Tasker and Tasker

[2016] FamCA 657

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TASKER & TASKER [2016] FamCA 657

FAMILY LAW – INTERVENTION – Section 91B request to intervene – NSW Department of Family and Community Services – Serious risks of child abuse by both parents.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 91B

APPLICANT: Mr Tasker

RESPONDENT: Ms Tasker

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Ng

FILE NUMBER: PAC 5182 of 2014

DATE DELIVERED: 4 August 2016

PLACE DELIVERED: Parramatta

PLACE HEARD: Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF: Hannam J

HEARING DATE: 3 June 2016

REPRESENTATION

APPLICANT – LITIGANT IN PERSON:

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT	Ms Mahony
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:	Mahony Family Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Adams & Partners Lawyers

Orders

1. Pursuant to Section 91B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Secretary of the NSW Department of Family and Community Services is requested to intervene in these proceedings.

1. In the event that the Secretary intervenes, he/she is to file and serve a Notice of Intervention as soon as practicable.

1. Pursuant to Rule 24.13 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth), leave is granted to the Secretary of the NSW Department of Family and Community Services, or his/her delegate, to inspect and copy any documents on the Court file forming part of the Court record.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Tasker & Tasker has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 5182  of 2014

Mr Tasker

Applicant

And

Ms Tasker

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The parents of three children are engaged in a parenting dispute following the breakdown of their 18 year relationship.

2. On 3 June 2016 I requested that the Secretary of the Department of Family and Community Services (“the Secretary” or “the Department”) intervene in these proceedings pursuant to s 91B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The Secretary declined this earlier invitation to intervene in the proceedings, but indicated that such a request would be reconsidered in the event that fresh information comes to light during the proceedings or new reports are made that suggest the children are currently at risk of harm.

3. On 3 June 2016 I made a further invitation to the Secretary to intervene in the proceedings and indicated that I would prepare short reasons. I also indicated that I would provide the Magellan Family Report to the Department and that report is attached to this judgment. This judgment sets out the reasons for the request to intervene for the second time.

Background

1. The background to the parents’ relationship is set out in the previous Reasons for Judgment dated 30 September 2015[1] (the September 2015 judgment). It suffices to say that the mother who is now 31 and the father, who is now 51 commenced a sexual relationship when the mother was 14 and the father was 34. The parties began living together when the mother was 16 and they subsequently married two years later. The parties’ three children, C who is now 14, D who is now 13 and E who is now 13, were born between late 2001 early 2007.

   [1]Tasker & Tasker [2015] FamCA 813.

2. The parents’ relationship was characterised by a significant power imbalance between them, which was initially due to their age difference, but the mother’s reports of ongoing fear of physical violence suggest that the father was also coercive and controlling.

3. The September 2015 Judgment sets out some of the risk factors relating to the father which had been identified at the time. These include that the father has been threatening and coercive in the past and specifically made threats to kill the family at the time of separation, that the father was previously charged with sexual assault of a child from a previous relationship and a person specified by the parents as a suitable supervisor for the father’s time appeared to have allegedly sexually assaulted the father’s (now adult) child.

4. So far as the mother is concerned, the risk factors identified in the September 2015 Judgment included her poor understanding of risk associated with the children’s sports instructor and particular concerns about her other associations and her own inappropriate conduct. The family consultant previously raised concerns about both parents and described “an overall sense of vulnerability of all family members, living in a potentially predatory environment”. The family consultant in this context raised the possibility of the Secretary’s intervention.

Additional information

1. Since the first invitation to the Department to intervene in the proceedings more information has come to light about the family through an assessment and detailed Magellan Family Report prepared by the same family consultant.

2. Overall, the concerns raised by the family consultant in the previous interviews with the family are expanded upon in the Family Court and more concerning issues in relation to the risk to the children in both parents’ households are set out in the report.

3. The tenor of the Magellan Report  provided by the Department in January 2015 is that as the mother has the sole care of the children and her proposal is that any contact with the father be supervised, the Secretary “consider[s] her to be protective of the children” and it is not necessary therefore for the Department to intervene.

4. The Magellan Family Report however, not only raises even greater concerns about the risks posed by the father than had previously been assessed but of significance also raises risks to the children in the mother’s care as follows

   ·The mother appears to be quite focused on maintaining a relationship between herself and the children and Mr B, whose inappropriate engagement with the children was outlined in the previous assessment and Judgment and who potentially poses a risk of abuse of the children.

   ·The mother’s support of Mr B extends to spending time with him without the children and at the expense of the children’s feelings which demonstrates a lack of empathy in the mother for the children’s feelings and an inability to put their needs before her own.

   ·Both the mother and the father described to the family consultant associating with and exposing their children to people who they both believe to be on the sex offenders register. The family consultant expressed the view that “it is of grave concern that both Mr and Mrs [Tasker] had knowingly exposed their children to these men”.

   ·The family consultant is of the view that the mother provides limited protection to the three children and that they are vulnerable to predatory behaviour.

   ·D told the family consultant that she is not aware of the concerns about Mr B. The family consultant is of the view that this is unlikely and increases the level of risk that she may be exposed to.

   ·The youngest child, E is described by the family consultant as “just as vulnerable to predatory behaviour as his sisters”. The family consultant noted that E has been exhibiting sexualised behaviour at school, which raises concerns about what he may have been exposed to.

   ·The mother told the family consultant during the earlier assessment that she would not be concerned if one of her children were to enter into a relationship similar to hers, that is a much older man with a young child. It appears that the mother does not have a good understanding of her own vulnerability in her relationship with the father, which is particularly concerning where both parents mix in social which include many sexually predatory people.

5. In the earlier response to the request to intervene in the proceedings it appears that the author of that response applied the “statutory threshold for intervention” to this request. This “threshold” may apply in relation to a decision to intervene under the state child protection legislation, rather than to a  consideration of whether to intervene in these family law proceedings which are already on foot.

Conclusion

1. In my view, serious issues of risk are posed by both parents in these proceedings, including the mother who has previously been regarded by the Secretary as appropriately protective. In circumstances where this Court may find that there is an unacceptable risk of harm to the children in both households and no other adequate carer has been identified, the Secretary is requested to reconsider the earlier decision in relation to intervention in these proceedings and in particular to have close regard to the assessment of the family consultant and the views expressed by this Court in both Judgments.

I certify that the preceding thirteen (13) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Hannam delivered on 4 August 2016.

Legal Associate: 

Date:  4 August 2016.