic difference between the Father’s case as described in his outline of case document filed 5 July 2018 and the submissions made at the interim hearing on 10 July.  The case outline contains no hint of any understanding by the Father that it might be difficult for [X] to resume a relationship with him after two years.  In relation to violence, the Father denied being physically violent towards the Mother.  Indeed, he alleges that the violence was verbal and that both parties were at fault.

5. The Father’s affidavit of 12 April 2017 is significant in a number of respects.  His criticism of the Mother’s parenting is pervasive.  Whilst he concedes arguments, responsibility is sheeted home to the Mother.  The Father discloses reference to one ADVO only, in 1996, whereas the tender bundle suggests, at the very least, that applications were made many times thereafter.  He alleges that the Mother suffers from mental health issues.

6. The Mother’s case largely adopted the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s case.  Leaving aside, for the time being, the evidence that would lead the court to form an impression about coercive and controlling violence over a sustained period, Ms Hayward, on behalf of the Mother, urged the Court to consider the possible impact on [X] of reinstating a relationship with her father, even at a supervised contact centre, if it were even possible that that relationship would then be terminated by way of a no-contact final order. 

7. Moreover, Ms Hayward was critical of the Father for the extended delay in commencing, and prosecuting, the present proceedings.  There was at least implicit scepticism in the Father’s explanation that whilst he knew where the adult children lived, and was in communication with them, and whilst he knew that they also kept in contact with the Mother, he did not want to involve them in the proceedings, and hence did not seek substituted service as early as he could have. 

8. The strongest argument in the Mother’s case, however, was the seriousness of her allegations of family violence, which were well particularised in her affidavit and corroborated in so many respects by the records contained in the tender bundle.  Whilst it was not suggested that [X], in a supervised contact environment, would be exposed to family violence, the submission was that even supervised time would have an adverse impact on the Mother.  Amongst other things, for example, an order for supervised time might be experienced by the Mother as merely further control by the Father, many years after separation. 

9. The Court would be concerned, it was submitted, that in the face of the evidence creating a strong impression about coercive and controlling family violence, that the Father had manifested such lack of insight about the impact of his behaviour on the Mother and the child, sought to minimise the violence itself, and externalise responsibility for it.  Thus, in the circumstances of this case, even an order for supervised contact would have the potential to re-traumatise both the Mother and [X], especially in a case where it was arguable there would be a no-contact final order.

10. The Independent Children’s Lawyer’s case largely reflected the Mother’s case.  Ms Luke submitted that the evidence in the tender bundle would cause the Court to be quite concerned, and create a strong impression of substance to the Mother’s allegations about coercive and controlling violence.  It was implicit in her case, indeed if not explicit, that this was a case where, at a final hearing, the Court would seriously consider a no-contact order.  Thus, in those circumstances, to order supervised contact after a two year hiatus, whilst recognising at least the possibility that even this contact might not be continued, could not possibly be in the best interests of [X].  Moreover, the Independent Children’s Lawyer was concerned about the impact on the Mother of such an order. 

11. The Independent Children’s Lawyer submitted that expert evidence would be needed.  Indeed, there was no dispute about this.  She submitted that the period between now and the date of the final hearing was an opportunity for the Father to seek assistance, and possibly engage in rehabilitation, thus placing him in a much stronger position at a final hearing.  She was concerned about what appeared to be a significant lack of insight on the Father’s part as to the effect of his behaviour on others, particularly the Mother.

Discussion

1. The benefit to [X] of having a relationship with her father is not necessarily self-evident in this case.  It is, in fact, a matter to be determined after expert evidence, and after all the evidence has been tested.  The fact is that, at the present time, it is unlikely that they have a meaningful relationship.  If, as the Mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer contend, the Father will be found to have been the perpetrator of sustained coercive and controlling violence, then the argument will be made that there is no benefit to [X] in having a relationship with a father who manifests such behaviours and attitudes.  For the present time, however, in the context of an interim hearing, this court believes the Father should be given the benefit of the doubt.  Thus, the Court will proceed on the basis that there is a benefit to [X] of having a meaningful relationship with her father.  There is no doubt that she has a meaningful relationship with her mother.

2. The need to protect [X] from harm is recognised in the proposal that is made by the Father.  Presumably, the harm in respect of which he concedes is the risk of psychological harm that might arise in circumstances where [X] has not spent time with him for a long period.  Thus, he submits, supervised contact mitigates against this risk.  In the Mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer’s case, of course, the need to protect [X] from psychological harm is much more pervasive.  Whilst there was no suggestion that there was a risk of [X] being subjected to family violence, or even exposed to family violence, whilst having supervised time with her father at a supervised contact centre, there was a case based on psychological harm as a result of having been exposed to family violence in the past. 

1. Indeed, this Court accepts that a reasonable inference to be drawn from all the material before the Court is that [X] was, in fact, exposed to family violence.  The psychological implications of this on her today are unknown.  The psychological impact to her of being exposed once again to the person who may well be the perpetrator of that family violence on her mother, is unknown.  The need to protect her, in those circumstances, must surely be self-evident.  The nature of family violence, and its impact on both the victims, their children, and others who have been exposed to the same, is often found to be insidious. 

2. This Court does not assume that there is no risk to [X] of traumatisation, or re-traumatisation, simply because the contact is supervised at a centre.  The matters raised in the Mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer’s case certainly does create a concern in the Court’s mind about the impact on [X] of spending even supervised time with her father.

3. The other component of the risk of harm is the potential impact on [X]’s mother of making an order for supervised contact which could, conceivably, re-traumatise her.  The Court accepts as a general proposition that if the Mother is re-traumatised, this is potentially psychological harm to [X], and arises from exposure of the Mother, and indeed [X], to family violence.

4. In the circumstances, the Court accepts that even supervised time at a supervised contact centre may not be adequately protective of [X]. 

5. It is clear that [X] has a good relationship with her mother, given the fact that she is, without doubt, the primary carer of the child.  It is possible, as the Father contends, that he has had a good relationship with her in the past and may even have spent times caring for her. The hiatus in their relationship means that the Court must proceed cautiously in assessing the Father’s past claims of a relationship with [X].

6. The Court accepts that for many years now, the Mother has excluded the Father from decision-making, spending time, and communicating with [X].  Her case that she fled family violence seems a plausible case based on the inferences that can be drawn from the tender bundle.  Thus, it is premature to criticise the Mother for excluding the Father from [X]’s life.

7. The likely effect of any changes in [X]’s circumstances weighs heavily on the Court’s mind.  She has not had a relationship with her father for two years.  It is possible that at least another year will pass before a final hearing, and the impact of the orders that the Court makes will be to deny her that relationship for that period as well.  Whilst as a general principle this is not in [X]’s best interest, on the facts of this case reintroducing the Father into [X]’s life is equally problematic. 

8. The problem arises because, if the Mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer’s case is established at trial, they are quite right in submitting that a possible outcome, indeed a probable outcome, is a no-contact order.  To have reintroduced the Father into [X]’s life, and to then take him out once again, would be a cruel and unnecessary blow for her.  Indeed, it is possible that the least of the worst alternatives is, in fact, for there to be no contact.  If, at a final hearing, the Court decides that the Father should spend time with [X], then the process of reintroduction can be commenced at that time.

9. The Court acknowledges that there are issues of parental capacity and parental attitudes that need to be considered in a more fulsome manner at a final hearing.  The Court does not discount the possibility that some of the Father’s concerns about the Mother’s parenting capacity in the past have substance.  Of course, further inquiry is needed – the capacity deficits may be attributable to other factors, such as the Father’s coercive and controlling violence.  Matters of parental capacity must always be considered in context, and not in isolation. 

10. The Mother’s attitude in seeking to exclude the Father from [X]’s life must, likewise, be seen in context.  If the Father is found to have perpetrated coercive and controlling family violence, that must reflect on his capacity, and his parental attitudes as well.  For the time being, these considerations do not inform the interim decision, but the Court recognises their potential importance at a final hearing.

11. The Court must, of course, take into account family violence involving [X], or a member of [X]’s family.  As the Court has foreshadowed, it accepts the submissions made on behalf of the Mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer that, at the very least, a strong inference should be drawn from the totality of the evidence before the Court to suggest that the Father was, indeed, the perpetrator of coercive and controlling family violence over a sustained period. 

12. This, of course, underpins the Court’s concerns and discussion of the various considerations referred to above. 

13. When the evidence is considered in its totality, and viewed through the prism of the primary and additional considerations set out in s.60CC of the Act, the Court concludes that, on the facts of this case, it is in [X]’s best interests for her to have no contact or communication with her Father. It was explicit in the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s case, implicit in the Mother’s case, and the Court states expressly that this should be revisited as soon as an Expert’s Report is available to assist the Court in determining some of the complexities of this case that are not apparent from the evidence before it.

Change of Venue

1. The Mother seeks an order that the proceedings be transferred to the Parramatta Registry of this Court.  The Mother and [X] live much closer to that registry than to the Wollongong Registry.  The application is supported by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.  If there was opposition from the Father, it was only expressed lightly.  In the circumstances the matter will, in fact, be transferred to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at Parramatta.

Orders in the Best Interests of [X]

1. At the Interim Hearing it was conceded that the Mother should have the benefit of an Order that [X] live with her.  A number of other Orders were made by consent in relation to the Father enrolling in a counselling program for perpetrators of domestic violence, and the Father being restrained in a number of different ways.  The Court made Orders consistent with the Orders 1, 5 (with modification), 6 (with modification), 7 (with modification), 8 (with modification), 9, 10 and 11 of the Minute of Order proposed by Ms Luke, as the Independent Children’s Lawyer. 

2. Those Orders are confirmed.  In addition there will be an Order that [X] not spend time or communicate with the Father pending the release of any Expert Report in these proceedings.

I certify that the preceding fifty-nine (59) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Altobelli

Date:     7 August 2018

Schedule 1

IN THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT             FILE NUMBER: WOC447/2017
OF AUSTRALIA
AT:  WOLLONGONG

BETWEEN

MR SPERRY

Applicant

AND

MS ENNOS

Respondent

TENDER BUNDLE
FOR INTERIM HEARING 10 JULY 2018

Prepared by Independent Children's Lawyer

Subpoenaed Documents relied on by the Independent Children's Lawyer
Tab	Document	Comment / Description
ICL1	Section 69ZW documents from FACS 28/6/2013	FACS File Note - Contact report for neglect of education regarding Ms S.  Reporter says 15 year old Ms S is not enrolled in any education and is supposed to be home schooled, but this is not happening.  Father used to be tennis coach and she no longer plays tennis, which was the reason for home schooling.  Reports Mother took her to school at Town G at the beginning of the year, but the Father did not take the paperwork in.  Ms S is officially in the Father’s care, but goes between her Father’s and Mother’s care because the Mother is currently residing at paternal grandparents home.
ICL2	Section 69ZW documents from  FACS 31/7/2013	Contact report – reports that the Mother is in hospital about to give birth.  Support Services have been working with her and are concerned in regards to DV and did not want to report until after the baby is born as they are concerned for the Mother’s safety.  Police say that there is long history of emotional and physical DV, reports Mother has been in the Region 1 area for the last 5 months.  Other children born in Sydney.  Mother told reporter she hopes he won’t create problems when the baby is born.  He is not coming in for the labour.
ICL3	Section 69ZW documents from  FACS 31/7/2013	Weekly Allocations Meeting (WAM) Event Review Form indicates that the Mother is being supported to look for alternate accommodation for the Mother and baby away from the Father.  The Mother is unsure of what is happening for Ms S other than to say she is staying with her Father.   Indicates that the Mother decided to go back to live with Paternal Grandparents at Town D in a separate part of the home.  Mother also has a son, who is 19 and does not live with them and an older daughter who resides in Queensland.  Mother advised that DV was mostly and continually emotional and a bit of physically – he threw her against the wall one time – there was also verbal abuse, which was mostly over money and power.  Notes that the Mother has tried to take AVOs out in the past in regard to the Father, but he always tries to talk her out of it.
ICL4	Section 69ZW documents from  FACS 12/8/2013	FACS File Note - Contact record – report in regard to Mother and [X].  Have history of 20 year physical and emotional DV relationship with the Father.  Recent increase in the level of significant violence.  Caller does not know the details.  Mother said “she had to get out because the increase in violence.  Mother did not want to return to the paternal grandparent’s home after giving birth to [X] because there is a history of the Father manipulating services to believe that the Mother is the problem.  If she returns to the paternal grandparents address he will have access to her.”  Services are currently looking for accommodation for her. Caller reports that there is no AVO because Mother is too frightened of what the Father will do.  Mother only gives general information.  She had never given any specific description to any harm towards her or the children.  Mother describes mostly manipulative emotional type of abuse, which has made her meek and mild.
ICL5	Section 69ZW documents from FACS 15/8/2013	Reporter advised that the Mother told her the Father has listening devices, which is how he may be tracing her.  Mother no longer using her mobile phone.  Father arrived at the clinic 10 minutes prior to the Mother’s baby health appointment.  Mother only made appointment 24 hours prior.  Mother said that the Father has listening devices, which is how he may be tracing her.  Clinic told the Father to leave prior to the Mother’s arrival, which he did.
ICL6	Section 69ZW documents from FACS 29/8/2013	FACS File Note - Contact Report – report that an incident occurred.  Mother went to K-Mart in Town C and when she was getting her purse out of the bag the Father snatched [X] out of her arms.  She was shocked and traumatised and he stated that he would not return that child to her and she needed to go with him, which she did.  Mother asked the Father to drive her to the refuge this morning to collect her belongings.  Attempted to discuss safety plan with the Mother and spoke to her about contacting a solicitor in regard to custody issues.  The Mother felt too threatened to do any of those things.  Mother indicated that she had been reluctant to contact the Police in the past, as she feels that they do not believe her.
ICL7	Subp docs – LHD (Town C Hospital) 25/8/2013	[X] presented to Town C Hospital for check-up as “patient exposed to scabies at Women’s shelter recently, nil bites noted.”  On page 2 indicates “fellow residents at refuge had possible scabies or possible bed bugs.  State that all mattresses are in plastic covering, cleaned regularly.  Have not had a problem with bed bugs in the past.  Currently asymptomatic.  Advised wash all linen in hot water not to share linen.  No treatment due to age and symptomatic.  Mother will self-treat.”
ICL8	Subp docs – LHD (Town C Hospital) 7/8/2013	Clinical progress notes for baby [X], notes Mother is to be discharged today.  Unable to get into refuge.  Ms Ennos has relationship with the various welfare agencies, but recognises ultimately safety for self and baby will depend on her.
ICL9	Subp docs – LHD (Town C Hospital) 23/9/2013	Father attends Town C Hospital with chest pains.  (Page 8 of 13), notes:  ETOH – not everyday, but drinks heavily occasionally.
ICL10	Subp docs – LHD (Town C Hospital) for Mother 29/7/2013	Psychosocial Assessment Report – notes recent stresses, relationship worries, partner (Mr Sperry) lives with son and youngest daughter.  Ms Ennos lives with her partner’s parents.  Ms Ennos describes manipulative behaviour from ex-partner and PH (past history) physical DV and probably current emotional abuse.
ICL11	Subp docs – LHD (Town C Hospital) for Mother 13/5/2013	Progress – Clinical notes – Social work - The Mother is now medicated for depression.  Is having regular contact with mental health nurse in Town G surgery.  Follow up with psychiatrist in 3 weeks.  Mother continues to reside with her ex in-laws.  She reported difficulties attending to house hunting / DOH visit due to depressive symptoms.  Discussed possibility of gaining support in doing this and referral to Support Services.
ICL12	Subp docs – LHD (Town C Hospital) for Mother 13/5/2013	Note made for attention for time of delivery.  Mother’s partner is the apparent perpetrator of 20 years of domestic violence.  There is no current AVO, but support services are working with Mother to get her out of the situation.  Father may be present at the birth.  He is the father of the other children.  Services waiting to put in FACS referral once baby is born, but is concerned for Mother’s safety if she does it ante-natally.
ICL13	Subp docs – LHD (Town C Hospital) for Mother 3/8/2013	Town C Hospital Progress Notes - Social work – indicate Mother’s concerns and history of Domestic Violence also indicates concerned for 15 year old daughter, fears that the ex-defacto (Father) will “put the baby to use as his meal ticket, now current youngest is 15 year old has not been to school since Year 4.  Mother feels powerless against defacto manipulation and threat and (illegible) violence.
ICL14	Subp docs – LHD (Town C Hospital) for Mother 7/8/2013	Progress Notes – Social worker – No accommodation available.  Mother to go home to in-laws and await accommodation.
ICL15	Subp docs – LHD (Town C Hospital) for Mother 15/4/2013	Social work notes – Initial Assessment  - Mother currently 7 months pregnant – unplanned pregnancy, is happy to be pregnant.  Separated from partner – 22 years of DV.  Ex-partner still very controlling. Concerns Re: accommodation and not having independent accommodation.  Concerns Re: ex-partner’s behaviour and the impacts on custody and also current moods.  Mother’s current lack of independent accommodation and her ex-partner’s controlling behaviour is impacting on her moods, would benefit from support with housing and counselling. Accommodation currently living with her ex in-laws.  Has been there for 5 months and would like her own independent accommodation.
ICL16	Subp docs –Page 26 of 35. 22/12/2015	File Note of Home visit.  Mother indicated that ex-partner has been violent over many years to the Mother.  He is also classed as his parents’ carer and Mother feels that he is also abusive to them.  Mother thinks her ex has a personality disorder of some kind.  Mother fell into financial difficulty when Centrelink payments were wrongly calculated.  Mother is on DSP, as she has chronic neck and back problems.  Her neurosurgeon attributed the disability to the DV, as she was often slammed against the wall by her ex-partner.
ICL17	Subp docs –Page 32 of 35 18/12/2015	File Note of Telephone call from Mother, wanting advice.  Mother informs that her ex-partner (separated 2 years) turned up at her home saying that he was going to take the washing machine, fridge, freezer and microwave.  He was not on the lease or living at the property.  Mother states that he pushed the 18 year old daughter out of the way and this lead to her banging her head.  Her niece was also present and she states that she was also assaulted by ex-partner or his friend.  She called the Police and they let / facilitated the ex-partner theft of the items saying “just let him take, if you want him out of your life”  Mother said that she told the officer that the items were hers, paid for by her.  He produced a warranty with his name on it.  Police let him take the items.  Mother and her daughter were pleading with the ex-partner not to take the microwave as it was only to warm the milk for the baby.  She said that she has been seeing DVIS at Police.  She said that last time she tried to speak to them regarding the DV the officer on the desk would not let her see anyone from DVIS.  Since this the Mother has given up on calling or speaking to the Police as they are rarely helpful.
ICL18	Subp docs –Medical Centre 12/10/2011	Medical Notes for Mother - Consultation with doctor, Notes indicate Mother “confides to DV ongoing for more than 20 years.  Afraid of husband, does not wish to talk about it much in detail today.  Used to hold her by the neck and smash her head in the wall almost every day.  Less now.  Feeling ? had injury due to that.  Does get a lot of anxiety.  Never had any counselling before.   Advised review with mental health nurse.  Not wishing for husband to find out about it.  Centrelink Medical certificate given.”
ICL19	Subp docs –Medical Centre 19/10/2011	GP Mental Health Assessment Care Plan – presenting issues, generally feeling depressed most of the time, anxiety / panic attacks.  Low self-esteem. Living arrangements – living with ex’s parents. Family – son 20 years from current partner, lives with sister, as didn’t get on with Dad.  Not seen him for a year.  Daughter from 2nd relationship lives with her Dad.  Has not seen her for 10 years.  She is now 17.  Youngest sister lives in Sydney, does not see her much. Abuse issues – DV for 20 years.  Not living together at the moment.  Have a daughter of 14, lives with her Dad, current partner.  The only way she can see younger daughter is to continue to see him.  She lives with his parents.  Not now suffering physical abuse, but emotional abuse.
ICL20	Subp docs –Medical Centre 13/5/2013	Letter from Hospital – Dr P, psychiatrist - indicates that Mother has had long history of mood disturbances over the last 12 years.  This relates to her difficult relationship with her husband, who she has tried to leave many times.      Mother states that her relationship with the Father has been marred by DV and multiply AVOs and Police involvement.  Impression: pregnancy was not planned and has caused her to return to living with her in-laws and being financially dependent on her partner, whom she separated from.  Her partner is controlling and continues to cause ongoing emotional abuse.  Ms Ennos has presented with a history of mood disturbances and possible borderline personality disorder.
ICL21	Subp docs –Medical Centre 29/4/2013	Mental Health Assessment and Care Plan. Social history – living arrangements – staying with in-laws, paying rent, but unable to claim assistance.  Paying towards daughter and son’s accommodation costs. Other Family members:  Daughter (15), Son (21).  Has been living with her sister and up in Queensland, due to fall out with Father.  Ms Ennos has not seen him for the past 2 years.  Partner (has custody of her daughter.)  She is now living with his parents.  Blackmailing her with access to daughter, for sex and other favours.
ICL22	Subp docs – LHD Child and Family Health Support 14/6/2013	Clinical Notes indicate Mother has second session with Service. Brought in by the Father and he waited for the Mother to finish, to then take her back home.  Mother ‘explains how Mr Sperry controls “everything”, including where Ms Ennos lives, money, her friends (if a friend comes to see Ms Ennos, he sits with them for the duration of the visit), Ms S’s schooling situation. Ms Ennos states does not feel able to continue with home schooling. Ms Ennos states that Ms S was already booked once to go to Town G High, but that did not eventuate.’
ICL23	Subp docs – Housing NSW 30/10/2013	Tenancy Facilitation Case Note from DOH – indicates that following birth Mother sought refuge at Women's Refuge however Father located her one afternoon when walking around the block and he took the baby from her and forced her to return home with him. Missing persons report was initiated by Refuge as her sudden disappearance was uncharacteristic and there was a fear Ms Ennos may have self harmed as she was suffering PND. Mother made contact with Refuge several days later and advised them of situation however because she appeared to voluntarily remain in relationship nothing else could be done to assist her. Mother has supports in place to assist her leaving DV.  States ‘Father controls Mother’s finances and any time she wishes to leave the home the baby is required to stay at home with him. A similar level of control has been happening with their daughter, Ms S, who has been home schooled since grade 4.  Baby bonus monies and family payments have been signed over to Father leaving Mother with no money. Intervention by Town C Family Services D&A team has occurred under the guise Mother is attending stop smoking counselling.  This intervention has allowed Mother to reach out for support from HNSW, Centrelink and the Police.  A meeting with Centrelink and Town C DVIS has been arranged for 1/11/2013.
ICL24.1	Section 69ZW documents from  NSW Police pg 8	5/3/1997 Mother and Father had an argument over the telephone.   The Mother was at her mother’s home and the Father was calling from their home.  The Mother was concerned when the Father started yelling at her about cleaning the house.  The Father had been drinking before the argument and consumed 11 cans of Tooheys Gold beer.  The Father punched the living room wall and kicked some empty beer cans around the room, whilst yelling into the phone.  The Mother became concerned for her property and called the Police.  Upon arrival the Police spoke with the Father and the Mother.  The Father appeared to be mildly intoxicated.  The Mother did not wish for the Police to take any further action and made a statement to that effect.  The Mother was advised to seek an AVO in the morning and agreed to do so.  Mother or Father have been living on and off in a defacto relationship for about 2- 3 years.
ICL24.2	Section 69ZW documents from  NSW Police pg 8	24/9/1999 The Mother and Father involved in a verbal argument.  The Mother left the premises and attended her sister’s home.  The Father also attended there to speak with the Mother.  The Mother stated that she had only been involved in an argument and did not want the Police to take action.  She was spoken to in relation to an AVO and declined Police applying for an AVO, as she was moving the following day and would be unable to return for Court.
ICL24.3	Section 69ZW documents from  NSW Police pg 7-8	4/3/2000  COPS EVENTS indicate that at 3.30pm the Mother and Father became involved in a verbal argument.  The argument was over caring for the Mother’s mother.  The Mother left the premises due to fears for her safety.  She contacted Police and they attended at 4:00pm and obtained a statement.  At 8:00pm they returned and spoke to the Mother about the damage to the premises.  The Police entered the house, spoke to the Father in regard to the damage to the kitchen wall.  The Father made full admissions to causing damage out of anger.  The Father was arrested and cautioned and conveyed to the Police truck.  Police then searched the house and found in the main bedroom a box with 4 clear plastic resealable bags containing vegetable matter.  They located another plastic resealable bag containing vegetable matter next to the box.  These were seized.   In the spare room in the house Police located electronic scales and a pair of scissors and a bag containing several clear resealable bags.  The Father admitted ownership of the sachets and the items seized.  He said that the drugs were for personal use only.  He said the scales were for monitoring his consumption of the drug.  An Interim AVO was sought
ICL24.4	Section 69ZW documents from  NSW Police pg 6	6/3/2000 Mother was granted an Interim AVO protecting her at Town B Local Court against the Father.  A condition was that he not reside at the premises where the Mother lived and not approach within 12 hours of consuming intoxicating liquor or destroy or damage her property.
ICL24.5	Section 69ZW documents from  NSW Police pg 6	14/4/2000 COPS Events indicate that at 5.30pm the Father attended the Mother’s home to care for their children with her permission.  The Mother left the house and went to visit a friend with her sister.  At 11:00pm she returned.  An argument ensued over the Mother going out with her sister for the evening.  A short time later the Father left her house.  At 12:00am he returned to her home.  They had a verbal argument and the Mother noticed that she could smell alcohol on his breath.  She allowed him to enter the home.  He then went to sleep in her bed.  The Mother said that she got scared.  She then called the Police.  Upon Police arrival the Father was found sleeping in the Mother’s bed.  The Mother stated that she knew that she had assisted him to breach the AVO and did not wish for any Police action.  She requested that Police remove him from the premises.  Police could smell intoxicating liquor on his breath.  Police took him to Suburb K railway station.  Mother asked the Father to return her house keys, which he did in the presence of the Police.  Mother was satisfied with the Police actions.
ICL24.6	Section 69ZW documents from  NSW Police pg 6	24/6/2000 Police had been trying to obtain a statement from the Mother in relation to the incident from 14 April 2000.   The Police attended the Mother’s home, as they were trying to locate the Father.  She informed Police that he had been living somewhere in Town H.  The Mother invited Police into her residence to search for the Father.  The Father was found sleeping in the Mother’s bed.  The Father was subsequently arrested and conveyed to Suburb K Police Station.  The Mother informed Police that she had revoked the Interim AVO.  The Defendant declined to be interviewed in relation to the matter and he was charged.
ICL24.7	Section 69ZW documents from  NSW Police pg 5	17/5/2001  COPS Event notes at 10.00am the Father attended a location to speak to the Mother.  The Mother did not want to speak to him and she remained in the house.  The Mother’s sister (owner of the house) spoke to the Father and asked him to leave.  The Father would not leave and the Police were called.  The Police asked the Father to leave when they attended and he did without incident.  The Mother was advised of the AVO Application process.  It was noted that a child was present during the incident.
ICL24.8	Section 69ZW documents from  NSW Police pg 4-5	12/2/2003  COPS Event indicate that at 8.00pm the Mother and Father started arguing over money.   The Father was in the sunroom and punched a wall a number of times, using his right fist.  As a result he caused a 20 x 20cm hole in the wall.  At the time he had consumed a bottle of vodka.  He intimidated the victim saying “just go jump in the bay”  The Father went into the bedroom and fell asleep.  The Mother called Police and shortly after the Police arrived a statement was obtained.  The Father was awoken and informed that he was under arrest.  The Father made a record of interview and made full admissions to punching the wall with his right fist.  The Father was charged.
ICL24.9	Section 69ZW documents from  NSW Police pg 3-4	14/2/2003  AVO issued at Town C Court for the protection of the Mother, Statutory Conditions plus the Father must not reside at the premises at which the protected person may from time to time reside.  The Father is not to approach the protected person within 12 hours of consuming intoxicating liquor or drugs.  The Father must not destroy or deliberately damage or interfere with the property of the Mother.
ICL24.10	Section 69ZW documents from  NSW Police pg 4	12/5/2003 Father charged with drink driving at 11:50pm
ICL24.11	Section 69ZW documents from  NSW Police pg 3-4	7/8/2003 Police attend and the Father is seated near the front door of a premises.  Mother had alleged that on 2003 the Father attended her residence as it was Mr C’s birthday.  Since that day he remained at the residence where he refused to leave at the request of the Mother on numerous occasions.  On 6 July 2003 the Father coerced the Mother into writing a letter for Centrelink to relinquish the payment of her pension to the offender.  Whilst doing this he stated “you’re going to write this out, you’re going.  You’re never going to see your kids again.”  “You’re never going to show your face here again.”  The Mother completed the letter and reluctantly left the premises without complaint in an attempt to not upset the children.  The Mother subsequently contacted Police the following morning.  The Police when they searched the Father found the letter written the previous evening by the Mother, located in his wallet.  Police retained the letter and he said to Police “I’m waiting for my parents, that’s why they are taking me into town, as she can’t look after the children.”  Police note that the Mother has been extremely reluctant to involve the Police over the past couple of weeks as she has been living in constant fear of the offender.  Father is charged with breach of the AVO.
ICL24.12	Section 69ZW documents from  NSW Police pg 2-3	17/12/2015  COPS Event indicates that Mother reports to Police that the Father arrived in the company of a friend to collect the fridge, washing machine, computer and microwave.  Items were previously leased by the Father during their relationship and he now owes a debt to the lease company.  Parties have a verbal argument and the Father moved to the front yard and both parties contacted Police.  Police arrived and ascertained that it was a civil dispute, but stayed on scene while the property was exchanged.  Mother requested the incident be documented, as she wanted it known to Police that the Father had now collected all his remaining property.
ICL25	Subp docs – Town C Family Support Services	23/5/2013 – Home visit notes – 1st interview with Mother at PGPs home.  Notes indicate the Mother’s every word guarded. Difficult atmosphere.  Not really able to see the Mother in person until hospital late July. Father turned up and she did not know he was there
ICL26	Subp docs – Town C Family Support Services	28/6/2013 – Homeless Action Plan – indicates can not act on this until Ms Ennos is away from partner.  Ring her weekly but feel best to stay away so she is not put at risk.
ICL27	Subp docs – Town C Family Support Services	5/8/2013 – Note indicates no bed at the refuge available. 7/8/2013 – Worker visit to the mother in Hospital. She is prepared to go back to PGP home. She gave CW her Centrelink forms so father could not take them.
ICL28	Subp docs – Town C Family Support Services	23/8/2013 – Mother is at Refuge.  Concerned because the father has been looking for her at the Care Cottage and Early Childhood Centre.  She is worried she will see him. 27/8/2013 – Mother concerned re Scabies in the refuge and [X] very young 30/8/2013 – Mother returned to ex-partner’s home. Concerns for her and [X]’s wellbeing.
ICL29	Subp docs – Town C Family Support Services	29/8/2013 – email from refuge regarding Mother leaving refuge on 28/8/2013.  Missing person report filed.  Father brought her in to refuge on 29/8/2013 to get her things.
ICL30	Subp docs – Town C Family Support Services	2/9/2013 – email from Refuge – Mother arrived at refuge to collect the remainder of her belongings.  She looks tired and stressed. Plan to leave next Tuesday – children all going and will call police if he stops them.
ICL31	Subp docs – Town C Family Support Services	24/9/2013 – File note – rang the mother and the father was out.  Father not allowing her and baby to leave the house at the same time.  Father makes alcohol in the house in distillery. 1/10/2013 – CW was to pick up the mother and she range and said the father would not allow her to leave the house today.
ICL32	Subp docs – Town C Family Support Services	29/10/2013 – File Note – picked up the mother from corner near her home. Parenting payment for Ms S and [X] now in the father’s name.  She objected online to Centrelink.  She pays Child support to the father for the children as well as paying share of rent/utilities.  Father hit the Mother on back of her neck. Mother appeared worn out and almost defeated in demeanor. Understands she has one shot at leaving. So worried father will hit her again and Mr C will intervene. 22/11/2013 – The mother missed last house appointment due to the father’s temper
ICL33	Subp docs – Town C Family Support Services	10/12/2013 – File note that CW picked up the Mother and Mr C.  Went to Police – DV worker.  Ms Ennos told her story.  Went to Centrelink and father was driving into the carpark.  Went into the safe room.  Sorted out Mr C’s payments.  Can not change Ms Ennos until she moved.  Father came looking for Mother and was sitting with Ms S and [X] when we came out.  Ms Ennos went home with him.
ICL34	Subp docs – Town C Family Support Services	13/12/2013 – File note.  Ms Ennos had moved into Town C home.  All exhausted but very happy.  Mr C went to Kmart at 2am to buy clothes for his mother and kitchen items.
ICL35	Subp docs – Town C Family Support Services	12/12/2013 - Safety Plan (3 pages).  Schedule for leaving the home and taking the 3 children and the Mother.  Other agencies and Police DVIS notified of when it will occur.
ICL36	Subp docs – Town C Family Support Services	12/2/2014 – Home visit to Mother.  She still did not have Centrelink payment for children.
ICL37	Subp docs – Town C Family Support Services	28/3/2014 – File Note – last Saturday the Father walked into her house and tried to take [X].  Her niece was holding her and took her into bedroom.  Ms S rang Mr C and he called police.  Father said to police his wallet and keys in bedroom and he to get them, but they were in kitchen.  Went in to see the girls.
ICL38	Subp docs – Town C Family Support Services	Letter from the mother in regard to Ms S going to TAFE
ICL39	Subp docs – Town C Family Support Services	27/8/2014 – Phone call to Ms Ennos.  She let father see [X] at public place for [X]’s birthday.  She felt relatively safe. 17/9/2014 – Mother seeing father over flexi rent.  She putting money in his account but he has not paid it.
ICL40	Subp docs – Town C Family Support Services	23/1/2015 – Home visit – Ms Ennos’ sister (Ms H) fled DV with her partner and brought her 3 teenage daughters to live with Ms Ennos.  No money paid from Ms H.  Difficulty keeping on top of bills.  Eviction notice for 28/1/2015

Schedule 2 – Chronology prepared by the Independent Children’s Lawyer

Date	Issue	Reference
1968	Mother, Ms Ennos born (49 years)
1971	Father, Mr Sperry born (46 years)
1973	Father moves to Australia with his family from (country omitted)
Early 1990	Parents commenced relationship.	E-14/6/18 p13
1991	Whilst pregnant Mother works as an (occupation omitted).  Mother alleges that Father was not working, but would wait outside her workplace after she finished work and question her if he saw her with a male colleague. When the Mother came home late from work one time she found the Father had cut the word ‘slut’ into his arm Denied by the Father.  He says he used to meet the mother for lunch occasionally at her work.  Father says that Mother was out at all hours and they would argue about this. He says the mother would say “I’ll do whatever I want and there is nothing you can do about it.”	E-14/6/18 p14-15 S 3/7/18 p5
1991	At 8 months pregnant the Mother moves back in with her parents at Suburb M.  She alleges the Father would call her parent’s house everyday to make sure she was home.  In 1991 the Father called the house and she was not home, he came to Suburb M and found her in the street and said “where have you been?  I rang and you weren’t there.  Why are you wearing make-up?”   He threw her money and chips on the ground and when the Mother tried to run away the Father pulled a pen-knife out of his pocket and said “I don’t want you to ever go out without my permission again.  No more make-up.  I don’t care if you are pregnant, I don’t want you wearing make-up.  If you do I am going to come around to your house and whoever opens the door I’m just going to start stabbing.” Father acknowledges Mother moved back with her parents, but says Mother would call him at least once a day.  He says that she had to hide her phone calls from her parents as her father is racist.  He denies saying those things alleged or that he is controlling or the events alleged, saying he didn’t have a car and it was too far from Suburb M to Suburb L.	E-14/6/18 p16-17 S 3/7/18 p5-7
1991	Mother alleges that Father asked the Mother to come to his parent’s home and then locked her in his bedroom for about 2 weeks.  He said “you’re staying here until the baby is born.  Be quiet, I don’t want my parents to know that you are here.”  The Mother was too scared to upset the Father to call out for help, she said that she had to keep quiet and go to toilet in an old ice-cream container and could not shower.”  After Mr C was born she moved back in with her parents at Suburb M and separated from the Father.  Father spent time with Mr C about once per week, sometimes several days in a row, always supervised by the Mother. This is denied by the Father.  He says that he did not lock her in the room and these events did not happen and it is a complete lie.  He says that the mother stayed with him at his parents’ home at her own volition, as she did not want to live with her parents..	E-14/6/18 p18-20 S 3/7/18 p7-8
1991	Parties first child, Mr C born (nearly 27 years)
1991 - 1992	Parties separate after Mr C born
1992	Mother commences a relationship with Mr D	E-14/6/18 p21
1994	Mother has a second child, Ms C born (24 years). Father is Mr D. Ms C lives with her Father in Queensland.	E-14/6/18 p5
1994	Mother sees the Father at her sister’s house at a party and he head-butted her in the face.  He also beat up Mr D.  Incident not reported to the Police. Father admits he had a physical altercation with Mr D, but that Mother was not involved at all.  He says Mr C had complained about being mistreated by Mr D and confronted him.  He says Mr D was screaming and aggressive and the Father yelled back and it became physical.	E-14/6/18 p22 S 3/7/18 p9
1994	Mother alleges she hears the Father talk to Ms C in a store and he says that he is going to buy a gun to shoot her Father. Father acknowledges going to store but denies the conversation alleged.	E-14/6/18 p27 S 3/7/18 p12
1995	Mother and Mr D separate and Mother moves with Mr C and Ms C to Suburb N in a house owned by Maternal Grandmother.	E-14/6/18 p23
1995 - 2001	AVO proceedings taken out in Town B Local Court by the Police, but were not pursued by the Mother, as Mother alleges the Father threatened her “I’m going to kill your nieces and nephew.  I’m going to walk in the door and kill your mother.  She can’t move, she can’t go anywhere.  (omitted) will open the door for me and then I will go in and kill all of them.”  Mother alleges that the Police visited the house in Suburb N around 5 times, due to the Father making threats and being violent towards the Mother.  On one occasion she showed her doctor bruising and fingermarks around her throat. Father denies that any arguments they had were ever physical.  Father says that Mother would threaten to ring the police to manipulate him to do what she wanted.	E-14/6/18 p32-34 S 3/7/18 p14
1996	The Father alleges that the Mother called the Police during an argument and requested an AVO, as he wanted to apply for a gun license and that would stop him getting the license.	S-12/4/17 p14
1996	Mother resumes relationship with the Father and he moved into the house at Suburb N.  Mother alleges that the Father’s violence escalated with him frequently choking her and shoving her against the wall about once per week. Father says he did contribute to the household when he lived in her mother’s home.  Father denies that any argument between them ever became physical.	E-14/6/18 p24 S 3/7/18 p10
1996 - 1997	Parties reconcile – 5 years after separation.
5/3/1997	Mother and Father had an argument over the telephone.   The Mother was at her mother’s home and the Father was calling from their home.  The Mother was concerned when the Father started yelling at her about cleaning the house.  The Father had been drinking before the argument and consumed 11 cans of Tooheys Gold beer.  The Father punched the living room wall and kicked some empty beer cans around the room, whilst yelling into the phone.  The Mother became concerned for her property and called the Police.  Upon arrival the Police spoke with the Father and the Mother.  The Father appeared to be mildly intoxicated.  The Mother did not wish for the Police to take any further action and made a statement to that effect.  The Mother was advised to seek an AVO in the morning and agreed to do so.  Mother or Father have been living on and off in a defacto relationship for about 2- 3 years.	Section 69ZW documents from NSW Police pg 8 ICL24.1
1997	The parties second child (Mother’s third child) is born, Ms S (20 years)
1998	Father alleges that Mr C (who would have been 7 years old) was robbed at Suburb N shops and the Father decided to get Mr C out of Suburb K and moved to Town D at his parents’ home.  The Father said that the Mother refused to let him take Ms S and that Mr C wanted to come with him.	S-12/4/17 p18-20
1999	Mother alleges that Father locks Ms C in a cupboard to discipline her.  Mother decided it was too unsafe for Ms C to live with them and asked Mr D if she could live with him.  When Mr D collected Ms C the Father would not allow the Mother to speak with Mr D and the Mother did not see Ms C again one occasion in 2002 and not again till she was an adult. Father denies locking Ms C in a cupboard.  He says the Mother gave Ms C up to her father because she no longer wanted to care for her. Mr D was disgusted in the Mother for not wanting Ms C to live with her anymore. The father says that he facilitated time between Ms C and the Mother once Ms C got older and would pick her up and take her to see the mother.	E-14/6/18 p28-29 S 3/7/18 p13
1999	Father alleges that after 12 months of separation the Mother asked if she could come down and stay with him, as she had a falling out with her sister and needed somewhere to stay.  The Mother and Father resumed their relationship.	S-12/4/17 p23-24
1999	Mother and Ms S move in with the Father at Town D and the parties reconcile.
24/9/1999	The Mother and Father involved in a verbal argument.  The Mother left the premises and attended her sister’s home.  The Father also attended there to speak with the Mother.  The Mother stated that she had only been involved in an argument and did not want the Police to take action.  She was spoken to in relation to an AVO and declined Police applying for an AVO, as she was moving the following day and would be unable to return for Court.	Section 69ZW documents from NSW Police pg 8 ICL24.2
4/3/2000	COPS EVENTS indicate that at 3.30pm the Mother and Father became involved in a verbal argument.  The argument was over caring for the Mother’s mother.  The Mother left the premises due to fears for her safety.  She contacted Police and they attended at 4:00pm and obtained a statement.  At 8:00pm they returned and spoke to the Mother about the damage to the premises.  The Police entered the house, spoke to the Father in regard to the damage to the kitchen wall.  The Father made full admissions to causing damage out of anger.  The Father was arrested and cautioned and conveyed to the Police truck.  Police then searched the house and found in the main bedroom a box with 4 clear plastic resealable bags containing vegetable matter.  They located another plastic resealable bag containing vegetable matter next to the box.  These were seized.   In the spare room in the house Police located electronic scales and a pair of scissors and a bag containing several clear resealable bags.  The Father admitted ownership of the sachets and the items seized.  He said that the drugs were for personal use only.  He said the scales were for monitoring his consumption of the drug.  An Interim AVO was sought Father acknowledges that on one occasion he did punch a hole in the wall out of frustration following an argument with the Mother. Father admits he did smoke marijuana when he was younger, but would only smoke occasionally. He says he stopped smoking marijuana years ago and never smoked in front of the kids.	Section 69ZW documents from NSW Police pg 7-8 ICL24.3 S 3/7/18 p16 S 3/7/18 p21
6/3/2000	Mother was granted an Interim AVO protecting her at Town B Local Court against the Father.  A condition was that he not reside at the premises where the Mother lived and not approach within 12 hours of consuming intoxicating liquor or destroy or damage her property.	Section 69ZW documents from NSW Police pg 6 ICL24.4
14/4/2000	COPS Events indicate that at 5.30pm the Father attended the Mother’s home to care for their children with her permission.  The Mother left the house and went to visit a friend with her sister.  At 11:00pm she returned.  An argument ensued over the Mother going out with her sister for the evening.  A short time later the Father left her house.  At 12:00am he returned to her home.  They had a verbal argument and the Mother noticed that she could smell alcohol on his breath.  She allowed him to enter the home.  He then went to sleep in her bed.  The Mother said that she got scared.  She then called the Police.  Upon Police arrival the Father was found sleeping in the Mother’s bed.  The Mother stated that she knew that she had assisted him to breach the AVO and did not wish for any Police action.  She requested that Police remove him from the premises.  Police could smell intoxicating liquor on his breath.  Police took him to Suburb K railway station.  Mother asked the Father to return her house keys, which he did in the presence of the Police.  Mother was satisfied with the Police actions.	Section 69ZW documents from NSW Police pg 6 ICL24.5
24/6/2000	Police had been trying to obtain a statement from the Mother in relation to the incident from 14 April 2000.   The Police attended the Mother’s home, as they were trying to locate the Father.  She informed Police that he had been living somewhere in Town H.  The Mother invited Police into her residence to search for the Father.  The Father was found sleeping in the Mother’s bed.  The Father was subsequently arrested and conveyed to Suburb K Police Station.  The Mother informed Police that she had revoked the Interim AVO.  The Defendant declined to be interviewed in relation to the matter and he was charged.	Section 69ZW documents from NSW Police pg 6 ICL24.6
17/5/2001	COPS Event notes at 10.00am the Father attended a location to speak to the Mother.  The Mother did not want to speak to him and she remained in the house.  The Mother’s sister (owner of the house) spoke to the Father and asked him to leave.  The Father would not leave and the Police were called.  The Police asked the Father to leave when they attended and he did without incident.  The Mother was advised of the AVO Application process.  It was noted that a child was present during the incident.	Section 69ZW documents from NSW Police pg 5 ICL24.7
June 2001	Mother alleges that the Father removed Mr C from school and took him to the Region 1 area without telling her.  Mother said that the Father rang her and said “If you want to see him again, you have to come down here”  Mother said that she rang the Police and they told her that they couldn’t  do anything as there were no Family Law Orders in place.  Mother said a few weeks later she and Ms S moved to Town E. The Father alleges that the Mother moved to live with he and Mr C at her own free will.  She said she had a fight with her sister and had no one left in Sydney.  He wanted Ms S to live with him so agreed and felt sorry for the mother.	E-14/6/18 p36-37 S 3/7/18 p15
2002	The Mother moves with Mr C and Ms S to rental property in Town I where she lived for 2 years.  She said that the Father lived with them on and off and used to choke her, shove her or head-butt her every couple of weeks.  She said that the Father punched holes in the walls of the property and the Police attended the home once or twice. On one occasion the Police attended and she showed them red finger marks on her neck from the Father choking her. Father denies ever being physically violent to the mother.	E-14/6/18 p39-40 S 3/7/18 p16
In around 2002	The Mother alleges she received $20,000.00 from the sale of her Suburb N home, owned by her mother.   The Father asked her for the money and she would leave.   Mother withdraws $17,000.00 and gives this to the Father.  The Father moves to Town F for 3 months, but then returned to Town I.  Father allegedly threatened to kill the Mother’s sister saying “your sister, Ms D ripped you off with the house.  I have given $5,000.00 to a junkie.  We are finding out where your sister lives and he is going to kill her.”  The Mother went to the Police to report the threat. Father alleges that he kept the Mother’s money in his account so it didn’t affect her Centrelink and that he gave it back to her after they separated.  He denies threatening her	E-14/6/18 p41-42 S 3/7/18 p17-18
2002	During an argument the Father alleges that this was over the Mother’s spending habits and the Mother called the Police on him and an AVO was taken out, which he consented to. The Father alleges that the Mother invited him over to the home to fix things and that he was breached on one occasion when the Police drove by and arrested him for breach of the AVO.  The Father said that it went to Hearing, he pleaded not guilty and the Mother gave evidence that she thought he was not a threat and wanted the AVO dropped.	S-12/4/17 p30-33
Between 2002 & 2004	AVO proceedings were taken out in Town C Local Court against the Father.   The Mother agreed to withdraw the complaint, after speaking to the Father’s lawyer.	E-14/6/18 p47
12/2/2003	COPS Event indicate that at 8.00pm the Mother and Father started arguing over money.   The Father was in the sunroom and punched a wall a number of times, using his right fist.  As a result he caused a 20 x 20cm hole in the wall.  At the time he had consumed a bottle of vodka.  He intimidated the victim saying “just go jump in the bay”  The Father went into the bedroom and fell asleep.  The Mother called Police and shortly after the Police arrived a statement was obtained.  The Father was awoken and informed that he was under arrest.  The Father made a record of interview and made full admissions to punching the wall with his right fist.  The Father was charged.	Section 69ZW documents from NSW Police pg 4-5 ICL24.8
14/2/2003	AVO issued at Town C Court for the protection of the Mother, Statutory Conditions plus the Father must not reside at the premises at which the protected person may from time to time reside.  The Father is not to approach the protected person within 12 hours of consuming intoxicating liquor or drugs.  The Father must not destroy or deliberately damage or interfere with the property of the Mother.	Section 69ZW documents from NSW Police pg 3-4 ICL24.9
12/5/2003	Father charged with drink driving at 11:50pm	Section 69ZW documents from NSW Police pg 4 ICL24.10
7/8/2003	Police attend and the Father is seated near the front door of a premises.  Mother had alleged that on 2003 the Father attended her residence as it was Mr C’s birthday.  Since that day he remained at the residence where he refused to leave at the request of the Mother on numerous occasions.  On 6 July 2003 the Father coerced the Mother into writing a letter for Centrelink to relinquish the payment of her pension to the offender.  Whilst doing this he stated “you’re going to write this out, you’re going.  You’re never going to see your kids again.”  “You’re never going to show your face here again.”  The Mother completed the letter and reluctantly left the premises without complaint in an attempt to not upset the children.  The Mother subsequently contacted Police the following morning.  The Police when they searched the Father found the letter written the previous evening by the Mother, located in his wallet.  Police retained the letter and he said to Police “I’m waiting for my parents, that’s why they are taking me into town, as she can’t look after the children.”  Police note that the Mother has been extremely reluctant to involve the Police over the past couple of weeks as she has been living in constant fear of the offender.  Father is charged with breach of the AVO.	Section 69ZW documents from NSW Police pg 3-4 ICL24.11
2007	When Mr C turned 16 the Mother alleges that the Father forced him to leave the home and Mr C went to live with the maternal aunt and his paternal grandparents on and off for a few years. The father says that Mr C was hanging with a really bad crowd and caught committing several break and enters.  He decided it would be best for Mr C to move out of the area to get him away from the bad crowd.	E-14/6/18 p50 S 3/7/18 p27
12/10/2011	Medical Notes for Mother - Consultation with doctor, Notes indicate Mother “confides to DV ongoing for more than 20 years.  Afraid of husband, does not wish to talk about it much in detail today.  Used to hold her by the neck and smash her head in the wall almost every day.  Less now.  Feeling ? had injury due to that.  Does get a lot of anxiety.  Never had any counselling before.   Advised review with mental health nurse.  Not wishing for husband to find out about it.  Centrelink Medical certificate given.”	Subp docs –Medical Centre ICL 18
19/10/2011	GP Mental Health Assessment Care Plan – presenting issues, generally feeling depressed most of the time, anxiety / panic attacks.  Low self-esteem. Living arrangements – living with ex’s parents. Family – son 20 years from current partner, lives with sister, as didn’t get on with Dad.  Not seen him for a year.  Daughter from 2nd relationship lives with her Dad.  Has not seen her for 10 years.  She is now 17.  Youngest sister lives in Sydney, does not see her much. Abuse issues – DV for 20 years.  Not living together at the moment.  Have a daughter of 14, lives with her Dad, current partner.  The only way she can see younger daughter is to continue to see him.  She lives with his parents.  Not now suffering physical abuse, but emotional abuse.	Subp docs –Medical Centre ICL 19
2013	Social work notes – Initial Assessment  - Mother currently 7 months pregnant – unplanned pregnancy, is happy to be pregnant.  Separated from partner – 22 years of DV.  Ex-partner still very controlling. Concerns Re: accommodation and not having independent accommodation.  Concerns Re: ex-partner’s behaviour and the impacts on custody and also current moods.  Mother’s current lack of independent accommodation and her ex-partner’s controlling behaviour is impacting on her moods, would benefit from support with housing and counselling. Accommodation currently living with her ex in-laws.  Has been there for 5 months and would like her own independent accommodation.	Subp docs – IHD (Town C Hospital) for Mother ICL 15
29/4/2013	Mental Health Assessment and Care Plan. Social history – living arrangements – staying with in-laws, paying rent, but unable to claim assistance.  Paying towards daughter and son’s accommodation costs. Other Family members:  Daughter (15), Son (21).  Has been living with her sister and up in Queensland, due to fall out with Father.  Ms Ennos has not seen him for the past 2 years.  Partner (has custody of her daughter.)  She is now living with his parents.  Blackmailing her with access to daughter, for sex and other favours.	Subp docs –Medical Centre ICL 21
13/5/2013	Progress – Clinical notes – Social work - The Mother is now medicated for depression.  Is having regular contact with mental health nurse in Town G surgery.  Follow up with psychiatrist in 3 weeks.  Mother continues to reside with her ex in-laws.  She reported difficulties attending to house hunting / DOH visit due to depressive symptoms.  Discussed possibility of gaining support in doing this and referral to Support Services.   Note made for attention for time of delivery.  Mother’s partner is the apparent perpetrator of 20 years of domestic violence.  There is no current AVO, but support services are working with Mother to get her out of the situation.  Father may be present at the birth.  He is the father of the other children.  Services waiting to put in FACS referral once baby is born, but is concerned for Mother’s safety if she does it ante-natally.	Subp docs – LHD (Town C Hospital) for Mother ICL 11 ICL 12
13/5/2013	Letter from Hospital – Dr P, psychiatrist - indicates that Mother has had long history of mood disturbances over the last 12 years.  This relates to her difficult relationship with her husband, who she has tried to leave many times.      Mother states that her relationship with the Father has been marred by DV and multiply AVOs and Police involvement.  Impression: pregnancy was not planned and has caused her to return to living with her in-laws and being financially dependent on her partner, whom she separated from.  Her partner is controlling and continues to cause ongoing emotional abuse.  Ms Ennos has presented with a history of mood disturbances and possible borderline personality disorder.	Subp docs –Medical Centre ICL 20
14/6/2013	Clinical Notes indicate Mother has second session with Service. Brought in by Father and he waited for her to take her back home.  Mother ‘explains how Mr Sperry controls “everything”, including where Ms Ennos lives, money, her friends (if a friend comes to see Ms Ennos, he sits with them for the duration of the visit), Ms S’s schooling situation. Ms Ennos states does not feel able to continue with home schooling. Ms Ennos states that Ms S was already booked once to go to Town G  High, but that did not eventuate.’	Subp docs –Child and Family Health Support ICL 22
28/6/2013	FACS File Note - Contact report for neglect of education regarding Ms S.  Reporter says 15 year old Ms S is not enrolled in any education and is supposed to be home schooled, but this is not happening.  Father used to be (hobby) coach and she no longer plays (hobby), which was the reason for home schooling.  Reports Mother took her to school at Town G at the beginning of the year, but the Father did not take the paperwork in.  Ms S is officially in the Father’s care, but goes between her Father’s and Mother’s care because the Mother is currently residing at paternal grandparents home.	Section 69ZW documents from FACS ICL 1
29/7/2013	Psychosocial Assessment Report – notes recent stresses, relationship worries, partner (Mr Sperry) lives with son and youngest daughter.  Ms Ennos lives with her partner’s parents.  Ms Ennos describes manipulative behaviour from ex-partner and PH (past history) physical DV and probably current emotional abuse.	Subp docs – LHD (Town C Hospital) for Mother ICL 10
2013	Contact report – reports that the Mother is in hospital about to give birth.  Support Services have been working with her and are concerned in regards to DV and did not want to report until after the baby is born as they are concerned for the Mother’s safety.  Police say that there is long history of emotional and physical DV, reports Mother has been in the Region 1 for the last 5 months.  Other children born in Sydney.  Mother told reporter she hopes he won’t create problems when the baby is born.  He is not coming in for the labour. Weekly Allocations Meeting (WAM) Event Review Form indicates that the Mother is being supported to look for alternate accommodation for the Mother and baby away from the Father.  The Mother is unsure of what is happening for Ms S other than to say she is staying with her Father.   Indicates that the Mother decided to go back to live with Paternal Grandparents at Town D in a separate part of the home.  Mother also has a son, who is 19 and does not live with them and an older daughter who resides in Queensland.  Mother advised that DV was mostly and continually emotional and a bit of physically – he threw her against the wall one time – there was also verbal abuse, which was mostly over money and power.  Notes that the Mother has tried to take AVOs out in the past in regard to the Father, but he always tries to talk her out of it.	Section 69ZW documents from  FACS ICL 2 ICL 3
3/8/2013	Town C Hospital Progress Notes - Social work – indicate Mother’s concerns and history of Domestic Violence also indicates concerned for 15 year old daughter, fears that the ex-defacto (Father) will “put the baby to use as his meal ticket, now current youngest is 15 year old has not been to school since Year 4.  Mother feels powerless against defacto manipulation and threat and ****violence.	Subp docs – LHD (Town C Hospital) for Mother ICL 13
2013	Parties third child (Mother’s fourth child), [X] born (4 years 11 months)
2013	When the Mother was in hospital for [X]’s birth the Social Workers raised concerns about the Father and helped her secure a place in a women’s refuge. Once [X] was born the Father alleges that the Mother wanted her own accommodation and suggested that she move into a refuge to put her on the priority housing list.  Father said that he would see the Mother and [X] almost everyday and would pick them up and bring them back to his house.  The Father alleges the Mother decided to move back in with him after an outbreak of scabies in the refuge. [note that [X] was taken to Town C Hospital on 25/8/2013 to be checked for Scabies – ICL 7]	E-14/6/18 p57 S-12/4/17 p37-38
7/8/2013	Clinical progress notes for baby [X], notes Mother is to be discharged today.  Unable to get into refuge.  Ms Ennos has relationship with the various welfare agencies, but recognises ultimately safety for self and baby will depend on her.	Subp docs – LHD (Town C Hospital) ICL 8
7/8/2013	Progress Notes – Social worker – No accommodation available.  Mother to go home to in-laws and await accommodation.	Subp docs – LHD (Town C Hospital) for Mother ICL 14
12/8/2013	FACS File Note - Contact record – report in regard to Mother and [X].  Have history of 20 year physical and emotional DV relationship with the Father.  Recent increase in the level of significant violence.  Caller does not know the details.  Mother said “she had to get out because the increase in violence.  Mother did not want to return to the paternal grandparent’s home after giving birth to [X] because there is a history of the Father manipulating services to believe that the Mother is the problem.  If she returns to the paternal grandparents address he will have access to her.”  Services are currently looking for accommodation for her. Caller reports that there is no AVO because Mother is too frightened of what the Father will do.  Mother only gives general information.  She had never given any specific description to any harm towards her or the children.  Mother describes mostly manipulative emotional type of abuse, which has made her meek and mild.	Section 69ZW documents from  FACS ICL 4
15/8/2013	Reporter advised that the Mother told her the Father has listening devices, which is how he may be tracing her.  Mother no longer using her mobile phone.  Father arrived at the clinic 10 minutes prior to the Mother’s baby health appointment.  Mother only made appointment 24 hours prior.  Mother said that the Father has listening devices, which is how he may be tracing her.  Clinic told the Father to leave prior to the Mother’s arrival, which he did.	Section 69ZW documents from FACS ICL 5
22/8/2013	Mother alleges Father approached the Mother at the shops and grabbed [X] and said “either she came with him and the baby or she will never see the baby again” Father says he did stop [X] from going back to the refuge with the mother as a friend told him that scabies was going around the refuge.  Father says Mother was fine with this until she realized it jeopardized her chances of getting priority housing	E-14/6/18 p58 S 3/7/18 p33
25/8/2013	[X] presented to Town C Hospital for check-up as “patient exposed to scabies at Women’s shelter recently, nil bites noted.”  On page 2 indicates “fellow residents at refuge had possible scabies or possible bed bugs.  State that all mattresses are in plastic covering, cleaned regularly.  Have not had a problem with bed bugs in the past.  Currently asymptomatic.  Advised wash all linen in hot water not to share linen.  No treatment due to age and symptomatic.  Mother will self-treat.”	Subp docs – LHD (Town C Hospital) ICL 7
29/8/2013	FACS File Note - Contact Report – report that an incident occurred.  Mother went to K-Mart in Town C and when she was getting her purse out of the bag the Father snatched [X] out of her arms.  She was shocked and traumatised and he stated that he would not return that child to her and she needed to go with him, which she did.  Mother asked the Father to drive her to the refuge this morning to collect her belongings.  Attempted to discuss safety plan with the Mother and spoke to her about contacting a solicitor in regard to custody issues.  The Mother felt too threatened to do any of those things.  Mother indicated that she had been reluctant to contact the Police in the past, as she feels that they do not believe her.	Section 69ZW documents from FACS ICL 6
23/9/2013	Father attends Town C Hospital with chest pains.  (Page 8 of 13), notes:  ETOH – not everyday, but drinks heavily occasionally.	Subp docs – LHD (Town C Hospital) ICL9
30/10/2013	Tenancy Facilitation Case Note from DOH – indicates that following birth Mother sought refuge at Women's Refuge however Father located her one afternoon when walking around the block and he took the baby from her and forced her to return home with him. Missing persons report was initiated by Refuge as her sudden disappearance was uncharacteristic and there was a fear Ms Ennos may have self harmed as she was suffering PND. Mother made contact with Refuge several days later and advised them of situation however because she appeared to voluntarily remain in relationship nothing else could be done to assist her. Mother has supports in place to assist her leaving DV.  States ‘Father controls Mother’s finances and any time she wishes to leave the home the baby is required to stay at home with him. A similar level of control has been happening with their daughter, Ms S, who has been home schooled since grade 4.  Baby bonus monies and family payments have been signed over to Father leaving Mother with no money. Intervention by Town C Family Services D&A team has occurred under the guise Mother is attending stop smoking counselling.  This intervention has allowed Mother to reach out for support from HNSW, Centrelink and the Police.  A meeting with Centrelink and Town C DVIS has been arranged for 1/11/2013.	Subp docs – Housing NSW ICL23
Dec 2013	Town C Family Support Services and Mother’s counsellor help her to leave the relationship with the Father and they move into a house at Town C where they lived for 3 years. Father said that after a month that the Mother got subsidised housing in Town C and she asked Mr C and Ms S to stay with her, but she did not want [X].  Father alleges that [X] remained living with him and he moved back with his parents.  He alleges that the Mother came back and took [X] to help him while he was cleaning and moving, but refused to return her.	E-14/6/18 p59-60 S-12/4/17 p39-41
Dec 2013 – Oct 2016	Mother alleges that after separation until she moved to Sydney, [X] spent time with the Father about once per week, which was supervised by her, Mr Sperry’s parents or his new partner, Ms H.  Parties attempted to have [X] spend an overnight with the Father in late 2014, however, he brought her back at midnight because he could not settle her.  The Father has not seen [X] since October 2016.	E-14/6/18 p9-12
Nov 2015	Father is driving in the car with Mother and [X] and started speeding and swerving around corners after requesting the Mother’s assistance with a Tax Audit.  He threatened “… it’s not worth it I’ll just hit a tree”  The Mother reported this to Town C Police the following day Father says that his sister and brother in law are accountants and he wouldn’t ask the Mother for help with his tax.	E-14/6/18 p61-62 S 3/7/18 p35
Dec 2015	The Father and a male friend attend the Mother’s home and remove the fridge, washing machine and microwave.  She calls the Police, but they did not take the matter further. Father states that he bought the mother a fridge and computer on flexi rent. She did not pay for them. He gave her 2 weeks notice to pay and she didn’t so he picked them up.	E-14/6/18 p63 S 3/7/18 p36
17/12/2015	COPS Event indicates that Mother reports to Police that the Father arrived in the company of a friend to collect the fridge, washing machine, computer and microwave.  Items were previously leased by the Father during their relationship and he now owes a debt to the lease company.  Parties have a verbal argument and the Father moved to the front yard and both parties contacted Police.  Police arrived and ascertained that it was a civil dispute, but stayed on scene while the property was exchanged.  Mother requested the incident be documented, as she wanted it known to Police that the Father had now collected all his remaining property.	Section 69ZW documents from NSW Police pg 2-3 ICL24.12
18/12/2015	File Note of Telephone call from Mother, wanting advice.  Mother informs that her ex-partner (separated 2 years) turned up at her home saying that he was going to take the washing machine, fridge, freezer and microwave.  He was not on the lease or living at the property.  Mother states that he pushed the 18 year old daughter out of the way and this lead to her banging her head.  Her niece was also present and she states that she was also assaulted by ex-partner or his friend.  She called the Police and they let / facilitated the ex-partner theft of the items saying “just let him take, if you want him out of your life”  Mother said that she told the officer that the items were hers, paid for by her.  He produced a warranty with his name on it.  Police let him take the items.  Mother and her daughter were pleading with the ex-partner not to take the microwave as it was only to warm the milk for the baby.  She said that she has been seeing DVIS at Police.  She said that last time she tried to speak to them regarding the DV the officer on the desk would not let her see anyone from DVIS.  Since this the Mother has given up on calling or speaking to the Police as they are rarely helpful.	Subp docs – Page 32 of 35 ICL 17
22/12/2015	File Note of Home visit.  Mother indicated that ex-partner has been violent over many years to the Mother.  He is also classed as his parents’ carer and Mother feels that he is also abusive to them.  Mother thinks her ex has a personality disorder of some kind.  Mother fell into financial difficulty when Centrelink payments were wrongly calculated.  Mother is on DSP, as she has chronic neck and back problems.  Her neurosurgeon attributed the disability to the DV, as she was often slammed against the wall by her ex-partner.	Subp docs – Page 26 of 35. ICL 16
Sept 2016	Father alleges that the Mother got evicted and called to ask his help to move her out and into a refuge in Town A.  He alleges that he helped her move out and clean up the home. The Mother, however, left and he did not see [X] again till after 4 October 2016.  The Father alleges that Mr C moved in with him and Ms S moved in with her boyfriend in Town A.	S-12/4/17 p46-51
Oct 2016	Mother moves to Sydney to get away from the Father’s harassment and to be closer to her extended family for support.  Mr C went to live with his girlfriend in Town A, where he continues to live.  Ms S went to live with a friend and friend’s mother in Suburb O where she continues to live.	E-14/6/18 p64
26/4/2017	Father files Initiating Application in Wollongong Federal Circuit Court, which is listed for first return date 2 August 2017.
2/8/2017	Matter listed before Judge Altobelli and Information Order issued.   Matter adjourned to 13 November 2017, for mention
13/11/2017	Matter listed before Registrar Whitten.   Information Order had not been answered and matter adjourned to 8 February 2018.
8/2/2018	Order for substituted service issued for documents to be served upon the parties child, Ms S.  Matter adjourned to 9 March 2018.
9/3/2018	Independent Children’s Lawyer appointed, matter adjourned to 10 July 2018 at 9:00am for Interim Hearing.  Section 69ZW Order made requesting information from Dept of Family & Community Services and NSW Police.
10/7/2018	Matter listed for Interim hearing in Wollongong FCC