Spijker & Paulis
[2024] FedCFamC1F 80
•22 February 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Spijker & Paulis [2024] FedCFamC1F 80
File number(s): DGC 2643 of 2021 Judgment of: WILLIAMS J Date of judgment: 22 February 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the father has perpetrated family violence against the mother and plead guilty to charges – Persistent breaches of a Community Corrections Order and Intervention Order – Consideration of the mothers assertion her parenting capacity would be discernibly affected if the child spent time with the father – Held – The mothers parental capacity would not be discernibly affected – Consideration of whether and if so what time between the child and father would be in the child’s best interests – Orders made for the child to spend time with the father, initially professionally supervised and progressing to unsupervised time Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt VII, ss 4AB, 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60CG, 61DA, 65AA, 68Q
Cases cited: Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36
Blinko & Blinko [2015] FamCAFC 146
Housing Commission of New South Wales v Tatmar Pastoral Co Pty Ltd and Penrith Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 378
Keane & Keane [2020] FamCA 99
Mazorski v Albright [2007] FamCA 520
McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92; (2009) FLC 93-405
Russell v Close (Unreported, Full Court of the Family Court of Australia, 25 June 1993)
Sedgley & Sedgley [1995] FamCA 154; (1995) FLC 92-623
Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon (2003) 200 ALR 447; [2003] HCA 48
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 163 Date of hearing: 27-29 November 2023, 13-14 December 2023 Place: Melbourne Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Rika Teicher Solicitor for the Applicant: Ressan Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Cameron Allen Solicitor for the Respondent: MMH Lawyers Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr Ek Taghdir Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Taft Lawyers ORDERS
DGC 2643 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MR SPIJKER
Applicant
AND: MS PAULIS
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
WILLIAMS J
DATE OF ORDER:
22 FEBRUARY 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.All previous parenting orders concerning the child, X born 2016 (“the child”), are discharged.
2.The mother have sole parental responsibility for the child.
3.The child spend time with the father as follows:
During school term
(a)Immediately following the date of these orders, for eight (8) occasions; occurring once a fortnight for three (3) hours on a weekend, with such time to be supervised by Family Contact Service – Ms B and/or her nominee (“the professional supervisor”) or such other professional supervisor as may be agreed in writing between the parties, and the following shall apply:
(i)Both parents forthwith do all reasonable acts, sign all documents and attend all intake interviews to enable time to commence;
(ii)The time shall commence upon the availability of the professional supervisor;
(iii)The time shall take place at such venue, times and dates as directed by the professional supervisor in consultation with both parents;
(iv)The father shall be responsible for the costs of the supervisor.
(v)After the third (3rd) occasion, the father shall be at liberty to be accompanied by his partner, Ms D; and
(b)Thereafter, commencing a fortnight after the last occasion of professionally supervised time pursuant to Order 4(a), for four (4) occasions on alternate Saturdays from 10.00am to 2.00pm, with such times to be supervised by Ms D and to take place in a public location.
(c)Thereafter, commencing on a fortnight after the last occasion of time pursuant to Order 4(b) for four (4) occasions on alternate Saturdays from 10.00am to 4.00pm, with such times to be supervised by Ms D.
(d)Thereafter, commencing a fortnight after the last occasion of time pursuant to Order 4(c), for four (4) occasions on alternate weekends on Saturday from 10.00am to 4.00pm and Sunday from 10.00am to 4.00pm, with such times to be supervised by Ms D.
(e)Thereafter, commencing a fortnight after the last occasion of time pursuant to Order 4(d) for four occasions on alternate weekends from 10.00am Saturday until 4.00pm Sunday with Ms D to be in substantial attendance.
(f)Thereafter commencing a fortnight after the last occasion of time pursuant to Order 4(e), each alternate weekend from 10.00am Saturday until 4.00pm Sunday or 4.00pm Monday if Monday is a public holiday.
(g)Commencing 2025 Father’s Day, if the child is not otherwise spending time with the father, from 5.00pm Saturday until 5.00pm Sunday.
(h)Commencing in 2025, on the child’s birthday from the conclusion of school until 6.00pm and if on weekend, for four (4) hours from 10.00 am to 2.00pm.
(i)At such further and other times as agreed between the parents in writing.
(j)Commencing 2025, during school term holidays, for four (4) consecutive nights from the conclusion of school until at 4.00pm on the day after the fourth night that the child has spent with the father.
(k)Commencing 2026 onwards, during the term school holidays, the child’s live with and spend time arrangements with each parent shall be suspended and, unless otherwise agreed between the parents in writing, the child shall be in the care of each parent as follows:
(i)In all even numbered years, the child shall be in the care of the mother for the first half of the holiday, from the conclusion of school until 5:00pm on the middle Saturday and thereafter, the child shall be in the care of the Father for the second half of the holiday, from 5:00pm on the middle Saturday until the commencement of the new school term.
(ii)In all odd numbered years, the child shall be in the care of the Father for the first half of the school holiday, from the conclusion of school until 5:00pm on the middle Saturday and thereafter, the child shall be in the care of the mother for the second half of the school holiday, from 5:00pm on the middle Saturday until the commencement of the new school term.
(l)Commencing 2026/2027 for the long summer school holidays, the child’s live with and spend time arrangements with each parent shall be suspended and, unless otherwise agreed between the parents in writing, the child shall be in the care of each parent on a week about basis with the child’s holiday to commence with each parent as follows:
(i)For the long summer holidays commencing in 2026 and all even numbered years, the child shall commence the summer holidays with the mother from the conclusion of school in Term 4.
(ii)For the summer holidays commencing in 2027 and all odd numbered years, the child shall commence the summer holidays with the father from the conclusion of school in Term 4.
4.At the conclusion of professionally supervised time, the father shall obtain, at his cost, an observational report from the supervisor and forthwith provide a copy to the mother via her lawyers.
5.After the conclusion of professionally supervised time, unless otherwise agreed between the parents in writing, changeovers shall take place at a public location selected by the mother where there is CCTV coverage, with the mother to provide the father written notice of the location at least seven (7) days prior to the first changeover.
6.The spend time pursuant to Order 3(b) which is supervised by Ms D, shall be conditional upon the father filing with the Court:
(a)An Undertaking by Ms D as to her role as a supervisor, drafted by the Independent Children’s Lawyer; and
(b)A supervised hair follicle test (4-month test) for both drugs and alcohol and providing the mother with a result which does not detect any illicit substances and is ‘low to moderate’ for alcohol, with such hair test to be undertaken no earlier than 1 month prior to commencing this time.
7.The father shall, as soon as practicable, enrol in and complete a Tuning into Kids program and a Triple-P Parenting Program and provide the mother with confirmation of completion from the program provider.
8.The father shall continue counselling/therapy with Ms C or such other psychologist at least once every second calendar month for a year after the commencement of these orders and provide the mother written confirmation of his attendance from his psychologist.
9.The parents shall download the smart phone application ‘AppClose’ (“the phone app”) and, at their own expense or equal expense where necessary, register themselves and connect with each other using the mobile application for the purpose of any necessary communication concerning the child.
10.Each of the parents shall, as soon as practicable, advise and keep the other parent informed of any serious illness, serious injury or medical emergency involving the child whilst in their care, including all details regarding the illness, injury, hospital location, medical practitioners and treatment required.
11.The father shall be at liberty to and hereby authorised by these orders to:
(a)Obtain from the child’s school or extra-curricular activity organisation, at their own expense, all notices, reports and photographs or other information parents are normally provided;
(b)Liaise with the child’s school concerning or extra-curricular activity organiser; and
(c)Liaise with any medical practitioner, medical specialist, hospital or allied health professional who is attending upon the child.
12.Each of the parents shall be at liberty and hereby authorised by these Orders to provide their own and the child’s treating medical and allied health practitioners (including therapists) the following documents:
(a)The Family Report prepared by Ms E dated 22 May 2023; and
(b)Any reports prepared by a professional supervisor.
13.Each of the parents shall be at liberty to provide a copy of these orders to the child’s school, extra-curricular activity organisation or any medical practitioner or allied health professional who is attending upon or treating the child.
14.It is declared pursuant to s 68Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) that the orders made this day are inconsistent with the Family Violence Final Intervention Order (Case Nr. …) made against the father in mid-2019 in the Suburb G Magistrates' Court and to the extent of any inconsistency, the Family Violence Final Intervention Order is invalid.
15.The Independent Children’s Lawyer be discharged upon the father filing with the Court an undertaking of Ms D.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Spijker & Paulis has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WILLIAMS J
INTRODUCTION
The applicant is the father, and the respondent is the mother of X, born 2016 (“the child”).
The parties are in dispute as to whether the child should spend time with the father. There is no dispute as to the allocation of parental responsibility.
The mother asserts that from the start of their relationship, the father was financially and verbally abusive and acted in an aggressive manner towards her. She submits the father should have no time with the child because she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of the father’s conduct. She is unable to cope with the prospect of time between the child and her father and contends her parenting capacity would be discernibly impaired by orders providing for the child to spend time with the father.
The mother initially also alleged the father posed an unacceptable risk to the child but abandoned that allegation during her counsels’ final submissions.
The father acknowledges he perpetrated significant family violence against the mother, including multiple breaches of Intervention Orders (IVOs) and Community Corrections Orders (CCOs). However, since mid-2021 he has not engaged in any family violence, and whilst imprisoned reflected upon his past actions and realised his past conduct was abusive and unacceptable. Since that time, he has undertaken numerous courses including men’s behaviour change programs, substance abuse programs and is willing to undertake further self-improvement and parenting courses. He has also abstained from alcohol and drug use, has been in a committed relationship for two and a half years, has stable employment, purchased a property with his partner and turned his life around.
The father seeks to reestablish his relationship with the child, initially supervised and with a gradual progression of time.
For the reasons that follow, I am unable to conclude the mother’s parenting capacity would be discernibly impaired by orders providing for the child to spend time with the father, and I will therefore make orders for time to occur.
BACKGROUND
The father is aged 31 years and is employed full time. He is also studying.
The mother is aged 32 years and is employed full time as a manager.
The parties commenced a relationship in early 2014. They met approximately six years prior as they were part of a large social group and shared a house with mutual friends for a short period. At the commencement of their relationship, the mother had a son from a previous relationship, F born 2010.
The parties commenced cohabitation in mid-2014 and became engaged in early 2015. In 2015 they discovered the mother was pregnant with the child.
The first documented incident of family violence occurred in early 2019, which comprised a physical altercation and threat to kill. It is alleged that throughout the relationship, further family violence was perpetrated by the father including incidences in May 2019 and June of 2019.
The parties separated on a final basis in May 2019, and thereafter the father continued to see the child sporadically by agreement.
In 2019 the father was charged as a result of the early 2019 incident. He was released on bail to appear at the Suburb G Magistrates Court in mid-2019. He plead guilty to these offences and was sentenced to a Community Corrections Order with a condition to complete the Men’s Behaviour Change Program and Choices AOD Program.
Around this time, Victoria Police also made an application for an Intervention Order, listing the mother and child as affected family members. The application was listed in mid-2019. The father did not attend this hearing and a Final Intervention Order was made in his absence.
Subsequent to these orders being made, the father was convicted of numerous breaches of the Intervention Order and Community Corrections Order. This resulted in the father serving two concurrent Community Corrections Orders, being held on remand, completing community work and various courses in addition to paying several fines.
In February 2020, the parties agreed to a parenting plan, however, the mother did not sign the document. The father has not seen the child since 25 February 2020.
The fathers Community Corrections Order concluded in mid-2022, and he has not been charged with further breaches since mid-2021.
Issues in Dispute
The following issues were in dispute:
(1)Whether time between the father and the child would affect the mother’s mental health and wellbeing to the extent her parental capacity would be discernibly impaired;
(2)If time between the child and the father is ordered, what time is in the child’s best interests.
The parties agreed that the mother should have sole parental responsibility for the child.
THE PROPOSALS OF THE PARTIES
The father’s proposal
The final Minute of orders proposed by the father and sent to my Chambers on 19 December 2023 is Annexure A to these reasons.
Documents relied upon by the father
The father relied upon the following documents:
(a)Affidavit of Ms H filed 9 November 2022.
(b)Affidavit of Mr Spijker filed 4 August 2022.
(c)Further Amended Application for Final Orders filed 4 August 2022.
(d)Affidavit of Mr Spijker filed 23 May 2023.
(e)Child Impact Report by Ms J filed 8 November 2021.
(f)Affidavit of Ms E affirmed 24 May 2023 attaching Family Report dated 22 May 2023.
The mother’s proposal
The Minute of orders proposed by the mother is Annexure B to these reasons.
Documents relied upon by the mother
The mother relied upon the following documents:
(a)Affidavit of Ms Paulis filed 26 May 2023.
(b)Response to Application in a Proceeding filed 26 May 2023.
(c)Affidavit of Dr K filed 25 May 2023.
(d)Affidavit of Ms E affirmed 24 May 2023 attaching Family Report dated 22 May 2023.
(e)Affidavit of Ms Paulis filed 23 May 2023.
(f)Affidavit of Ms Paulis filed 11 November 2022.
(g)Child Impact Report by Ms J filed 8 November 2021.
(h)Affidavit of Ms L filed 14 October 2021.
The Independent Children’s Lawyers proposal
The final Minute of orders proposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer is Annexure C to these reasons.
Documents relied upon by the Independent Children’s Lawyer
The Independent Children’s Lawyer relied upon the following documents:
(a)Affidavit of Ms E affirmed 24 May 2023 attaching Family Report dated 22 May 2023.
(b)Section 67Z Response dated 27 January 2022
The following documents were tendered during the course of the trial:
Exhibit Number
Description
F-1
Letter from the M Support Services dated late 2023
F-2
Email from the mother’s phone to father on 25 May 2020.
M-1
Pages 70-71 of the VIC Police documents produced pursuant to subpoena.
ICL-1
Pages 70-73. Documents produced by VIC police pursuant to subpoena.
ICL-2
Pages 31-32. Documents produced by VIC police pursuant to subpoena.
ICL-3
Page 17. Documents produced by VIC police pursuant to subpoena.
ICL-4
Pages 28-29. Documents produced by VIC police pursuant to subpoena.
ICL-5
Page 16. Documents produced by VIC police pursuant to subpoena.
ICL-6
Pages 60-61. Documents produced by VIC police pursuant to subpoena.
ICL-7
Page 58. Documents produced by VIC police pursuant to subpoena.
ICL-8
Page 15. Documents produced by VIC police pursuant to subpoena.
ICL-9
Page 54. Documents produced by VIC police pursuant to subpoena.
ICL-10
Pages 23-25. Documents produced by VIC police pursuant to subpoena.
ICL-11
Pages 13-14. Documents produced by VIC police pursuant to subpoena.
ICL 12
Page 48. Documents produced by VIC police pursuant to subpoena.
ICL-13
Page 19. Documents produced by VIC police pursuant to subpoena.
ICL-14
Page 36. Documents produced by VIC police pursuant to subpoena.
ICL-15
Page 12. Documents produced by VIC police pursuant to subpoena.
THE APPLICABLE LAW
Evidence
The standard of proof in this case is the balance of probabilities (s 140 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)).
Section 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) provides:
(1)In a civil proceeding, the court must find the case of a party proved if it is satisfied that the case has been proved on the balance of probabilities.
(2)Without limiting the matters that the court may take into account in deciding whether it is so satisfied, it is to take into account:
(a) the nature of the cause of action or defence; and
(b) the nature of the subject- matter of the proceeding; and
(c) the gravity of the matters alleged.
The father and mother relied upon their respective affidavits. The affidavits exhaustively recounted the history of the parties’ relationship. I have examined that evidence and do not propose to repeat it in these reasons.
In Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon (2003) 200 ALR 447 at [62], Gleeson CJ, McHugh and Gummow JJ said:
…A judge’s reasons are not required to mention every fact or argument relied on by the losing party as relevant to an issue. Judgments of trial judges would soon become longer than they already are if a judge’s failure to mention such facts and arguments would be evidence that he or she had not properly considered the losing party’s case.
In Housing Commission of New South Wales v Tatmar Pastoral Co Pty Ltd and Penrith Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 378 at 385 – 386, Mahoney JA said:
It is not the duty of the judge to decide every matter which is raised in argument.
…
Nor is it necessary for a judge who is exercising a discretionary judgment to detail each factor which he has found to be relevant or irrelevant, or to itemize, for example, in the assessment of damages for tort, each of the factual matters to which he has had regard … Nor is a judge required to make an explicit finding on each disputed piece of evidence. It will be sufficient, if the inference as to what is found is appropriately clear…
Credibility of Witnesses
The mother’s witnesses
The mother gave evidence and was cross-examined by both counsel for the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”).
During cross-examination, the mother was frequently tearful and needed time to compose herself before attempting to answer questions. Despite this presentation, she was forceful and at times feisty when she disagreed with a proposition put to her. I accept she is generally a witness of truth, and giving evidence about past family violence would be distressing for her. Understandably, she viewed the father through a prism of his past actions, although she seemed to accept begrudgingly, that the father may have turned around his life and could be remorseful for his past conduct.
Dr K, the mother’s treating psychologist, gave evidence and was cross-examined by both counsel for the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer. He gave evidence in a professional and competent manner, answering questions directly and giving considered and thoughtful responses. I accept his evidence.
Ms L, the mothers friend also gave evidence and was cross examined by counsel for the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer. As expected, she was aligned with the mother and gave answers she thought would assist her friend. Much of her evidence recounted what her child had told her, rather than what she observed. Whilst I accept her generally as a witness of truth, her evidence did not greatly assist in determining the parental dispute.
The father’s witnesses
The father gave evidence and was cross-examined by both counsel for the mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer. He was mostly candid, truthful, and remorseful about his previous violent and at times outrageous conduct towards the mother. He demonstrated insight about the effect of his actions on the mother and the children and I accept he has had considerable time to reflect about his conduct. He has voluntarily engaged with numerous professionals to address his previous substance abuse problems and anger management and continues to do so. On some occasions he was reluctant to admit a description of his actions, preferring to downplay it, and at times struggled to remain composed. I accept him generally as a witness of truth and accept he has made remarkable changes to his life, engaging in therapy, support programs and taking responsibility for his actions.
Ms D, the father’s partner, was cross-examined by counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer and counsel for the mother. She was a highly impressive and credible witness who gave concise and plausible answers to every question put to her. She impressed as highly reflective and having considerable insight into family violence and her responsibilities as a supervisor of the father’s time with the child. I have the utmost confidence she will do everything possible to safeguard and prioritise the interests of the child.
The Independent Children’s Lawyers witnesses
Ms E, the Family Report writer gave evidence and was cross-examined by all counsel. She gave evidence in a professional and competent manner and answered questions directly in a considered and thoughtful manner. I accept her evidence implicitly. Where the mother’s evidence differs from Ms E’s version of a factual dispute, I prefer Ms E’s version. I particularly prefer Ms E’s account of the mother’s conduct at the Family Report interview, because I consider Ms E to be objective and professional, whereas the mother’s version of events was highly emotionally charged and subjective.
The legal principles applicable to parenting disputes
Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) sets out the provisions relating to children. Section 60B sets out the objects of the Act and the principles to be applied. Section 60CA provides that the Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration when making parenting orders. Section 60CC of the Act sets out how the Court is to determine what is in a child's best interests by reference to primary considerations (s 60CC(2)), the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents and the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence and additional considerations (s 60CC(3)) including any views expressed by the child, the nature of the relationship between the child and each parent and other persons, the past involvement of each parent with the child, the likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, the practical difficulty and expense of the child spending time with a parent, the capacity of each parent to provide for the intellectual and emotional needs of the child, any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family, whether it would be preferable to make an order which would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child and any other relevant fact or circumstance.
In applying the primary considerations, the Court must give greater weight to the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence (s 60CC(2A)).
Family violence is defined in s 4AB of the Act and means violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person’s family or causes the family member to be fearful.
In considering what order to make, s 60CG of the Act requires the Court, to the extent possible, to ensure that the order does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence and enables the Court to include in the order any necessary safeguards.
I have considered all relevant sections of s 60CC(3) in reaching my decision, although I have not specifically referred to each consideration: Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36.
I now turn to the mother’s assertion about the effect of time between the child and the father on her parenting capacity.
Would the mother’s parenting capacity be discernibly impaired by orders providing for the child to spend time with the father?
The relevant legal principles were considered by the Full Court of the Family Court in Keane & Keane [2020] FamCA 99 (“Keane”).
At [82] of Keane the Full Court, referring to Blinko & Blinko [2015] FamCAFC 146 [83], their Honours summarised the principles adumbrated in relevant authorities:
•It may be taken as well established by a line of authorities generally acknowledged to commence with Russell & Close (Unreported, Full Court of the Family Courtof Australia, 25 June 1993) that the following are correct statements of principle:
•If a Court is satisfied that a parent represents an unacceptable risk of harm to a child, then unless that risk is able to be sufficiently managed or ameliorated by, for instance, supervision of any time or communication between the parent and the child, the best interests of the child may require an order prohibiting that parent from spending time or communicating with the child;
•If the Court does not find that a parent represents such an unacceptable risk of harm, nonetheless it may take into account anxiety on the part of the other parent arising from their genuine, but not necessarily rational, belief that the parent represents such a risk of harm. In such a case, the other parent’s belief must be genuinely held. If it is entirely irrational and baseless, then the genuineness of the belief would clearly be open to doubt. However, where such a belief is genuinely held, if the child spending time with a parent would sufficiently erode the other parent’s capacity to properly care for the child, then that may of itself mean that the ensuing detriment to the child determines that it is in their best interests not to spend time or communicate with the parent;
•Further, where the history of abuse, violence or like behaviour between two parents means that any continued interaction between them would similarly erode the resident parent’s capacity to care for the child, the need for peace and tranquillity in their household may be a more compelling need for the child and hence also might justify an order prohibiting the other parent from spending time or communicating with a child: see Sedgley & Sedgley (1995) FLC 92-623.
The mother’s evidence in her affidavits relied upon was that she has been diagnosed with PTSD because of the violence she was subjected to by the father. I refer to the most significant incidents of violence in greater detail below.
She currently manages her PTSD symptoms with assistance from her general practitioner (GP) and treating psychologist, Dr K, whom she has attended since June 2019. She has also attempted to take anxiety medication but abandoned it after a couple of weeks as it made her feel drowsy and she did not “feel right” in other aspects of her life.
The court proceedings have caused her considerable distress and exacerbated her PTSD, which seems to have been either diagnosed or accepted by Dr K. She is fearful that orders for the child to spend time with the father will have a negative and destabilising effect on her health and will compromise her parenting capacity. In her Family Report, Ms E did not accept the mother’s diagnosis of PTSD fell within the relevant diagnostic criteria, although she conceded the mother had symptoms consistent with PTSD. I cannot, and do not, need to make findings about the mother’s diagnosis. I accept she has at the very least, symptoms consistent with PTSD, and is highly anxious and distressed about the prospect of time between the child and her father.
She otherwise functions as an exemplary single parent, successfully juggling demanding fulltime employment with the care of two children, whilst ensuring both attend school and numerous extracurricular activities including sport. In her own words, she leads a busy, active, and happy lifestyle.
Notwithstanding the mother’s distress, she made concessions during cross-examination that she would do all things necessary to cope with the child spending time with the father, she would try to deal with it as best she can, not neglect the kids and do her best to “continue doing everything they are now”. She also agreed she would get support from her psychologist and support group and would continue to parent to the best of her ability. Although she found the Family Report interviews highly stressful and traumatic, that evening she attended sport training with the children, demonstrative of her ability to adequately provide for the needs of the child despite such an experience.
She acknowledged in cross-examination “the child had a right to miss the other parent” but would not initially agree the child had a right to a relationship with the other parent, as she had acknowledged to Ms E. She also agreed she had sent an email from her phone to the father on 25 May 2020 (Exhibit F-2), which said:
Dear dad, I always try and call you before kinder but it doesn’t work
Love [X]
The mother told Ms E the child was young and vulnerable, and she could choose to have a relationship with her father when she was older. During cross-examination she said she would be receptive to the child’s future curiosity about the father.
At paragraph 17 of the Family Report, Ms E refers to the mother allowing the father to spend time with the child, and sometimes with F and herself on at least eight occasions between June 2019 and October 2019. There were no incidents or indications of the mother’s fear of the father and the mother did not report the father for breaching the Intervention Order.
Much was made of the mother’s conduct at the Family Report interviews and the apparent inconsistency between her conduct and her expressed fear of the father. According to the Family Report of Ms E filed 24 May 2023 [3]-[4]:
… In response to related concerns raised by the mother’s lawyer, the assessor wrote to the legal representatives on 3 March 2023, stating that she could not guarantee the parents would not catch sight of each other, but indicated that parents would be in different waiting rooms in different buildings with separate entrances and bathroom facilities. The assessor stated that she would accompany the mother and child to her consulting room and that “there is no reason that the mother should cross paths with the father if everyone follows my instructions”.
The mother did not follow the assessors’ instructions and repeatedly came out of the waiting room into the pathway between the father is waiting room and the assessors consulting room, disrupting the child’s attempts to interact with the father, and causing the child immense distress. The father followed the assessor’s instructions at all times.
In the Family Report, Ms E refers to the mother’s conduct on two occasions during the interview process. First, when the mother burst out of her waiting area into the pathway between the assessor’s consulting room and the father’s waiting room and called out to the child. Secondly, during a telephone call between the child and her father, the mother was seeking to enter the assessor’s room. Ms E considered the mother completely undermined the assessment process and disregarded the assessors’ instructions. During cross-examination, Ms E was steadfast in her answers about these incidents and I accept her evidence.
The mother sought to justify her actions because she was overwhelmed, stressed, massively anxious, fearful and had a dissociative type of event. She did not acknowledge she had attempted to undermine the interview process. The mother said she had understood from Ms E that she would not come into contact with the father and was critical of the layout of Ms E’s rooms which did not provide the security she required.
In support of her case, the mother relied upon the evidence of Dr K. Dr K provided two reports which were annexed to his affidavits filed on 11 May 2023 and 20 November 2023.
He confirmed the mother had consulted him in late 2019 and he had been assisting her with tools such as various therapies and had been working with her with meditation.
He said the mother’s conclusion was that she did not want the child to spend time with her father and that the child had also expressed to her that she did not want to see her father. He was aware the mother’s relationship with F’s father was emotionally and physically abusive and the mother had also experienced childhood trauma. Although he was aware the child had expressed a desire to have a relationship with her father, he was unaware of the extent to which the relationship was being proposed.
Dr K agreed he would continue to support the mother and assist her in supporting the children and continuing to be a good mother. In the event orders were made by the Court for the child to spend time with her father, Dr K maintained his assertion outlined in the final paragraph of his report filed 25 May 2023, that the mother would continue to provide care for the children which recognises their physical, emotional, personal, and social needs. He acknowledged there would be an impact on her mental health, but he would continue to assist her to engage in regular activities, including sports and engaging with friends.
Dr K agreed the mother described her attendance with the Family Report writer as a very traumatic event. Counsel for the Independent Childrens Lawyer put to Dr K that the mother’s evidence was that following the interview she continued with her impressive lifestyle, ensuring the children attended school, extracurricular activities and that the children had done well at school. He agreed there was no reason to believe that the mother’s high functioning after the traumatic event would not continue, unless there was a change in circumstances.
When asked to explain a potential change in circumstances, Dr K said he had no issue with the mother and her care of the children but rather the mother’s mental health if she were asked to be involved with her ex-partner. The following exchange then took place between counsel for the Independent Childrens Lawyer and Dr K:
…….But what I’m saying to you is that after the assessment, she appears to have continued her life in a pretty healthy manner?‑‑‑That’s right.
As in she – yes?‑‑‑Yes.
So there’s a good possibility that, for example, it might be scary going towards a routine of say, for example, that the court orders a regime of supervised time or some form of time. It might be scary going through that – to approaching that regime but there’s no reason to say that she won’t continue her path of healthy assessment afterwards?‑‑‑She – no, she will do whatever is needed for – to meet the needs of her children, I believe.
Okay?‑‑‑And if that involves – if that involves those access arrangements or – particularly if there’s – they’re, you know, gradual and supported, I’m pretty sure that she will do whatever is needed.
Thank you. And extending what Ms Teicher was asking you; you will certainly – if she continues to attend upon you, you will certainly work with her through that process, won’t you?‑‑‑Yes, I will.
To provide her with strategies to manage and cope; correct?‑‑‑Absolutely.[1]
[1] Transcript 14 December 2023, p.8 lines 27-47.
In re-examination, Dr K agreed with counsel for the mother that the prospect of the child spending time with the father could potentially retraumatise her and result in a heightened level of anxiety. However, as to the effect on her parenting capacity, Dr K did not think it would have an effect on her parenting. He went on to say:
…I don’t believe that it will have an effect on her parenting. I think what she will do, as with many, many victims, they will internalise and they will need to work through that for themselves as an individual but I don’t believe that she will transfer her own needs to be able to address those issues onto her children.[2]
…I think everything has an effect on our ability to parent our children but I don’t believe that it is going to be a detrimental effect in any way on the children.[3]
…I think we can talk about likelihoods, and I think in her case her future is that in all likelihood she will be able to cope, but I think part of her ability to cope, as with anyone going through Family Court, is how it’s actually supported and managed both by the Court and by the people that are available to them.[4] (Emphasis added).
I believe that in all likelihood she will continue to manage and do what’s required to meet the needs of the children, irrespective of any changes that occur in terms of access arrangements or what ultimately, you know, her involvement in those access arrangements might be.[5]
[2] Transcript 14 December 2023, p.11 lines 26-30.
[3] Transcript 14 December 2023, p.11 lines 35-37.
[4] Transcript 14 December 2023, p.12 lines 6-10.
[5] Transcript 14 December 2023, p.12 lines 16-19.
I unequivocally accept Dr K’s evidence. He impressed me as an insightful professional witness, who answered questions directly and has had the advantage of treating the mother over many years.
Because of the mother’s own evidence during cross-examination and the evidence of Dr K, I find that despite the mother’s distress and anxiety, the mother’s capacity to care for the child and be emotionally available would not be discernibly impacted by the child spending time with her father.
Having determined the mother’s parenting capacity would not be discernibly impacted by the child spending time with the father, I will now consider what parenting arrangements are in the child’s best interests. To do so, I will now address the primary and additional considerations.
Primary Considerations
I will firstly address the primary considerations.
The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents
Ordinarily, it is in a child’s best interests to have a meaningful relationship with both parents.
In Mazorski v Albright [2007] FamCA 520, Brown J at [26], described a meaningful relationship as one “which is important, significant and valuable to the child” and the word meaningful is “a qualitative adjective, not strictly a quantitative one”.
In McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92 the Full Court considered the meaning of s 60CC(2)(a) and said:
[119] … the preferred interpretation of benefit to a child of a meaningful relationship in s 60CC(2)(a) is "the prospective approach" although, depending upon factual circumstances, the present relationship approach may also be relevant. We note however that s 60CC(3)(b) requires a court to explore existing relationships between a child and his or her parents and other persons, including grandparents ...
[122] In reaching these conclusions, we also consider the legislation requires a court to focus on the benefit to the child of a meaningful or significant relationship. No doubt in the majority of cases there will be a positive benefit to a child of having a significant relationship with both parents, but there will also be some cases where there will be no positive benefit to be derived by a child by a court attempting to craft orders to foster a relationship with one parent if this would not be in the child's best interests.
There is no dispute the mother will continue her role as primary carer of the child, and the child will accordingly continue to enjoy a meaningful relationship with her mother. The issue in this case is the benefit of the child having a relationship with her father.
Ms E was unequivocal that the child wanted to have a relationship with the father. When questioned about the possible detriment to the child of not having a relationship with her father, Ms E referred to mental health and personality difficulties as being possible long-term impacts. She explained that it is detrimental to any child not to have a parent in their lives, and it would be important for the wellbeing of the child to see that her father has made positive changes, rather than being left with the view that he is a “bad person”.
The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse
In the Family Report of Ms E dated 22 May 2023, the father admitted to the Family Report writer his verbal abuse of the mother began early in the relationship and escalated when he began daily drinking, approximately 18 months into the relationship. He conceded during the relationship there were three incidents of physical violence, but otherwise denied being physically abusive. [6]
[6] Family Report of Ms E dated 22 May 2023, paragraph 12.
The first reported physical altercation took place in early 2019 following a day at the beach, where the parties and a friend had been drinking alcohol. After the parties returned home and the children were in bed, the father alleges the mother physically and verbally assaulted him, because of a comment he made at the beach about another woman. According to the father, he tried to diffuse the situation and attempted to stop the mother from leaving the house and driving the children, because she was intoxicated. He states that “this led to a scuffle that ended in the bathroom where I held [the mother] […] and verbally abused her”.[7]
[7] Affidavit of Mr Spijker filed 23 May 2023, paragraph 51.
The mother’s version of events differs significantly as she denies physically abusing the father and instead describes the scuffle as the father following her into the bathroom in a “fit of rage” before harming her.[8] She deposes to thinking that she was going to die and claims that F witnessed this assault. The next day, the father sent a message to the mother saying, “Yo fuck with my kids menal sate [sic] like that again I’ll kill you cunt”.[9]
[8] Affidavit of Ms Paulis filed 11 November 2022, paragraph 69.
[9] Annexure MP-6 to the affidavit of Ms Paulis filed 11 November 2022.
The second altercation occurred in mid-2019 when the mother attended a friends’ 40th birthday party. During the evening, the father sent her abusive messages telling her to come home, she was taking too long, and he was locking the door. Upon arriving home, she was verbally abused by the father and made to sleep on the couch. The next morning, she was stopped by the father in the hallway who called her a “cunt” before headbutting her.[10] This version of events is vehemently denied by the father.
[10] Affidavit of Ms Paulis filed 11 November 2022, paragraph 78.
The father deposes that around 6.30 pm that evening there was a knock at the door, as unbeknownst to him the mother had agreed to a friend of F’s sleeping over. He admits that “toxic” messages were exchanged over the course of the evening as he was unhappy about the arrangement. The next day, the father was still unhappy with the mother and a “heated exchange of words” broke out in the hallway in which the parties became “very close to one another” and “clashed heads”.[11]
[11] Affidavit of Mr Spijker filed 23 May 2023, paragraph 65.
In mid-2019, an interim Intervention Order was made, and the father was charged and bailed to appear at the Suburb G Magistrates Court the following day. A short time later, the father pleaded guilty and was sentenced by the Court. He received a Community Corrections Order (CCO) which required him to attend a drug and alcohol program and a Men’s Behaviour Course. According to him, he was proactive and sought to enrol in and commence courses prior to being advised of possible availability by Corrective Services.
The third altercation took place in mid-2019 when the father attended the mothers’ home and banged on the door. The mother deposes that whilst she was home with the child and F, no one let the father in. She alleged the father subsequently broke the glass panel next to the door and let himself in, which distressed the children.[12]
[12] Affidavit of Ms Paulis filed 11 November 2022, paragraph 86.
Further, the subpoenaed police records show the father attended the mother’s home in mid‑2019, knocked on the door and then walked away (Exhibit ICL-4). During cross‑examination, the father admitted he was wearing a beanie and that he walked away because he realised he was doing the wrong thing. Thereafter the police investigated the incident. The father denied he was rude to the police and that he had hung up on a police officer during a phone call.
In late 2019, the father was sentenced for breaching an Intervention Order. Some time later, the Intervention Order was varied to allow mediation or consent arrangements for time with the child to take place. An indefinite Final Intervention Order was made in late 2019 in the absence of the father, which names the mother and child as affected family members.
Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer most helpfully cross-examined the father about the documents produced by Victoria Police pursuant to subpoena, including the records of the incidents referred to in the preceding paragraphs. The cross-examination was directed to incidents where the father breached Community Corrections and Intervention Orders. The father generally agreed with the contents of the documents produced by Victoria Police, although there were some discrepancies between his understanding of these events and the police records.
Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer also cross-examined the father about various courses he had undertaken, including a men’s behaviour change program which he started in early 2020, a post separation parenting course and drug and alcohol abuse courses. The father continues to attend upon the M Support Services on a weekly basis.
The father’s evidence was, and I accept, that over several years he has reflected on his violent, unhealthy, and completely unacceptable behaviour and has taken numerous steps to remedy his substance abuse problems, which he considers largely contributed to his appalling behaviour.
He demonstrated empathy and apologised for his behaviour to the mother, the child and the mother’s extended family. He acknowledged his conduct had affected the child as she had lost her father, relationship with the paternal family, and had experienced instability in her living arrangements. When asked to reflect about himself, he described his previous self as a lost, angry young man who had not been brought up in a loving and healthy home.
At paragraph 197 of the Family Report, Ms E summarised her opinion of the father’s changes after the relationship concluded with the mother:
The father has made remarkable changes since this time, engaging in therapy and programs, and taking responsibility for his actions. He has not breached the IVO for a couple of years, used illicit substances for several years, or continued to abuse alcohol. He has repaired relationships with family members, strengthened his support network, and been in a stable romantic relationship for 2 ½ years. He has experienced financial and work stability, secured his dream job, and bought a [property] which he is excited to share with his daughter. The father presented as the more calm, rational, stable, and patient parent currently, simply seeking to rebuild a relationship with his daughter in the least disruptive way possible.
I accept Ms E’s description of the father’s rehabilitation in recent years.
For the past two and a half years, the father has been in a stable and loving relationship with his current partner, Ms D, who was previously a victim of domestic violence and now works as a counsellor. They have bought a property together and the father is keen for the child to experience his current rural lifestyle. He has also maintained stable employment for several years, continues to attend men’s behavioural groups and has engaged with numerous support groups. Exhibit F-1 is a letter from M Support Services dated November 2023, detailing the father’s ongoing involvement within the organisation.
Following the Child Impact Report of 8 November 2021 and the criticisms levelled at him, the father engaged and attended upon a psychologist, Ms C. Ms C prepared a report which was annexed to an affidavit filed 8 November 2022. The father did not rely on the affidavit at trial because Ms C was having surgery and was not available for cross-examination.
The father acknowledged that any time with the child would need to progress slowly, and stated he was amenable to supervised time to provide reassurance to both the child and her mother. His wish is to have an opportunity to build a relationship with his daughter and to ensure her safety and wellbeing.
The Family Report writer considers the father was suffering from a health condition with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct as he continued to breach the IVO and CCO, believing his connection with the child was more important. She opines the father exhibits personality vulnerabilities stemming from his traumatic childhood and disrupted attachment, but there are signs of significant personal growth in recent years. In terms of “mental state examination”, Ms E concludes at paragraph 166 of the Family Report as follows:
•Appearance – neatly dressed, cap, glasses, …, no self-care concerns.
•Behaviour – tearful, cooperative.
•Mood – normal range of affect and euthymic mood, though appropriately tearful at times.
•Speech – appropriate in terms of pace, volume, spontaneity, articulation, and intonation.
•Thought processes – goal-directed and logical.
•Thought content – no current suicidal ideation, thoughts to harm others, obsessions, or compulsions.
•Perception – no hallucinations or delusions.
•Orientation – oriented to time, place, person, and self.
•Memory/concentration – short and long-term memory intact; able to maintain attention.
•Insight/judgement – good.
Ms D was not on affidavit and when asked why, the father responded he wanted to keep her out of the dispute to the extent possible. Notwithstanding those intentions, Ms D accompanied the father to court each day of the trial. At my suggestion, Ms D made herself available for cross-examination by both counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer and counsel for the mother. My request was in the context of her suitability as a potential supervisor in the event time was ordered.
Ms D has worked for approximately five years as a counsellor. She holds tertiary qualifications which she obtained in 2018 and is employed in her field. She has been relationship with the father for two and a half years. She described a highly functional relationship with her three children.
She was aware of the father’s past conduct and said there had never been any violence or aggression during her relationship with the father. Any disagreement or conflict between them was able to be resolved in a civil manner and both she and the father were aware of each other’s backgrounds and the importance of conflict resolution without resorting to violence.
During cross-examination, Ms D stated that she was prepared to supervise time between the father and child, and understood her role was to ensure the child would be in a safe and supportive environment. She also understood her obligations as a supervisor and was prepared to do so for as long as necessary. Her answers to questions from counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer were insightful and highly appropriate. For example, when asked about appropriate conversations with the child, she said that as the child became older, she would likely be more inquisitive, and she needed to be mindful of what she had experienced and perceived as her prior relationship with her father.
I am satisfied that Ms D is a highly appropriate supervisor for time between the father and child.
In the Child Impact Report of Ms J dated 9 November 2021, the Family Consultant opined that it did not appear the child could benefit from spending any time with her father, even in a supervised capacity, and time would be detrimental to the child. The Family Consultant raised concerns regarding the ongoing family violence risk posed by the father, the mothers fear of the father, and the destabilising effect the father has on the mother’s capacity to care for the child.
Ms J was not required for cross-examination. I accept that there has not been any ongoing family violence perpetrated by the father since May 2021 and for the reasons referred to in the previous paragraphs, he no longer poses a threat to the mother or child. The mother’s counsel, in his final submissions abandoned the assertion the father posed an unacceptable risk.
I also accept Ms E’s opinion at paragraph 200 of the Family Report, which was not challenged, that the mother’s primary fears are the child forming a relationship with the father and the father taking the child, rather than the risk of the father engaging in further violence. I prefer the opinion of Ms E to Ms J, as Ms E’s assessment is much more recent, and the father has subsequently addressed the criticisms levelled at him by Ms J. Additionally, the child was four years old when she was interviewed for the Child Impact Report, and she was older and more mature when interviewed by Ms E. Ms E’s opinion of the mother’s fears is in accordance with the position adopted by the mother’s counsel.
My impression of the father was that he was truly remorseful, sincere, and prepared to do whatever is necessary to re-establish time with his daughter. In reaching this conclusion I have also regard to the evidence of the father’s partner, Ms D, who impressed me as insightful, responsible and a moderating and loving partner of the father.
Additional Considerations
I will now address the additional considerations.
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
The Family Report identifies the child’s “behaviour reflected curiosity and a desire to connect with her father, though she fears her mother’s reaction and reported many of her mother’s concerns”.[13]
[13] Family Report of Ms E dated 22 May 2023, paragraph 97.
During the Family report interview, the child initially described her father in terms which reflected her mother’s views and reported that her mother had said she could not see her father. Her mother had apparently told her a lot about what the father had done in the past and according to Ms E, the memories to which the child referred did not appear to be her own nor accurate and she struggled to make sense of what she had been told.[14]
[14] Family Report of Ms E dated 22 May 2023, paragraph 104.
Despite these comments the child told Ms E:
…she would like to be able to text her father, talk to him on the phone and exchange letters and gifts with him. She would like him to come to the door at her home, leave the letter, and run-off. She said she does not want to see him in person as she feels as if he will take her and run away and hide, though she acknowledged he has never done anything of the sort before. She expressed being aware that this is her mother’s fear.[15]
[15] Family Report of Ms E dated 22 May 2023, paragraph 106.
Ms E describes the child’s demeanour changing after the observation session with her mother, upon her mother leaving the room. She asked where her father was and requested to open a blind, so that she could see her father.
During the Family Report interview, the child continued to attempt to see her father from Ms E’s room and when she caught sight of him, became distracted and excited to open the door to see him one more time. Ms E suggested the child accompany her to deliver a consent form to the father and explained her father would see her, which she said she wanted. The child apparently appeared excited and followed Ms E upstairs.
Upon reaching the door to the father’s room, Ms E states:
…the mother burst out of her waiting area into the pathway between the assessor’s consulting room and the father’s waiting room and called out to [Ms D]. The mother completely undermined the assessment process and disregarded the assessor’s instructions. [Ms D] became immediately distressed and inconsolable as her mother had caught her about to come face to face with her father against her mother’s wishes.[16]
[16] Family Report of Ms E dated 22 May 2023, paragraph 109.
Ms E states that upon returning to her consulting room, the child’s “demeanour changed instantly again when her mother was out of sight”.[17] She wanted to telephone her father, which occurred with the call on speaker phone. She reports the child was confident and at ease when speaking to her father who was warm, gentle and appropriate. Ms E concluded from the conversation that it was clear the father and daughter still have a close connection.
[17] Family Report of Ms E dated 22 May 2023, paragraph 110.
Ms E describes a further incident where the mother sought to enter her consulting room which resulted in the child becoming immediately distressed, crying, and appearing terrified of her mother’s reaction to her speaking to her father. Upon Ms E opening the door, the child ran outside, and Ms E took the mother into her consulting room, whereupon she kept saying the father had abused her, sat on the floor crying out for her own mother and claimed the child was a product of rape.
Remarkably, Ms E reports the mother said she knew the child was curious and wanted a connection with her father, contrary to her previous claims. The mother also curious about her own father at the same age.
During cross-examination, Ms E was steadfast about the events at the time of the Family Report and her opinions expressed therein.
It is apparent from the account of the events which occurred at the interviews that there is a discrepancy between what the child initially said to the Family Report writer and her subsequent actions and comments.
I accept Ms E’s version of events and can conclude that the child clearly has a desire and curiosity to see her father and that she is acutely aware of her mother’s unfavourable view of her father and potential distress should they commence spending time together.
During cross-examination by counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer, the mother conceded the child had expressed curiosity and raised seeing her father on one occasion since May 2023. The mother’s evidence was that it would always be on the table.
As to the child’s maturity, Ms E described her as “very smart, assertive, tall and confident”.[18] She also commented that the child appeared to be very bright, more mature than her years and demonstrated that she is very assertive and knows what she wants. I accept that description and consider the child has a sound understanding of the dynamic between her parents and is mature for her age. I will give significant weight to her views.
The nature of the relationship of the child with:
(i) each of the child's parents;
[18] Family Report of Ms E dated 22 May 2023, paragraph 97.
(ii) other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child)
The child has a close relationship with her mother, which was not in dispute during the trial. Other than the issue of the child re-establishing a relationship with her father, the mother is an exemplary, highly competent, and confident parent. The child is flourishing and thriving in her care.
During cross-examination, the mother stated that whilst the child does not currently have a “father figure”, she has many positive male role models such as her brother, maternal step grandfather, teachers, and sport trainers.
The child has not spent time with her father since February 2020. The father’s comments to the Family Report writer about the child and the activities they enjoyed, describe a close and attuned relationship between father and daughter. They previously enjoyed arts and crafts activities, scooting at the park, getting dirty together, gardening, watering vegetables and plants. The child’s actions at the Family Report interviews and the comments of the Family Report writer that father and daughter still had a close connection are descriptive of the current relationship and the mutual desire to progress the relationship.
During the trial, there was little focus about the child’s relationship with other persons. Because the child will continue to live in the primary care of her mother, it is unlikely her relationship with her brother F will be affected.
The extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity:
to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child;
to spend time with the child; and
to communicate with the child
The father has not seen the child since February 2020. There is a Final Intervention Order in place and there are no extant Family Court Orders providing for time between the father and child. The father filed an Initiating Application in the Federal Circuit Court on 2 July 2021, seeking orders to spend time with the child.
Understandably, the father has not participated in major decision-making in relation to the child and has not spent time with, nor communicated with her.
The mother has made all major long-term decisions about the child, without criticism from the father, and the child lives in the mother’s household with her brother F.
Parental obligation to maintain the child
The father does not pay child support because the mother has obtained an exemption from the child support agency based on the family violence which occurred during their relationship.
Once the father’s time with the child is regularised by orders of this court, the father anticipates paying child support in accordance with an administrative assessment and has no objection to doing so.
The mother has provided all financial support for the child since the date of separation.
The likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from either of her parents
The mother asserted her parenting capacity would be discernibly impaired by orders providing for the child to spend time with the father. I have addressed this assertion earlier in these reasons.
The child will remain living with her mother who will also have sole parental responsibility for her. Her living arrangements will remain constant.
Her time with the father will occur initially supervised and will progress gradually. Because of the child’s statements to the Family Report writer, the events at the assessment interviews, and the assessment of the child’s maturity, I do not have any concerns that the child’s separation from her mother will adversely affect her.
The practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that the difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis
The mother and child live in Suburb N and the father lives in Town O in Region P, about 90 minutes from each other’s household.
The father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer both propose time initially occur professionally supervised, with the father to be responsible for supervision costs and the cost of a report to be provided to the mother. At the conclusion of professional supervision, changeover is to occur at a public location selected by the mother.
I therefore can reasonably infer the mother will select a public location convenient to her and there is no practical difficulty or expense associated with the child spending time with the father.
The capacity of each of the child’s parents to provide for the child’s needs, including her emotional and intellectual needs
As referred to above, the mother is an excellent parent to the child in her everyday life. The mother’s parental vulnerability is the issue of the child’s relationship with her father. According to Ms E, the results of her psychological testing indicate the mother presents with strong social support, help seeking behaviour and an ability to meet the child’s needs. Ms E identified some “parenting needs” which may have a negative impact on the mothers parenting capacity as follows:
•The problematic relationship with the father and other family members.
•Emotional/mental health difficulties that are exacerbated in this context.
•Problematic parenting patterns, that may become destructive.
•The childrens high needs that demand increased parenting capacity.
•The mother’s own history of childhood abuse/neglect.[19]
[19] Family Report of Ms E dated 22 May 2023, paragraph 96.
I have dealt with the mother’s assertion that her parenting capacity would be discernibly impaired if the child spent time with the father. In doing so, I have relied upon the evidence of her treating psychologist, Dr K, and have concluded in accordance with the evidence of Dr K during cross-examination, that would not be so.
Ms E opined the likelihood that the child will be exposed to neglect or abuse in the father’s care was rated as low to moderate. Protectively, she considered the father presents with strong social support, help seeking behaviour and an ability to meet the child’s basic needs.
She identified “parenting needs” which may have a negative impact on the fathers parenting capacity as follows:
•Mental health/emotional issues
•Problematic family relationships with family violence towards the mother, though the father has improved his relationships with family members in recent years.
•Problematic parenting patterns in the past.
•The father’s own childhood history of abuse and neglect.[20]
[20] Family Report of Ms E dated 22 May 2023, paragraph 177.
Ms E also opined that the father presents with residual symptoms of an adjustment disorder and the mother presents with post-traumatic stress and anxiety which is exacerbated in the context of the family law proceedings. Both parents present with personality difficulties due to the trauma and disrupted attachment that they experience during childhood. The mother lacked self-critical reflection and empathy and the father had a history of impulsive and antisocial behaviour, that he has largely addressed. Neither parent presents with significant risks according to the assessment tool administered to the parents, but both parents engaged in problematic parenting. It is important that they address their “parenting needs”, and it is recommended they engage in programs and treatment. Ms E was not challenged about her opinion, and I accept her evidence.
I am satisfied that each parent can provide for the child’s day-to-day needs when the child is in their respective care including emotional and intellectual needs. It is obvious from the observations of Ms E which are recorded in the Family Report, that the child has expressed a desire to have an emotional connection with her father. The orders which I propose to make for the child to spend time with her father will address that need.
The maturity, sex lifestyle and background of the child and of either of the child’s parents and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks is relevant.
The maturity of the child is referred to in the Family Report and in these reasons under the heading the views expressed by the child. There are no extraordinary lifestyle or background factors relevant to the child or the parents.
Obviously, the parental relationship was significantly affected by the family violence perpetrated by the father and subsequently his breaches of Intervention and Community Corrections Orders. I have earlier referred to the father’s recognition of, and remorse for, his previous conduct and perpetration of violence. I also accept the mother has experienced and may continue to experience significant distress about the father’s conduct.
Both parents have dysfunctional family origin histories which have impacted on their respective parenting capacities, as identified by Ms E’s psychological testing and assessment.
The attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents
The mother has demonstrated she is a responsible and caring parent who has provided a consistent and stable home for the child and F. The child has an exemplary school attendance record and regularly attends a range of age-appropriate extracurricular activities, all of which are arranged and facilitated by her mother.
The father’s attitude about how to re-establish a relationship with his daughter and his remorse and regret for his past actions bodes well for the future relationship between the child and her father. During the Family Report interviews, Ms E observed, when the father was speaking to the child, he was warm, gentle, and appropriate and they spoke about the child’s school, friends and patting the dog, at the father’s property. They joked with each other, and both laughed, and it was clear to Ms E that father and daughter still have a close connection. Those observations provide confidence about the future relationship and the father’s attitude to the child.
Any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family and relevant inferences that can be drawn
The family violence between the father and the mother is referred to earlier in these reasons under the discussion of the second primary consideration.
Whether it would be preferable to make an order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings
In this case, as in many parenting cases, it is always preferable to make an order least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings. The proposed orders submitted by both the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer include providing to the mother a supervision report to be prepared after several supervised sessions between the child and her father. The purpose of the supervision report is to provide the mother with information and confidence about the time between the child and her father, which will hopefully alleviate any residual anxiety.
Once professional supervision has concluded, Ms D will supervise the child’s time with her father for an extended period, which again is designed to provide the mother with additional confidence.
Any other fact or circumstance that the Court thinks is relevant
All relevant factors have been addressed in these reasons.
PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
Section 61DA provides, 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. The presumption does not apply if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent of the child (or a person who lives with the parent of the child) has engaged in family violence or abuse of the child, or it is otherwise not in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility.
Both parents and the Independent Children’s Lawyer agree the presumption has been rebutted by the father’s family violence inflicted on the mother and it is not in the child’s best interests for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility. I agree with the submissions of the parties and will therefore make an order for the mother to have sole parental responsibility for the child.
As I have determined there should be an order for sole parental responsibility, I am not required to address the statutory pathway set out in s 65DAA.
Conclusion – What orders are in the child’s best interests?
There was no dispute the child should remain living in the primary care of her mother and that she should have sole parental responsibility. I will make the relevant orders.
Both the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer proposed that the child should spend time with the father initially professionally supervised, and at the conclusion of professional supervision a report should be obtained from the supervisor and provided to the mother. There were some minor discrepancies between the number of supervised visits, however nothing turns on that issue. Thereafter, both proposed the time should progress with Ms D, or another responsible adult, in attendance for time during the day and thereafter to progress to each alternate weekend from 10.00 am Saturday until 4.00 pm Sunday or 4.00 pm Monday if Monday is a public holiday. There were also proposals for school holiday time commencing in 2025 during school term holidays for four consecutive nights, special occasion time and holiday time from 2026 for half of school holidays on a week about basis. Additionally, the father proposed that from 2026 onwards, the child should spend one half of the school holidays with each parent.
The father proposed the progression of time with Ms D as a supervisor be conditional upon her filing with the court an appropriate undertaking, the father providing a supervised hair follicle test for both drugs and alcohol, complete a Tuning Into Kids program, a Triple P Parenting Program and continuing to attend counselling/therapy with Ms C at least once every second calendar month. He also proposed to provide the mother with written results of the hair follicle test, confirmation of completion of the two proposed parenting courses and of his attendance on a psychologist.
Despite the mother acknowledging that the child was curious about her father and wanted to have a relationship with him, the mother’s final proposal remained that there should be no time between the father and child, although she did abandon her previous proposal for the court to make orders restraining the father from issuing further proceedings for parenting orders without leave of the court.
In his final submissions, counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer most helpfully provided a factual summary of the evidence during the trial, which was adopted by counsel for the mother.
He addressed the evidence of Dr K that the mother provided an impressive level of care for the child and despite her increased levels of stress, she was a resilient parent who was able to pick herself up after facing perceived adversity and will do everything needed to provide excellent care for the child. He submitted, and I agree, the mother will find a way to manage her stress levels and anxiety about the child having a relationship with the father and that supervision reports would assist her in that regard. She should be permitted to provide the reports to Dr K who was willing and able to provide ongoing therapy to her.
He submitted there were considerable benefit to the child from a meaningful relationship with her father. It is clear from the Family Report that the child perceived she has a void in her life, because of the absence of her father and that she exhibits a healthy curiosity about him. The child’s curiosity to have a relationship with her father was confirmed by the mother. The Family Report writer identified that the child was yearning for a relationship with her father, they still have a close bond, it is likely that the child will resent her mother if the mother does not support her relationship with her father. It is the child’s needs and wishes that should be placed at the forefront and that it is traumatic to prevent the child from having a relationship with a parent. I unequivocally accept the opinion of Ms E in this regard.
Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer submitted, as recommended by Ms E, that it would be appropriate to commence the father’s time with Ms D initially professionally supervised and thereafter progress to supervision by Ms D. That would serve a twofold purpose; to reintroduce father and child and to provide reassurance to the mother about the child spending time with her father.
It is my expectation the mother will continue to attend upon Dr K who will provide her with support and strategies to address any anxiety she may experience due to the resumption of the relationship between the child and her father.
I intend to make orders for the child to spend time with her father substantially in accordance with the proposal of the Independent Children’s Lawyer, whilst incorporating the safeguards proposed in the father’s Minute.
These orders are in the child’s best interest after considering all the evidence and the relevant statutory criteria. I will also make orders for special occasion time between the father and the child, which was not addressed in the Minute of orders proposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer and for various mechanical orders proposed by the father which should not be controversial. These the include parents advising each other of any injury or emergency involving the child, the parents using an app to communicate, providing copies of these orders and limited reports obtained during the proceedings to the child’s treating medical practitioners and school.
I will make orders accordingly.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and sixty-three (163) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Williams. Associate:
Dated: 22 February 2024
ANNEXURE “A”
Fathers Minute of Proposed orders
1.All previous parenting orders concerning the child X born 2016 (“the child”) be hereby discharged.
2.The Mother have sole parental responsibility for the child.
3.The child live with the Mother.
4.The child spend time with the Father as follows:
(a)For a minimum of eight (8) occasions on a three (3) week cycle for a minimum of three (3) hours on a weekend with such time to be supervised by Family Contact Service – Ms B and/or her nominee (“the professional supervisor”) and the following shall apply:
(i)the time shall commence upon the availability of the professional supervisor;
(ii)the time shall take place at such venue, times, dates as directed by the professional supervisor in consultation with both parents; and
(iii)after the third (3rd) occasion, the Father shall be at liberty to be accompanied by his partner Ms D.
(iv)after the third (3rd) occasion, subject to any safety check required by the professional supervisor, IT IS REQUESTED that every second visit occur at the residence / property of the Father and Ms D with the total travel time to be added to the minimum time of three hours in order 4(i) herein.
(v)the Father shall do all things necessary to obtain a report from the professionally supervisor and IT IS REQUESTED that the professional supervisor provide the Mother a copy of the report.
(vi)the costs of the professional supervisor and reports shall be paid for by the Father.
(vii)in the event Family Contact Service – Ms B is no longer available the parents shall engage Q Contact Service or such other professional supervisor as they agree upon in writing.
(viii)By facetime or other video communication on Monday and Thursday at 5.30 pm for no more than 30 minutes with the Father to initiate the call to a number nominated by the Mother and the mother to ensure the child has access to a fully charged device and that she is provided with privacy to receive the call.
(b)Thereafter, subject to Order 10, commencing a fortnight after the last occasion of professionally supervised time as per subparagraph 4(i), for four (4) occasions on alternate Saturdays from 10:00am to 2:00pm, with such times to be supervised by Ms D.
(c)Thereafter, commencing a fortnight after the last occasion of time as per subparagraph 4(ii), for four (4) occasions on alternate Saturdays from 10:00am to 4:00pm, with such times to be supervised by Ms D.
(d)Thereafter, subject to Order 11, commencing a fortnight after the last occasion of time as per subparagraph 4(iii), for four (4) occasions on alternate weekends on Saturday from 10.00 am to 4:00pm and Sunday from 10:00am to 4:00pm
,with such times to be supervised by Ms D.(e)Thereafter, commencing a fortnight after the last occasion of time as per subparagraph 4(iv),
for four (4) occasionson alternate weekends from 10:00am on Saturday until 4:00pm on Sunday(f)In the year 2025, during school term holidays, for four consecutive nights from the conclusion of school until at 4 pm on the day after the fourth night that the child has spent with the Father.
(g)On the Father’s Day weekend after the commencement of time in accordance with 4 iv from 10:00am on Saturday until 4:00pm on Sunday. If the time spent pursuant to these orders is only one day, then if it falls on the Father’s Day weekend it shall be on the Sunday of that weekend in lieu of the Saturday of that weekend and if the child is not otherwise spending time with the Father that weekend she shall spend time with him on Father’s day.
(h)From 2025 onward on the child’s birthday from the conclusion of school until 6 pm and if on weekend or for 4 hours from 10.00 am to 2 pm.
(i)At such further and other times as agreed between the parents in writing.
5.By no later than seven days (7) after the making of these orders each of the parents shall do all acts and sign all documents necessary to register themselves and the child for the intake process and services of the services of the professional supervisor as set out in 4(i) or 4(g) as applicable.
6.Each of the parents shall be at liberty to provide a sealed copy of these Orders to the professional supervisor.
7.From 2026 / 2017 holidays onwards, during the long summer school holidays, the child’s live with and spend time arrangements with each parent shall be suspended and, unless otherwise agreed between the parents in writing, the child shall be in the care of each parent on a week about basis with the child’s holiday to commence with each parent as follows:
(a)for the summer holidays commencing in 2026 and all even numbered years, the child shall commence the summer holidays with the Mother from the conclusion of school in Term 4.
(b)For the summer holidays commencing in 2027 and all odd numbered years, the child shall commence the summer holidays with the Father from the conclusion of school in Term 4.
8.From 2026 onwards, during the term school holidays, the child’s live with and spend time arrangements with each parent shall be suspended and, unless otherwise agreed between the parents in writing, the child shall be in the care of each parent as follows:
(a)in all even numbered years, the child shall be in the care of the Mother for the first half of the holiday, from the conclusion of school until 5:00pm on the middle Saturday and thereafter, the child shall be in the care of the Father for the second half of the holiday, from 5:00pm on the middle Saturday until the commencement of the new school term.
(b)in all odd numbered years, the child shall be in the care of the Father for the first half of the school holiday, from the conclusion of school until 5:00pm on the middle Saturday and thereafter, the child shall be in the care of the Mother for the second half of the school holiday, from 5:00pm on the middle Saturday until the commencement of the new school term.
9.For the purpose of changeover arrangements of the child going into the care of each parent pursuant to these orders, unless otherwise agreed between the parents in writing, they shall take place at the front entrance of at a supermarket as nominated by the Mother.
10.The spend time pursuant to Order 4(ii) shall be conditional upon the Father:
(a)By no later than __________ (7 days), the Father having with the Court an Undertaking by Ms D as to her role as a supervisor as drafted by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
(b)Submitting to a supervised hair follicle test (4-month test) for both drugs and alcohol and providing the mother with a result which does not detect any illicit substances and is ‘low to moderate’ for alcohol, with such hair test to be undertaken no earlier than 1 month prior to commencing this time.
(c)Completing a Tuning into Kids program and providing the Mother written confirmation of completion from the program provider;
(d)Completing a Triple-P Parenting Program and providing the Mother written confirmation of completion from the program provider; and
(e)Continuing counselling / therapy with Ms C or such other psychologist at least once
perevery second calendar month and providing the Mother written confirmation of his attendance from his psychologist.
11.The spend time pursuant to Order 4(iv) shall be conditional upon having continued counselling / therapy in accordance with
with Ms C perOrder 10(v) at least until one month prior to the commencement of this time and providing the Mother written confirmation from his psychologist of his continued or final attendance.12.Each of parents shall, as soon as practicable, advise and keep the other parent informed of any serious illness, serious injury or medical emergency involving the child whilst in their care, including all details regarding the illness, injury, hospital location, medical practitioners and treatment required; and
13.The parents shall download the smart phone application ‘App Close (“the phone app”) and, at their own expense or equal expense where necessary, register themselves and connect with each other using the mobile application for the purpose of any necessary communication concerning the child.
14.The Father shall be at liberty to and hereby authorised by these orders to:
(a)obtain from the child’s school or extra-curricular activity organisation, at their own expense, all notices, reports and photographs or other information parents are normally provided;
(b)liaise with the child’s school concerning or extra-curricular activity organiser; and
(c)liaise with any medical practitioner, medical specialist, hospital or allied health professional who is attending upon the child; and
15.Each of the parents shall be at liberty and hereby authorised by these Orders to provide their own treating medical and allied health practitioners (including therapists) the following documents:
(a)The Family Report prepared by Ms E dated 22 May 2023; and
(b)Any reports prepared by a professional supervisor.
16.Each of the parents shall be at liberty to provide a copy of these orders to the child’s school, extra-curricular activity organisation or any medical practitioner or allied health professional who is attending upon or treating the child.
17.Each of the parents and their servants and agents shall be and are hereby restrained from:
(a)abusing, belittling, rebuking or denigrating the other parent or the other parent’s partner or immediate family members in the presence or hearing of the child;
(b)discussing these proceedings or any related documents with or in the presence of the child;
(c)allowing the child to be in the presence or hearing of any other person doing what is prohibited by the restraints in this order.
18.Usual Order Section 62B and 65DA(2)
19.The Independent Children’s Lawyer be discharged upon having provided the Father an Undertaking of Supervisor to be provided to Ms D.
(a)(sic)
(b)At such further and other times as agreed between the parents in writing.
20.By no later than _________ (7 days) each of the parents shall do all acts and sign all documents necessary to register themselves and the child for the intake process and services of the services of the professional supervisor.
21.Each of the parents shall be at liberty to provide a sealed copy of these Orders to the professional supervisor.
22.From 2026 / 2017 holidays onwards, during the long summer school holidays, the child’s live with and spend time arrangements with each parent shall be suspended and, unless otherwise agreed between the parents in writing, the child shall be in the care of each parent on a week about basis with the child’s holiday to commence with each parent as follows:
(a)for the summer holidays commencing in 2026 and all even numbered years, the child shall commence the summer holidays with the Mother from the conclusion of school in Term 4.
(b)for the summer holidays commencing in 2027 and all odd numbered years, the child shall commence the summer holidays with the Father from the conclusion of school in Term 4.
23.From 2026 onwards, during the term school holidays, the child’s live with and spend time arrangements with each parent shall be suspended and, unless otherwise agreed between the parents in writing, the child shall be in the care of each parent as follows:
(a)in all even numbered years, the child shall be in the care of the Mother for the first half of the holiday, from the conclusion of school until 5:00pm on the middle Saturday and thereafter, the child shall be in the care of the Father for the second half of the holiday, from 5:00pm on the middle Saturday until the commencement of the new school term.
(b)in all odd numbered years, the child shall be in the care of the Father for the first half of the school holiday, from the conclusion of school until 5:00pm on the middle Saturday and thereafter, the child shall be in the care of the Mother for the second half of the school holiday, from 5:00pm on the middle Saturday until the commencement of the new school term.
24.For the purpose of changeover arrangements of the child going into the care of each parent pursuant to these orders, unless otherwise agreed between the parents in writing, they shall take place at the front entrance of at a supermarket as nominated by the Mother.
25.The spend time pursuant to Order 4(ii) shall be conditional upon the Father:
(a)By no later than __________ (7 days), the Father having with the Court an Undertaking by Ms D as to her role as a supervisor as drafted by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
(b)Submitting to a supervised hair follicle test (4-month test) for both drugs and alcohol and providing the mother with a result which does not detect any illicit substances and is ‘low to moderate’ for alcohol, with such hair test to be undertaken no earlier than 1 month prior to commencing this time.
(c)Completing a Tuning into Kids program and providing the Mother written confirmation of completion from the program provider;
(d)Completing a Triple-P Parenting Program and providing the Mother written confirmation of completion from the program provider; and
(e)Continuing counselling / therapy with Ms C or such other psychologist at least once per every second calendar month and providing the Mother written confirmation of his attendance from his psychologist.
26.The spend time pursuant to Order 4(iv) shall be conditional upon having continued counselling / therapy with Ms C per Order 10(v) at least until one month prior to the commencement of this time and providing the Mother written confirmation from his psychologist of his continued or final attendance
27.Each of parents shall, as soon as practicable, advise and keep the other parent informed of any serious illness, serious injury or medical emergency involving the child whilst in their care, including all details regarding the illness, injury, hospital location, medical practitioners and treatment required; and
28.The parents shall download the smart phone application ‘App Close (“the phone app”) and, at their own expense or equal expense where necessary, register themselves and connect with each other using the mobile application for the purpose of any necessary communication concerning the child.
29.The Father shall be at liberty to and hereby authorised by these orders to:
(a)obtain from the child’s school or extra-curricular activity organisation, at their own expense, all notices, reports and photographs or other information parents are normally provided;
(b)liaise with the child’s school concerning or extra-curricular activity organiser; and
(c)liaise with any medical practitioner, medical specialist, hospital or allied health professional who is attending upon the child; and
30.Each of the parents shall be at liberty and hereby authorised by these Orders to provide their own treating medical and allied health practitioners (including therapists) the following documents:
(a)The Family Report prepared by Ms E dated 22 May 2023; and
(b)Any reports prepared by a professional supervisor.
31.Each of the parents shall be at liberty to provide a copy of these orders to the child’s school, extra-curricular activity organisation or any medical practitioner or allied health professional who is attending upon or treating the child.
32.Each of the parents and their servants and agents shall be and are hereby restrained from:
(a)abusing, belittling, rebuking or denigrating the other parent or the other parent’s partner or immediate family members in the presence or hearing of the child;
(b)discussing these proceedings or any related documents with or in the presence of the child;
(c)allowing the child to be in the presence or hearing of any other person doing what is prohibited by the restraints in this order.
33.Usual Order Section 62B and 65DA(2)
34.The Independent Children’s Lawyer be discharged upon having provided the Father an Undertaking of Supervisor to be provided to Ms D.
ANNEXURE “B”
Mothers Minute of Proposed orders
1.The Respondent mother (“the mother”) have sole parental responsibility for the child, X born 2016 (“the child”).
2.The child live with the mother.
3.The Applicant father (“the father”) spend no time with the child.
4.That the Applicant be restrained from issuing further proceedings relating to parenting orders for the child without leave of this Honourable Court.
5.Such other orders as deemed appropriate by this Honourable Court.
ANNEXURE “C”
Independent Children’s Lawyers Minute of Proposed orders
1.The Mother have sole parental responsibility for the child X, born 2016 (“the child”).
2.The child live with the mother (“the mother”).
3.The child spend time with the father as follows:
(a)for six occasions three hours per fortnight on (Sat / Sun) to be professionally supervised; then subject to a positive report from the supervisor:
(b)for four occasions on alternate Saturdays from 10.00am to 2.00pm to occur in a public location in substantial attendance of another responsible adult; then
(c)for four occasions on alternate Saturdays from 10.00am to 4.00pm in substantial attendance of another responsible adult; then
(d)for four occasions on alternate weekends from 10.00am to 4.00pm on Saturdays and 10.00am to 4.00pm on Sundays; thereafter
(e)each alternate weekend from 1.00am Saturday until 4.00pm Sunday (or 4.00pm Monday if Monday is a public holiday).
(f)from 2025, for four consecutive nights from the conclusion of school on the last day of each school term until 4.00pm four nights thereafter.
(g)from 2026, for half of the school holidays on a week about basis.
(h)At such other times as agreed in writing between the parents.
4.The parents obtain an observational report from the supervisor after the sixth supervised time pursuant to Order 3(a) herein and the cost, if any, of such report to be paid by the father.
5.The father be responsible for the cost, if any, associate with professionally supervised time.
6.After the period of professionally supervised time, changeover occurs at a public location selected by the mother at which there is CCTV coverage, with the mother to provide the father with written notice of such location at least 7 days prior to the time occurring.
7.The parents communicate via a communication App and failing agreement via AppClose.
8.The father be at liberty and authorised pursuant to this Order to communicate with the child’s treating health practitioners, schoolteachers/staff and any extracurricular activity organisers/coaches.
9.Pursuant to Sections 62B and 65DA of the Family Law Act 1975 the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist the parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these Orders.
0
5
2