Sylvan & Sylvan
[2023] FedCFamC2F 1176
•27 September 2023
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Sylvan & Sylvan [2023] FedCFamC2F 1176
File number(s): PAC 1147 of 2021 Judgment of: JUDGE MURDOCH Date of judgment: 27 September 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where it is undisputed that the children should live with the mother – Where the father and Independent Children’s Lawyer seek orders for the children to spend graduated and overnight time with the father – Where the mother seeks orders for the children to spend no time with the father – Where the mother asserts that the father presents an unacceptable risk of harm to the children in the form of coercive and controlling behaviour – Where the mother alleges that the father has perpetrated physical assaults upon her and an assault upon one of the children- Where the father has spent regular supervised time with the children for two years – Findings made that the father was coercive and controlling of the mother during their relationship – No findings able to be made that the father has perpetrated physical violence – Finding that the children have a secure attachment and loving relationship with the father -Where the father has shown some insight and remorse as to his conduct towards the mother during the relationship – Finding that the children are not at an unacceptable risk in the father’s care -– Finding that the mother’s parenting capacity will not be significantly adversely affected should the father spend time with the children – Orders made for the children to spend graduating time with the father over an extended period of time. Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4AB, 4AB(1), 4AB(2), 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60CC(2), 60CC(3), 61DA (1), 65D, 65DAA, 65DAC, 69ZT
Cases cited: A v A [1998] FamCA 24;
Amador & Amador [2009] FamCAFC 196
B & B [1993] FamCA 143
Blinko & Blinko [2015] FamCAFC 146
Carter & Wilson [2023] FedCFamC1A 9
Dieter & Dieter [2007] FamCA 608
Helbig & Rowe [2016] FamCAFC 117
Illgen & Yike [2018] FamCA 17
Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97
Johnson & Page [2007] FamCA 1235
Keane & Keane [2021] FamCAFC 1
Keating & Keating [2019] FamCAFC 46
M & M [1988] HCA 68
Masson v Parsons [2019] HCA 21
Mazorski v Albright [2007] FamCA 520
McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92
Napier & Hepburn [2006] FamCA 1316
Olivier & Olivier [2020] FamCA 639
R & C [1993] FamCA 62
Sedgley & Sedgley [1995] FamCA 154
T and S [2001] FamCA 1147
Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon [2003] HCA 48
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 446 Date of hearing: 30 January – 2 February 2023, 1 May – 3 May 2023 Place: Parramatta Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Jauncey Solicitor for the Applicant: Jack Rigg Solicitors Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Mahony Solicitor for the Respondent: Brigid Justice Ltd Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Ms Katey Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Strive Family Law & Mediations ORDERS
PAC 1147 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR SYLVAN
Applicant
AND: MS SYLVAN
Respondent
AND: INDEPENDENT CHILDRENS LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE MURDOCH
DATE OF ORDER:
27 SEPTEMBER 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Subject to Order 5 below all prior parenting orders for the children X born in 2016 (“X”) and Y born in 2020 (“Y”) be and are hereby discharged.
Parental Responsibility
2.The mother have sole parental responsibility for X and Y subject to Order 2 below.
3.The mother advise the father via email of any major long term decision made by her with respect to the children’s health, education or schooling within 14 days of such decision being made.
Live with and Spend Time With
4.The children live with the Mother.
5.Until Saturday 14 October 2023 the children spend time with the father in accordance with Order 1A made on 18 May 2021.
6.The children spend time with the Father as agreed between the parties in writing and failing agreement as follows:-
(a)As and from Saturday 21 October 2023 and each alternate Saturday thereafter from 10:00am until 2:00pm.
(b)Commencing as and from Saturday 20 January 2023 and each alternate Saturday thereafter from 10:00am until 3:00pm;
(c)Commencing as and from Saturday 23 March 2024 and each alternate Saturday thereafter from 10:00am to 5:00pm;
(d)Commencing as and from Saturday 22 March 2025 and each alternate weekend thereafter from 10:00am Saturday to 10:00am Sunday;
(e)Commencing as and from Saturday 21 June 2025 and each alternate weekend thereafter from 10:00am Saturday to 2:00pm Sunday;
(f)Commencing as and from Saturday 20 September 2025 and each alternate weekend thereafter from 10:00am Saturday to 5:00pm Sunday;
(g)Commencing as and from 20 December 2025 and each alternate weekend thereafter from 5:00pm Friday to 5:00pm Sunday; and
(h)Commencing as and from 20 March 2026 and thereafter each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school or 3:00pm if not a school day Friday to 9:00am or the commencement of school (whichever is earlier) on Monday.
7.The expression “school holiday period” in these orders means the period from 3:00pm or the conclusion of school on the last day of the school term (whichever is earlier) to 5:00pm on the day immediately before the start of the next term.
8.From Term 1 of Y commencing kindergarten the children’s time with the Father pursuant to Order 4 above is suspended during all New South Wales school holiday periods.
9.From Term 1 of Y commencing kindergarten the children shall spend time during the short New South Wales school holidays periods (being at the conclusion of terms 1, 2 and 3) with the Father as agreed and failing agreement as follows:
(a)In odd numbered years, in the first week of school holidays from 10:00am on the first Saturday until 10:00am of the middle Saturday.
(b)In even numbered years, from 10:00am on the middle Saturday of the holidays until 10:00am on the last Saturday of the holidays.
10.From Term 1 of Y commencing kindergarten the children shall spend the second week of the Christmas school holiday period with the father, being from 10:00am on the second Saturday of the holidays to 10:00am Saturday on the third week of the holidays.
11.From Term 1 of Y commencing Year 3 the children shall spend time with the Father during the school holiday periods as agreed and failing agreement: -
(a)In odd numbered years, in the first week of school holidays from 10:00am on the first Saturday until 10:00am of the middle Saturday.
(b)In even numbered years, from 10:00am on the middle Saturday of the holidays until 10:00am on the last Saturday of the holidays.
12.The children’s time with the Father pursuant to these Orders will be suspended each year on the weekend that Mother’s Day falls.
13.If the children are not already in the care of the Father, the children shall spend time with the Father for Father’s Day as follows: -
(a)in 2024 from 10:00am until 5:00pm;
(b)in 2025 from 10:00am the Saturday prior to Father’s Day to 5:00pm Sunday;
(c)thereafter on the weekend that Father’s Day falls from the conclusion of school or 3:00pm, (whichever is the later) on the Friday preceding Father’s Day until 5:00pm Sunday.
14.The children shall spend time with each of the parties during the Christmas period commencing in 2025 as follows:
(a)In odd numbered years:
(i)The children shall spend time with the Mother from 4:00pm Christmas Eve until 4:00pm Christmas Day.
(ii)The children shall spend time with the Father from 4:00pm Christmas Day until 4:00pm Boxing Day.
(b)In even numbered years:
(i)The children shall spend time with the Father from 4:00pm Christmas Eve until 4:00pm Christmas Day.
(ii)The children shall spend time with the Mother from 4:00pm Christmas day until 4:00pm Boxing Day.
Changeover
15.Subject to any written agreement between the parties, until Friday 22 March 2024 changeover of the children between the parties shall occur at the B Contact Centre (“the Contact Centre”) and for this purpose each party shall:
(a)contact the Contact Centre within 24 hours days and request an appointment for assessment for suitability for supervised changeovers;
(b)attend for assessment at the times and places appointed by the Contact Centre;
(c)attend any appointments made by the Contact Centre for supervised changeovers;
(d)ensure that the child/ren attend/s any appointments made by the Contact Centre for supervised changeovers;
(e)comply with all reasonable rules of the Contact Centre; and
(f)comply with all reasonable requests or directions of the staff of the Contact Centre.
16.The Mother shall deliver the children to and collect the children from the Contact Centre at the times specified by the Contact Centre and on each occasion promptly leave the building and the vicinity, unless requested to remain by a staff member of the Contact Centre.
17.The parties are to share the costs of the Contact Centre equally.
18.In the event that the Contact Centre is unable to facilitate the changeover of the children pursuant to these orders, within 48 hours of being so notified by the Contact Centre:-
(a)the mother shall provide to the father in writing three proposed private supervision services able to facilitate the changeover so that the children’s time with the father is able to continue in accordance with these orders unabated;
(b)the father shall advise the mother in writing of his selection of one such proposed facilitator within 24 hours thereafter; and
(c)both parties shall forthwith thereafter do all things necessary to engage the chosen facilitator and shall each pay one half of all costs associated with such service.
19.As and from Saturday 23 March 2024 unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing, changeovers of the children between the parties that do not occur at school will occur at a McDonalds nominated by the Mother and shall be of a distance no more than 30 minutes from the children’s school. For this purpose, the Mother shall advise the Father by no later than 4:00pm on 1 March 2024 of such nomination.
Telephone/FaceTime
20.The parent the children are not spending time with shall call the children on the other parent’s mobile telephone at 6:00pm each Wednesday. The parent with whom the children are spending time with is to ensure that the children are available to take the call and that the relevant mobile telephone is charged and switched on.
21.The parties are to ensure that the children are afforded privacy when speaking on the telephone with the parent they are not spending time with.
Communication Between the Parties
22.Except in an emergency the parties shall communicate all issues relating to the care, welfare and development of the children via email only. In cases of an emergency the parties shall communicate by way of text message only.
23.Each parent is to keep the other informed of their email address and mobile telephone number, for the purpose of communicating about the children’s care, welfare, and development, and is to advise the other parent in writing of any changes within 7 days.
Emergencies and Medication
24.Each parent is to notify the other as soon as possible of any emergency medical treatments and/or hospitalisation the children require and/or receive.
25.Each parent is to inform the other of any medications prescribed for the children by a registered medical practitioner from time to time and provide the medication and appropriate instructions as to dosage and administration at the time of any changeover.
Educational Information
26.That as and from 1 January 2024 the father be permitted to attend any school events or activities that the parents would ordinarily be expected and invited to attend, including but not limited to school assemblies, parent teacher evenings and school carnivals.
27.That within 7 days of the date of these orders, the Mother provide to the children’s school authority for the Father to contact the school and the Father be at liberty to request they provide him with copies of any school reports, reports on behavioral issues, school circulars or notices concerning functions, parent teacher nights and other school activities to which parents would ordinarily be expected and invited to attend.
Medical Information
28.That within 7 days of the date of these orders, the Mother provide to the Father a list of the children’s health care professionals.
29.That within 7 days of the date of these orders, the Mother provide to the children’s health care professionals authority for the Father to contact the health care professionals and obtain information and otherwise be engaged with the health care professionals with respect to the children.
Restraints
30.The parents are restrained from denigrating each other or the other’s family to or in the presence or hearing of the children or causing or permitting any other person to do so.
31.The parents are restrained from discussing the Court proceedings with or in the presence or hearing of the children or allowing any other person to do so.
32.The parents, whether themselves, their agents or servants, are restrained from having X or Y attend upon or obtain any form of counselling or therapeutic assistance from Mr C of D Psychology, E Street, Suburb F.
International Travel
33.Neither parent shall permit the children to travel outside Australia without the prior written consent of the other parent or for longer than 14 days.
34.The non-travelling parent shall be afforded make up time with the children as agreed between the Mother and Father, within two months of the commencement of travel.
35.The parents shall not travel to any country which is not signatory to the Hague Convention or International Children Abduction unless otherwise agreed between the parents.
36.The Mother shall hold the children’s passport to be released to the Father upon compliance with the above orders.
Psychological Engagement
37.That the father shall:
(a)forthwith engage his treating psychologist and such other health professional as recommended by his general medical practitioner for the purposes of continuing to receive psychological assistance and treatment managing his mental health for such long as is recommended by such treating psychologist;
(b)authorise his treating psychologist and such other health professional to forward to the mother a letter every three-month period for the next two calendar years and thereafter once every six months for a period of three years with the first letter issuing in the month of December 2023 stating information in relation to the following matters:
(i)The Father’s engagement with the psychologist;
(ii)The Father’s attendance upon the psychologist for scheduled appointments;
(iii)The Father’s progress; and
(iv)The Father compliance with recommendations for treatment.
(c)bear the costs associated with obtaining such a correspondence.
38.Leave is granted to the Father to provide a copy of these Orders and Reasons for Judgment to any therapist, psychologist, or other medical practitioner providing therapeutic or psychological intervention to him in the next twelve-month period.
39.Leave is granted to the Mother to provide a copy of these Orders and Reasons for Judgement to any therapist, psychologist, or other medical practitioner providing therapeutic or psychological intervention to the Mother in the next twelve-month period.
40.Leave is granted to the Mother to provide a copy of these Orders and Reasons for Judgment to any therapist, psychologist, or other medical practitioner providing therapeutic or psychological intervention to either X or Y.
41.Save as to the question of costs which is reserved for a period of 28 days, all extant applications are otherwise dismissed.
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 a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE MURDOCH
INTRODUCTION
This matter relates to the parenting arrangements for the children X currently aged 7 years and Y currently aged 3 years.
The children have been spending supervised time with the father at a contact centre for two hours a fortnight pursuant to interim orders made by consent in May 2021; a period of over two years.
It is uncontested that the children will continue to live with the mother who will have sole parental responsibility. The mother alleges that the father perpetrated family violence upon her and X during the course of the relationship including occasioning physical assaults and engaging in a pattern of controlling behaviour that caused the mother and the children fear. She asserts that the children spending any time with the father presents a risk of unacceptable harm of them being exposed to the father’s continued perpetration of family violence and would adversely impact upon her parenting capacity and thus negatively impact the children.
The father denies the allegations of family violence and seeks unsupervised time with the children graduating from daytime only to overnight time together with block periods during school holidays and on special occasions. The father’s position is supported by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
The evidence before the Court was factually dense comprising a multitude of allegations made by the mother and considerable affidavit and documentary material. The matter was listed for hearing by a judicial registrar for a period of four days, however had to be adjourned part heard and was heard over a period of seven days in total.
For the reasons that follow it is found that on balance, it is in the children’s best interests for the mother to have sole parental responsibility and for the children to spend time with the father on a limited graduating basis.
BACKGROUND
In these reasons a statement of fact is a finding of fact unless it is obvious from the context that I am reciting the position of one of the parties.
The parties commenced a relationship in 2014 and cohabitation in 2015.
X was born in 2016. The mother returned to full-time employment working from home for four days per week in 2016. X attended day-care one day per week close to the mother’s place of employment so that the mother could continue to breastfeed him. The father was employed on a full-time basis.
The father deposes that for a period of a few months in 2015 a friend of the mother, Ms G, resided with the parties. In 2016 the maternal grandmother and maternal aunt resided with the parties for a period of a few months. In 2017 the mother’s cousin, Ms J, resided with the parties for a period of six months. The mother’s sister, Ms H, stayed with the parties numerous times for weekend stays. The mother’s cousin, Mr K, and his two young children resided with the parties for a few months in 2019. The mother’s co-workers, Ms L and Ms M, lived with the parties for a period of six months in 2020, and the maternal grandmother again for a period of a few weeks in 2021 until the parties’ separation.
The mother was employed in the role of a professional for N Company from 2017 until 2018. She continued to work from home in this role but would attend occasional face to face meetings. X continued to attend day-care one day per week.
In 2017 the mother travelled to the United Kingdom for a few weeks with X. The father did not travel with the mother and X on this occasion.
In 2017 the parties moved to Suburb O to decrease the father’s commute to work which required him to generally be absent from the home from 7:30am to 6:00pm each weekday. In late 2017 the father commenced employment as a professional on a full-time basis in Suburb P requiring a longer commute. He was generally absent from home from 5:00am to 7:00pm each day. In late 2018 the parties moved to Suburb Q to again assist the father in his work-related travel requirements.
For approximately 5 days in 2018 the mother’s employer, N Company held a function in Sydney. The mother was required to work long hours away from home both during the function and for approximately one month prior. Ms R, the father’s cousin, travelled to Sydney with her children to assist the parties in the care of X during this time.
The parties married in 2019.
In early 2019 the mother commenced employment with S Company, working in the Sydney office five days per week. X commenced full-time day-care at this time.
In mid-2019 the mother and X again travelled to the United Kingdom without the father.
In mid-2019 the father was made redundant from his employment position with T Company. He has not engaged in paid employment outside the home since this time. The father alleges that from this time he was a significant, if not the primary carer, for X and later Y.
In late 2019 the parties moved to Suburb U in City V. The father supervised renovations undertaken to the property by contractors. The mother continued in full-time employment, travelling to Sydney overnight each week for one night and the following morning arriving home late in the evening. X ceased attending day-care at this stage and the father cared for him during the day.
The mother went on maternity leave in 2020 and Y was born in 2020. The mother returned to working remotely from home on a full-time basis in late 2020. From this time the mother would work a full day from home whilst still breastfeeding Y when required.
In early 2021 the maternal grandmother arrived from the United Kingdom to live with the parties at their request. X recommenced attending day-care around this time.
In early 2021 the mother made a statement to police. The parties separated on a final basis on this date when the mother, maternal grandmother and children left the home with the assistance of police as requested by the mother. A Provisional Apprehended Domestic Violence Order restricting the behaviour of the father and for the protection of the mother and children was served on the father.
On this date the mother moved out of the Suburb U property and stayed at a local hotel with the children before moving into temporary accommodation which was organised for her by a colleague some hours out of Sydney. The mother and the children resided in this temporary accommodation for two months before the mother was able to secure a private lease in a furnished rental accommodation. The mother deposes that she subsequently moved a further time but that she remained living in the local area.[1] However, the mother conceded in cross‑examination that between the period of early to mid-2021 she and the children moved residence on six occasions.
[1] Mother’s Affidavit, p.127-128.
In early 2021 an Interim Apprehended Domestic Violence Order was made for the protection of the mother and the children and restricting the behaviour of the father. Pursuant to such interim orders the father was not to approach or contact the children and/or the mother by any means other than pursuant to orders made under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
The father commenced these proceedings by way of his Initiating Application filed on 5 March 2021.
In early 2021 the father was charged with offences.
In late 2021 the mother commenced a relationship with Mr W.
The matter came before a senior registrar on 18 May 2021 for the purposes of an interim hearing. On this occasion orders were made by consent that:
·The children live with the mother.
·The children spend time with the father at the first available supervisory contact centre for no less than two hours each fortnight.
·The parties undertake Liver Function and Carbohydrate Deficient Transferrin Testing.
·The mother refrain from consuming alcohol above the legal driving limit of 0.05 when the children are in her care.
On 21 October 2021 the father filed an Application in a Proceeding as his supervised time with the children had not commenced due to the limited availability of contact centres. On 22 October 2021 orders were made by consent that, pending acceptance for supervised time at a contact centre, the children spend time with the father supervised by Z Contact Service.
Pursuant to the Orders of 22 October 2021 the children spent time with the father supervised by Z Contact Service on three occasions between 14 November 2021 and 12 December 2021.
On 18 December 2021 the children had their first supervised session with the father at B Contact Centre. Since this time the children have spent regular supervised time with the father at the Centre with the father for a period of two hours each alternate weekend. The Centre is approximately a two hour drive each way from where the children and mother live.
The father and his current partner, Ms AA, commenced living together in early 2022.
X commenced primary school in early 2022.
The father was acquitted of all criminal charges in the local Court in late 2022. The Apprehended Domestic Violence Order is listed for a final defended hearing in late 2023. The father has complied with all restrictions of the Interim Apprehended Domestic Violence Order.
Y commenced preschool in early 2023.
THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS
During the course of final submissions, the father adopted the relief sought by the Independent Children’s Lawyer in the Minute of Order marked as exhibit “ICL 3” that: -
·The mother have sole parental responsibility for the children subject to notifying and considering the views of the father prior to making such decisions.
·The children live with the mother.
·The children spend time with the father as agreed between the parties and failing agreement on an unsupervised graduating basis as follows: -
·for a period of 3 months each alternate Wednesday for a period of three hours and alternate Saturdays from 10:00am until 2:00pm;
·for a period of 3 months thereafter each alternate Wednesday for a period of three hours and alternate Saturdays from 10:00am to 3:00pm;
·for a period of 3 months thereafter each alternate Wednesday for a period of three hours and each alternate weekend from 10:00am Saturday to 10:00am Sunday;
·for a period of 3 months thereafter each alternate Wednesday for a period of three hours and each alternate weekend from 3:00pm Friday to 10:00am Sunday;
·for a period of 3 months thereafter each alternate Wednesday from 3:00pm to 9:00am Thursday and each alternate weekend from 3:00pm Friday to 5:00pm Sunday;
·for a period of 3 months thereafter each alternate Wednesday from 3:00pm to 9:00am Thursday and each alternate weekend from 3:00pm Friday to 9:00am Monday;
·during one half of all school holidays once Y commences kindergarten; and
·on special occasions including Father’s Day and during the Christmas public holiday period.
·The children have telephone time with the party they are not spending time with on the other party’s mobile telephone each Tuesday at 6:00pm.
·Changeover of the children between the parties when not occurring at school will be at a McDonald’s nominated by the mother and to be a distance of no more than 30 minutes from the children’s school.
·The parties use the My Family Wizard application for communication relating to the children.
·There be the provision of information relating to the children including medical emergencies, medical treatment, and school-related information.
·Each party keep the other informed as to their contact details being their mobile telephone number and email address.
·Various injunctive orders be made including a restraint upon the parties discussing these proceedings or denigrating the other party within hearing of the children and that the parties ensure that the children continue to be known by the name of “Sylvan”.
·Orders relating to international travel.
·Each of the parties engage with a psychologist and follow all treatment plans and recommendations.
In addition, the father seeks an order be made that the children’s residence not be moved more than 35 kilometres from their current school. This is not sought by the Independent Children’s Lawyer. It was incorrectly conceded by the father that this order had not been sought by the father previously; it was sought in the Case Outline filed on his behalf and accordingly the mother has been on notice that such an order is sought.
In support of the relief sought by him the father relied on the: -
·Case Outline filed 27 January 2023;
·affidavit of the father filed 18 January 2023;
·affidavit of the father’s new partner Ms AA filed 18 January 2023;
·affidavit of the father filed 5 May 2022;
·affidavit of the father’s treating psychologist Ms CC filed 9 January 2023; and
·documents tendered throughout the course of the hearing.
The Case Outline filed by the mother on 24 January 2023 recorded that the mother sought orders in accordance with the Amended Response filed by her on 12 May 2022 that: -
·The mother have sole parental responsibility.
·The mother will inform the father of any significant change to the children’s long-term care, welfare or development including any medical or hospital procedures.
·The children live with the mother.
·The children spend time with the father at the B Contact Service (or an alternative agreed contact centre) for no more than two hours each fortnight with the parties to equally share in the costs of such supervision.
·The mother provide to the father written updates as to the children’s health and school reports.
It is now the mother’s position that there should be no orders made for time between the children and the father. Whilst counsel for the mother noted that the material produced under subpoena by the B Contact Service records that the service will undertake an assessment of the family to determine whether they are willing to facilitate “recognition” time if that were to be ordered by the Court, the mother was clear during the course of her cross-examination that she seeks that there be no relationship between the children and the father, including the provision of cards or gifts, I will proceed on the basis that this is the mother’s position.
In support of the relief sought by her the mother relied on the: -
·Amended Response to Initiating Application filed 12 May 2022;
·affidavit of the mother filed 14 January 2023;
·affidavit of the mother filed 20 May 2022;
·affidavit of the maternal grandmother, Ms J filed 26 May 2022;
·affidavit of the maternal aunt, Ms J filed 26 May 2022;
·affidavit of X’s treating psychologist Mr C filed 12 May 2022;
·Subpoena to the paternal aunt Ms R filed 10 January 2023 and subsequent proof of evidence marked as Exhibit M11; and
·documents tendered during the course of the hearing.
As set out above, the relief sought by the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the father are almost ad idiom. No Case Outline was filed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Section 65D of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) compels the Court to make such parenting orders that are considered proper. Section 60CA provides that in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order the Court is to regard the best interests of the children as the paramount consideration. This is confirmed in s 65DAA. The children’s best interests are ascertained by a consideration of the objects and principles in s 60B and the primary and additional considerations in s 60CC of the Act.
The High Court has clearly stated the focus of the objects of the Act as set out in s 60B is on “ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child.”[2]
[2] Masson v Parsons (2019) 266 CLR 664 at [8].
The primary considerations as set out in s 60CC(2) are:
·the benefit to the children of having a meaningful relationship with both of their parents; and
·the need to protect the children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
In balancing these considerations, the Court is to give greater weight to the need to protect the children from harm or being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
I am conscious of the serious consequences of the orders sought by the mother that there be no time or any form of communication between the children and the father. As stated by the Full Court in Blinko & Blinko [2015] FamCAFC 146:
[30]…Whilst s 60CC(2A) demands that greater weight be given to the consideration in s 60CC(2)(b) – something entirely consistent with the approach of the Courts since the commencement of the Act – the particular facts and circumstances of each individual case nevertheless require a careful evaluation and balancing of Considerations, and all the more so when what is at stake is the potential for a child to never know their parent.
In reaching my decision I have considered all of the relevant sections of the Act. I am not required as a matter of law to specifically address each such consideration.
THE SINGLE EXPERT REPORT
I have read the report of the single expert, Dr DD dated 1 March 2022 (“the expert report”). Dr DD is a forensic psychiatrist of over 17 years’ experience. She has tertiary qualifications and post-graduate qualifications. The single expert has had extensive experience in child and adolescent psychiatry and has undertaken training in domestic violence informed practice. Whilst her methodology and assessment theories relied upon to ground her opinion was the subject of cross-examination by the mother, there was no challenge to the single expert’s expertise, and I am satisfied she is suitably qualified to provide her expert opinion to the Court.
The single expert’s psychiatric opinion is based on her formal psychiatric assessments of the parties which includes their psychiatric, medical, and personal histories. The single expert conducted clinical interviews with the parties and X individually and together, a clinical observation of the children with the mother and maternal grandmother, and children with the father. Further telephone calls took place with the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the father. The single expert had access to and read a wide range of material including material produced under subpoena from X’s preschool, the mother’s psychological records, the supervision records relating to the children’s time with the father and the clinical notes of the father’s psychiatrist. There was no criticism made by the parties or the Independent Children’s Lawyer that the single expert had not considered relevant material. There was no assertion made by either of the parties that the single expert had incorrectly recorded her conversations with them.
The single expert broadly recommended in her written report that: -
·The parents have shared parental responsibility of the children.
·The children live with the mother.
·The children spend time with the father as follows:
·Initially one day during the week and one day over the weekend every week with the intention to gradually increase this time as they mature and settle into the new routine.
·Once X is more settled with the new arrangements with his father, X will benefit from overnight stays with his father. Initially, as he is not yet at school and his father is not currently employed, this could be facilitated once per fortnight during the week.
·Y is currently being breastfed at night and no longer sleeps through the night. Once she is weaned from night-time feeds and can sleep through the night, Y would also benefit from having overnight time with her father at least once per fortnight.
·The mother engage in her own psychotherapy on a weekly basis to better understand and process her past experiences “including the reported domestic violence.”
·The father continue to engage with his psychologist in order to better develop further insight into his vulnerabilities and to maintain good mental health.
·That each of the parties complete a parenting intervention course to better understand their attachment and attunement to the children.
The single expert attended Court and was cross-examined. Prior to such cross-examination she had read the trial affidavit of each of the parties.
Having read the trial affidavits of the parties the single expert gave oral evidence that the further material she had read did not cause her to vary her written recommendations as to the time the children should spend with the father moving forward. The single expert was clear and unequivocal that her written expert opinion was grounded on the basis that some violence had occurred between the parties and that both children had been exposed to such violence as “that was the constant narrative from both parents irrespective of the nature, and the effects would be very similar.”[3]
[3] Transcript 3 May 2023, p.13.
Having had the benefit of reading the further material the single expert opined that in the event the court found that the father has been a perpetrator of family violence towards the mother and the children, it is in the children’s best interests for the mother to exercise sole parental responsibility; a variation of her written opinion.
I found the single expert’s written and oral evidence to be clear, thoughtful, and reasoned. She was an impressive expert witness. Whilst ultimately it is a matter for the Court to review the evidence and make findings as to factual issues significantly in dispute, I give significant weight to her expert opinion which is discussed in more detail later in these reasons.
THE FATHER
The father lives with his partner, Ms AA. Together they house-sit residences within a radius of approximately 2 hours travel time of Sydney so as to allow the father to meet his financial expenses including all outgoings on the former matrimonial home. The father has recently formed a business. Most of this work is from home. I accept his unchallenged evidence that he currently does not drink alcohol save on special occasions, exercises regularly and practices meditation daily.
In 1987 when the father was four years of age he was present during a tragic event in his family. His parents had been separated for a period of months when the tragedy occurred. The father initially lived with his grandparents. He was placed with his maternal aunt and uncle when he was six years old until his early teenage years, when he again lived with his grandparents. His sister, Ms EE, was placed with the maternal grandparents.
The mother’s evidence that the father’s childhood was difficult whilst in the care of both his grandparents and his maternal aunt and uncle was unchallenged. I accept the mother’s unchallenged evidence that the father told her that:
I was beaten repeatedly by my uncle for 6 years or so, he was an alcoholic and he treated me differently to my cousins. …
My grandfather had a pretty old school parenting style. One time, I was expelled from school… He got me out of bed early each morning, made me take a cold shower, then take me to the oval… [for long runs].
In 2019 the father attended upon Dr FF reporting that he was experiencing difficulties in managing stressful situations; he felt he was starting to develop anxiety type symptoms prior to having to stand up and speak at professional meetings. His symptoms included shortness of breath, feeling tense in his shoulders and that he did not want to be at work. The father was referred to psychiatrist Dr GG at HH Hospital. The father readily conceded that prior to attending upon Dr GG he had engaged in bouts of binge drinking and used illicit drugs on one occasion as a teenager.
The father was diagnosed in mid-2019 with complex post-traumatic stress disorder. Dr GG referred the father for psychological therapy and prescribed him an antidepressant. It is uncontested that this assisted the father with his anxiety symptoms. The father subsequently commenced sessions with psychologist Ms CC and attended on Dr GG on three occasions.
The father attended upon Ms CC from July 2019 until March 2020. Upon the parties’ separation the father deposes that he re-commenced seeing Ms CC on a monthly basis as he was not seeing the children. Whilst Ms CC’s clinical notes produced under subpoena by JJ Medical Centre do not record any visits between August 2019 and May 2021, her calendar records four further occasions she saw the father in February/March 2021. She does not have notes from those sessions. I accept and find that the father recommenced seeing Ms CC as deposed to by him. To the proposition that he only saw Ms CC due to these proceedings the father responded quite firmly “no I saw [her] … [b]ecause my wife had left with my kids.” I accept this evidence.
The father told the single expert that much of his distress at the time of seeing Ms CC was related to significant events surrounding the mother and her family and that he and the mother were poorly matched. He said that during his marriage he felt that “even though I was living with [Ms Sylvan], I was alone.” The father said that consequently he developed a negative sense of self and was experiencing low moods. He was also working during this period in a stressful role commuting about three hours per day and working 70 hours a week. He felt that he had been promoted quickly, that he could not cope with the excessive workload, and he was experiencing hypervigilance with respect to his work.
The father conceded in cross-examination that he reported in the self-intake questionnaire for Ms CC in July 2019 (Exhibit M3) that: -
·He worries that he might seriously harm someone if his anger gets out of control.
·He worries about losing control of his actions.
·He has trouble accepting no.
·People often tell him that he is controlling.
·He gets very irritated when people will not do what he asks of them.
·When he starts to feel angry he can’t control it.
The father further recorded in this self-assessment that the following statements described him “perfectly”: -
·One of my greatest fears is that my defects will be exposed.
·I find it hard to be warm and spontaneous.
·I control myself so much that people think I am unemotional.
·People see me as uptight emotionally.
·I must be the best at most of what I do; I can’t accept second best.
·My relationships suffer because I push myself so hard.
·I often sacrifice pleasure and happiness to meet my own standards.
·When I make a mistake, I deserve strong criticism.
·I’m a very competitive person.
·I put a good deal of emphasis on money or status.
·Even when things seem to be going well, I feel that it is only temporary.
·I often obsess over minor decisions, because the consequences of making a mistake seem so serious.
The father self-reported that the following statements are “completely untrue of me”: -
·I feel addicted to partners who can’t be there for me in a meaningful way.
·If I think someone is out to hurt me, I try to hurt him or her first.
·I subscribe to the belief “control or be controlled.”
·I get angry when I think about the ways I have been mistreated by other people during my life.
·I have trouble separating my point of view or opinion from that of my parent or partner.
·I lose my temper at the slightest offence.
Ms CC gave evidence on behalf of the father. She has a qualifications in clinical psychology specialising in post-traumatic stress disorder and has been practising in the field for five years at JJ Medical Centre and HH Hospital. Ms CC gave her evidence in a forthright manner.
It is Ms CC’s opinion that the father has “Abandonment Emotional Deprivation and Defectiveness schemas, social isolation, unrelenting standards, negativity and entitlement.” Ms CC deposes that the father seeks to avoid criticism and misfortune by using perfectionism as a result of his overcompensation perfectionist coping mechanism. Ms CC clarified to the Court that “schemas” are patterns of thoughts, feelings, and body sensations, and not behaviours. The father expresses his schemas by overcompensating using perfectionist and over-control of himself with high standards. These high standards include his dress, food, choice of friends, work performance, and his behavioural standards. She deposes that the father: “strives to achieve in life to overcome his underlying feelings of defectiveness arising from childhood.”[4] Noting the father’s ability historically to maintain employment as a professional of a large team for 7 years, Ms CC deposes that:
[Mr Sylvan]’s ability to maintain this potentially stressful role is not indicative of a person who in any way had anger management issues. He has never demonstrated any aggressive speech or body language in the clinician’s presence, regardless of the potentially distressing topics we discussed.[5]
[4] Affidavit of Ms CC paragraph 10.
[5] Affidavit of Ms CC paragraph 35.
Ms CC deposes that she believed that the father may have been employing a paranoid over-control coping mechanism, where individuals scan their environment for signs of malevolence and seek to control this out of suspicion but considering the “current events with his family” she believes that the father’s statements may have reflected realistic concerns at the time rather than being indicative of a paranoid over-control coping mechanism. The father’s reporting to Ms CC included describing to her the maternal family’s use of gas-lighting and triangulation, the negative impact the maternal family had on both the mother as an individual and on the parties’ relationship, the difficulty the mother experienced in recognising that the maternal family’s behaviour (including the maternal grandfather’s pressure on the mother to spend frequent time with him and provide him with money on a regular basis) was not, in his opinion, functional.
Ms CC’s evidence, which I accept, was that the father has never disclosed to her during the course of their sessions that:-
·He has perpetrated family violence on the mother;
·He provided the mother with questions directed to measure and control the mother’s relationship with the maternal grandfather that she was to answer; and
·He perpetrated family violence in the presence of the children.
I accept that Ms CC’s sessions with the father have been based on his self-reporting; she has not spoken to the mother nor met with the children or the father’s extended family. In those circumstances I place no weight on Ms CC’s recommendations as to what is in the children’s best interests. I otherwise accept Ms CC’s opinion of the father’s psychological health as set out in the paragraph above obtained through her sessions and observations of him which was not successfully challenged in cross-examination.
The father told the single expert that he was currently in very good mental health; he was sleeping well and felt balanced through the day, exercising a lot, and not drinking much. The single expert opined that the father presented with some personality vulnerabilities which became apparent during the course of his assessment. The single expert’s opinion of the mental state examination undertaken by her on the 10 December 2021 was that: -
·Objectively the father’s mood appeared to be in a normal state. His affect was bright and reactive with a full range and was mood congruent.
·The father was distracted at times, checking his mobile phone twice during the course of the assessment “which is highly unusual given the nature of the assessment.”[6]
·The father’s speech was clear, coherent, and spontaneous.
·The father’s thought form was logical, linear, and goal directed. At times it appeared that he engaged in impression management.
·The father’s insight into his own mental health appeared good and he described an awareness of his past treatment needs and engagement with therapeutic interventions.
[6] Single expert report, paragraph 1170.
The single expert’s unchallenged evidence is that for a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder to be made, a person must have experienced a traumatic event plus at least one symptom from each of three criteria of re-experiencing trauma, avoidance of trauma reminders or a heightened sense of threat. Whilst the death of his parents is a traumatic event, the father does not describe re-experiencing symptoms. Whilst he does have a heightened sense of threat – for example he does not like to sit with his back to the door – this does not cause any functional impairment. The father does not present with the core post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms but rather disturbances of self-organisation symptoms which include: -
·A degree of emotional dysregulation (feeling an internal sense of distress and/or anxiety about failure);
·Interpersonal difficulties (for example his relationship with the mother); and
·A negative self-concept (striving to succeed to overcome this with resultant work stress and fear of abandonment).[7]
[7] Ibid, 1760.
Rather than post-traumatic stress disorder, these symptoms are better understood as personality vulnerabilities and to compensate for this, the father may engage in forms of impression management. The father’s “self-reported history suggests a degree of resilience despite early adversity with achievement in the domains of education and employment.”[8]
[8] Ibid, paragraph 1770 and 1780.
The father was rigorously cross-examined at length by counsel for the mother and by the Independent Children’s Lawyer for two full days. Such cross-examination incorporated questions and issues that were understandably upsetting for him. During the period of his cross‑examination the father was calm, polite, and measured. He was candid in most of his responses. I generally found him to be an impressive witness.
MS AA
The father and Ms AA commenced living together in the beginning of 2022. She is employed on a full-time basis as a professional and has flexible work arrangements.
It was Ms AA’s oral evidence that the father is a supportive and encouraging partner who assists her in navigating work and life issues. Ms AA presented as child-focused in her views and supportive of the father, his relationship with the children and his desire to relocate to be closer to the children in the future if that assisted the children spending time with him. Her evidence was thoughtful and child-focused. She deposed that she understood that it is in the children’s best interests that they get to know her gradually and slowly build a relationship with her. She was not questioned as to any family violence experienced by her at the hands of the father, including any coercive or controlling behaviour exhibited by the father in their relationship.
Ms AA was an impressive witness, giving her evidence in a clear and unfiltered manner. She was not challenged on any of her evidence and I accept it.
THE MOTHER
The mother was born in the United Kingdom and immigrated to Australia with her family when she was a baby. She moved back to the United Kingdom as a child before moving back to Australia in 2014. The mother lives with the children and the maternal grandmother in the Region KK area and works as a professional for S Company. In 2021 the mother commenced a relationship with Mr W who is a carer. Despite being in a relationship with the mother for two years and having met the children, Mr W did not give evidence on the mother’s behalf.
The mother obtained her first mental health care plan and attended upon a psychologist in 2015. She did not attend again as she felt the session focussed on the story of the father’s family rather than her needs. The mother attended upon a second psychologist in early 2018 but did not return as she felt it was difficult to engage in the session. The mother failed to attend follow‑up sessions on both occasions as she believed the father was going to get help and the sessions were therefore not required: “We had a wedding booked. I was stuck in the hope space again, the abuse cycle.” In early 2021 the mother commenced therapeutic work; being supportive psychotherapy, with Ms LL, a psychologist at the MM Health Centre which is funded by her employer.
The mother reported to the single expert that she believes that she is currently in good mental health and that she has “no low mood.” During the course of her interview the mother described what she called “triggers” in relation to domestic violence, for example, the sound of a type of motor vehicle engine startles her. She also described what she called “intrusive thoughts”. By way of example, she said that on a Sunday when the family were driving back from a day out, she had a thought, “What if he killed mum, what would I do.” The mother said she was able to rationalise that thought by recognising that her home had cameras and good neighbours who would alert the authorities if necessary. The single expert records that the mother normalised these experiences by explaining that she had recently endured and escaped domestic violence.
The mother did not report any symptoms of persistent anxiety, psychosis, or substance use disorders. Objectively her mood appeared normal, her affect was bright and reactive with a full range and her mood congruent. Her speech was clear, coherent and spontaneous. As with the father it appeared to the single expert that the mother engaged in impression management. She used some basic mental health/terminology in describing the father “which was unsurprising given her work as a professional”. As with the father, the single expert identified some personality vulnerabilities of the mother both through her narrative and the assessment. The single expert opined that:
Much of her history of the marital relationship had the quality of being a practised narrative. [Ms Sylvan] was unable to spontaneously provide details of the history and she repeatedly required to refer to her notes during the course of the assessment.
Her insight into her own mental health was poor. She described periods of extreme “stress” but did not engage in therapy previously. She described intrusive thoughts about [Mr Sylvan] killing her mother, a high startle response at the sound of an engine, secondary to reported domestic abuse, but did not recognise requiring further assessment or psychological interventions.
The single expert further opined that:
Given her work [as a professional] and her understanding of [mental health disorders], I wondered if she had considered the symptoms of [mental health] disorders and was attempting to ensure there was no history suggestive of these disorders in her presentation. Despite this, it appears that she does have some personality vulnerabilities, particularly in interpersonal relationships (previous romantic relationships, her relationship with her father) though there is no evidence of a [mental health] disorder. She did not report excessive alcohol consumption but did report alcohol consumption while breastfeeding. She also did not report or display symptoms of any other psychiatric illness.
And that the mother’s:
… certainty in regard to her mental state and her firm discounting of any depressive or anxiety or trauma symptoms, coupled with her resolute description of the times she sought help as being due to “stress”, suggests a limited insight into her own mental health.
The mother’s affidavit is replete with evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible if it were not for section 69ZT of the Act. I do not give significant weight to the mother’s evidence as to her opinions, thoughts and views as to the father’s alleged behaviours.
Whilst I will make specific findings of fact below, I formed the view as a result of the mother’s written evidence and the form of cross-examination undertaken on her behalf, that she has sought to portray her evidence as to past events through a lens of family violence; more particularly coercive and controlling behaviour. From the father’s evidence detailed further below, I am satisfied that the mother has sought to paint many events so as to present the father in a damaging light. He was cross-examined as if all parenting decisions throughout the relationship were made by him.
The mother gave her evidence in a very calm, careful, and controlled manner. She was unemotional and flat during the course of her evidence. She was at all times polite and measured. She had to be reminded on no less than three occasions to provide an answer to the question asked of her rather than taking the opportunity to provide her family violence discourse to the Court. She would embellish the answer provided or simply not answer the question that was asked of her, instead taking the opportunity to present her version of events or her justifications for her actions. I approach her evidence with some caution but make specific findings of facts below.
THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER
The maternal grandmother was evasive in her answering of questions in cross-examination and at times defensive. She had to be reminded to simply answer the question asked of her and appeared loathe to make concessions. I make specific findings of fact below.
MS R
Ms R gave evidence on behalf of the mother. She would not swear an affidavit in the mother’s case and accordingly a subpoena for her attendance to give evidence was served upon her. Prior to her oral evidence a proof of evidence was provided to the parties and the Court and marked as Exhibit M11.
Ms R’s husband is a cousin of the father and was part of the bridal party at the parties’ wedding. She met the father approximately 20 years ago and the mother in 2014. She saw the parties quite often on family occasions and they would go on holidays together. The parties have stayed overnight at her home and she has stayed with the parties.
Ms R was forthright and responsive to questions asked of her and I found her to be a believable witness. Whilst some of her evidence is referred to later in these reasons, some of the evidence adopted by her in Exhibit M11 contains evidence as to the father’s conduct and presentation on a continuing basis rather than specific incidents and so I will make findings as to those here.
Ms R’s proof of evidence contains her observations of the father’s relationship with a former partner, Ms NN, as compared to his relationship with the mother. I do not place weight on such evidence in circumstances where it was provided for the first time during the final hearing.
I accept Ms R’s unchallenged evidence that:-
·“One Christmas” Ms R’s husband and the father were wrestling on the lounge room floor in front of her children aged approximately seven and four years. The wrestling escalated and she saw the father put her husband in a choke and say to her daughters “watch your father die.” The father and her husband fell into the blind damaging it and the father let her husband go at this time. This was not an incident that fractured the relationship.
·She has observed that the father has a need for structure and routine and “likes to have his way followed. I would describe him as a perfectionist and rigid.”[9]
·The father’s rigidity did not always suit X’s needs, for example requiring that X settle to sleep in their room when all the family were settled for the evening during their holidays.
·When the father became angry, frustrated or tense his body would become tense, he would clench his fists, his body looks tight, and his face could become red and grimaced. At these times the father would give the mother “a look” that made it clear that he was displeased with the mother.
·The father’s parenting style was structured and routine driven, whilst the mother’s is more flexible.
[9] Exhibit M11, page 2.
When the mother was afforded the opportunity to make submissions as to my raised concerns with Mr C, it was submitted that it depends on the findings that are made as to the mother’s allegations of family violence. If they are found, then the model currently being used is appropriate to assist the mother and X work through continuing issues such as X not seeing his father in the future. This submission has an apparent contingency that I make the orders as sought by the mother that the children spend no time with the father.
As set out above there is an issue where Mr C has been informed of various events in the parties’ relationship as alleged by the mother only and X’s therapy with him has taken place in the context of those allegations. I am satisfied there would be difficulty in Mr C continuing to effect therapy with X. I note again that X has been attending upon Mr C now for a significant period of time with no apparent change in the behaviours that the mother reports. A new therapist for X, as the single expert opined, would be “an easier approach.” The mother did not give any evidence as to any mental health issues to ground her position that Y is to commence seeing a psychologist. In light of the above evidence I am satisfied that it is in the children’s best interests that an order be made restraining the mother from the children to have any further sessions with Mr C.
It is hoped that in the future the mother will adopt the evidence of the single expert if X brings up something negative to her about the father as follows:-
HER HONOUR: … For example, and in her affidavit she says it again at the suggestion, I think, of [Mr C] that when [X] brings up something negative about his father, that she – well, I will say it out to you.
So one of the examples:
When negative comments arise from [X], I respond by repeating back what he has said to me, mindful of giving him the opportunity to continue to talk but not expressing any opinion.
And I will just give you the first example in the affidavit:
[X] started crying and said, “When you use that voice it reminds me of when Daddy used to hit me”. This is the first time that [X] has ever told me anything of this nature. I said words to the effect, “I’m sorry, buddy. I didn’t mean to make you feel that way. It is important that we brush our teeth. It reminds you of when daddy used to hit you?”
So is there a different narrative that you would suggest that the mother should use in those circumstances to reassure [X] that he is now in a safe place?
SINGLE EXPERT: Yes. So in the work that I do with parents and children, I would have a different approach. And so I would be suggesting that there is a validation of his experience, if necessary, but also, you know, a reinforcement of the boundary without the end of that sentence.[99]
[99] Transcript 3 May 2023, p47.
To that end, leave will be granted to the mother to provide a copy of these reasons to any counsellor or psychologist X or Y may see in the future.
An order is sought by the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the father that the mother be restrained from changing the children’s surname. There was no evidence to ground this relief sought and no submissions were made. I refuse to make this order in those circumstances.
The balance of the orders sought by the Independent Children’s Lawyer and supported by the father were not the subject of any submissions by any of the parties. I am satisfied that they are appropriate and are in the children’s best interests and will be made.
CONCLUSION
The father perpetrated coercive and controlling conduct as against the mother in the context of their relationship. Findings have been made in these reasons that since such time, the father has been compliant with all restraints placed upon him as to his conduct and the father has shown insight into the consequences of his behaviour upon the mother. I accept that the children have formed a loving relationship with the father and that their attachment to him is secure. As such, I am satisfied that is in best interests of the children that they be able to continue to have a meaningful relationship with the father and that time in the future occur on an unsupervised basis. Orders will be made that appropriately ameliorate the risks to the children in the father’s care of his perpetration of coercive and controlling behaviour. I am not satisfied having regard to the extensive evidence of the single expert that the mother’s parenting capacity will be significantly impaired as a result of the children spending time with the father.
Orders will therefore be made as set out at the forefront of these reasons.
I certify that the preceding four hundred and forty-six (446) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Murdoch. Associate:
Dated: 27 September 2023
0
2
2