Warshawsky & Lewerentz - [2024] FedCFamC1F 909

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Warshawsky & Lewerentz [2024] FedCFamC1F 909

File number(s): NCC 3356 of 2023

Judgment of: SMITH J

Date of judgment: 20 December 2024

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Oral decision – Final Hearing - Where serious allegations of coercive and controlling and intimidating behaviour against father – Where father alleges previous military training and covert Government employment – Where father alleges these proceedings are being monitored by the security services to protect the children – Where father demonstrated high levels of cyber stalking skills - Where evidence establishes a long history of threats of physical violence against other people and the mother – Where father says he will use litigation process to make the mother’s life hell regardless of outcome of these proceedings – Where father believes he is entitled to make threats of physical violence so long as he does not act on them - Orders for the father to have no time and no communication with the children – s 68B restraints on the father for the protection of the children and their carers alongside s 68C order – live with and sole decision making authority to the mother – s 102QAC order made against the father preventing him from instigating further proceedings against the mother other than to appeal these orders

Legislation:
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 128, 130, 140

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pts I, VII, XI, XIB, ss 4AB, 60B 60CA, 60CC, 61B, 61C, 61D, 61DAAA, 61DAB, 64B, 65AA, 65D, 68B, 68C, 69ZT, 102NA, 102QAC

Cases cited:
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] HCA 34

Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-092; [2022] FedCFamC1A 97

M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69; [1988] HCA 68

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 369

Date of hearing: 18-22 November 2024

Place: Newcastle by Microsoft Teams

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Rowan

Solicitor for the Applicant: Umbrella Legal

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Ball

Solicitor for the Respondent: Single Law

Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Kaiti

Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: NLS Law
ORDERS

NCC 3356 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MS WARSHAWSKY

Applicant

AND:
MR LEWERENTZ

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

SMITH J

DATE OF ORDER:

20 DECEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.MS WARSHAWSKY (born 1996) (“the mother”) shall have sole parental responsibility for X (born 2018) and Y (born 2020) (collectively “the children”) and sole decision making authority in respect of all decisions concerning major long term issues as defined in s 4(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) affecting the children.
2.The children live with the mother.
3.The children shall spend no time with and shall have no communication with MR LEWERENTZ (born 1972) (“the father”).

Passport Order/Travel Outside of the Commonwealth of Australia
4.The mother (Ms Warshawsky, born 1996) have sole parental responsibility and sole decision making authority in respect of the children (X born 2018 and Y born 2020) in respect of any application for a passport and in respect of any travel outside the Commonwealth of Australia.
5.The mother be authorised to apply and forthwith obtain an Australian passport for the children so as to enable her to travel in and out of the Commonwealth of Australia.
6.The consent of the Father (Mr Lewerentz born 1972) to the issuing of such an Australian passport for the children be forthwith dispensed with AND IT IS DECLARED that such consent is not required for such passport to now issue.
7.The children be permitted to depart the Commonwealth of Australia with the mother.

Injunctions against the father
8.Pursuant to s 68B of the Act for the personal protection of MS WARSHAWSKY (born 1996) (“the mother”), and X (born 2018) and Y (born 2020) (jointly and severally “the children”), and MR B (born 1999) (“Mr B”), the said MR LEWERENTZ (born 1972) (“the father”) be and is hereby restrained by himself, his servants and agents, from directly or indirectly:
(a)Contacting or communicating with, or attempting to contact or communicate with, the mother, and or the children, and or Mr B; and
(b)Knowingly approaching within 100 metres of the mother, and or the children, and or Mr B; and
(c)Being within 500 metres of any place of residence of the mother, and or the children, and or Mr B; and
(d)Being within 500 metres of any place of employment of the mother, and or Mr B; and
(e)Being within 500 metres of any school or other educational institution or child-care facility, holiday care, sporting or extra-curricular activity centre, attended by the children from time to time; and
(f)Contacting, or seeking information in relation to the mother, and or the children, and or Mr B, from any educational institution, place of employment, medical practice or practitioner or other body; and
(g)Stalking, harassing or intimidating the mother, and or the children, and or Mr B; and
(h)Accessing any technology owned or operated by the mother, and or the children, and or Mr B; and
(i)Publishing any information on any social media platform concerning these proceedings, and or the mother, and or the children, and or Mr B.

9.Pursuant to s 68B of the Act, for the personal protection of the children that the father be and is hereby restrained by himself, his servants, and agents from removing the children from, their school, residence, or the care of any person who has care of the children from time to time.
10.Pursuant to s 68C the injunction in Orders 8 and 9 herein, pursuant to s 68B of the Act, are for the personal protection of MS WARSHAWSKY (born 1996) and X (born 2018) and Y (born 2020) (jointly and severally “the children”) and MR B (born 1999).
11.If a Police Officer believes on reasonable grounds that MR LEWERENTZ (born 1972), at which the injunctions are directed, has breached the injunctions, they may arrest them without warrant.

Prohibition against the father instituting further proceedings
12.Excluding any Appeal from these Orders, pursuant to s 102QAC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) MR LEWERENTZ, or any person acting in concert with MR LEWERENTZ, is prohibited from instituting proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) in a court having jurisdiction under the Act, against or in relation to MS WARSHAWSKY, or X or Y, without prior leave of a court having jurisdiction under the Act.
13.Should MR LEWERENTZ seek leave to institute proceedings pursuant to s 102QAE of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), MS WARSHAWSKY is not to be notified by the court, that:
(a)An application has been made; and/or
(b)The outcome of the application, unless the outcome is the granting of leave to commence proceedings.

14.Should MR LEWERENTZ seek leave to institute proceedings pursuant to s 102QAE of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), MR LEWERENTZ or any person acting in concert with MR LEWERENTZ, is prohibited from serving, notifying or bringing to the attention of MS WARSHAWSKY, directly or indirectly, that:
(a)An application has been made; and/or
(b)The outcome of the application, unless the outcome is the granting of leave to commence proceedings.

Provision of Orders to various bodies
15.The mother has leave to provide a copy of these Orders to any educational institution or similar institution, or medical practice or medical practitioner, attended by the children, or to any other person who regularly cares for the children.
16.A copy of these Orders is directed to be provided by the Registrar of the Court to New South Wales Police Force for their records and information regarding the injunctions directed to the father.
17.A copy of the settled written Reasons for Decision may be provided to New South Wales Police Force.

Provision of Orders and Settled Reasons to various bodies
18.A copy of the settled written Reasons for Decision and these Orders is directed to be provided by the Registrar of the Court to the IGIS through their notification process as identified in the Reasons for Decision, when settled.

Costs
19.Any party, including the Independent Children’s Lawyer on behalf of the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales, who seeks a costs order is to file an Application in accordance with the Rules within 28 days, otherwise there shall be no order as to costs.
20.Pursuant to ss 62B and 65DA(2) of the Act the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders are set out in the Annexure and these particulars are included in these Orders.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of 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 Warshawsky & Lewerentz has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SMITH J:

These are oral reasons for decision in a child related proceeding to determine parenting orders in the best interests of X, aged six, and Y, age four (“the children”) pursuant to the principles in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”).
The final hearing was conducted before me between 18 and 22 November 2024. Both parents and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) were legally represented, including by counsel.
The applicant mother is Ms Warshawsky, aged 28. The mother is now in a relationship with Mr B, aged 25, who she met in about mid-2023. They have purchased their own home. The children presently live with them.
The respondent father is Mr Lewerentz, aged 52. The father has four adult children from three prior relationships. They are: Mr C, born 1994 (“Mr C”); Ms D, born 1996 (“Ms D”); Ms E, born 2004 (“Ms E”); and F, born 2007 (“F”). The father finally separated from his ex-wife, Ms G, who is the mother of Ms E and F, in 2017.
The parties met online and commenced a romantic relationship in about late 2017. The mother was 21 and finishing her studies. The father was about 45 and operating a business called H Business. The mother moved in with the father in about early 2018.
It is common ground that the father told the mother he had previously had a vasectomy and did not want children, and that the mother's first pregnancy was unexpected. The father did not want to keep X. The relationship terminated with the mother moving out. The parties reconnected in 2018 after a meeting. The mother was suffering from a medical condition and was unwell and had to stop working. She moved back in with the father.
They remained together and had X. They subsequently had Y, with the mother suffering the same medical condition with Y's pregnancy.
The father's oral evidence was that he had had a vasectomy but did not go to the check-ups and assumed it had been effective. There was much evidence and time spent on the truthfulness of the father's history of a vasectomy. No finding can be made, nothing turns on it, and I will not be referring to the issue again.
There is a dispute about who was the primary carer for the children in circumstances where the mother first returned to part-time work when X was 18-months old, and the father appeared to have certain financial issues and was working from home.
The father's evidence at trial concerning his financial position at any time has been, at the very best, evasive. It was often clearly evidence designed to ensure that neither the mother nor the Court had any true understanding of his finances, either during the relationship, after the relationship or at present. The father's evidence about his financial position and earnings was consistent with his generally evasive and dishonest attitude to giving oral evidence before me. It is not necessary to make findings about his financial position to determine the parenting proceedings and I will not address much of this evidence.
The mother left the father with the help of NSW Department of Communities and Justice (“DCJ”). She says they finally separated when she left on 12 April 2023. The father says it was unclear whether they had finally separated on that day, despite DCJ’s involvement and the police telling him he was not welcome at the mother's house, and that they did not finally separate until 23 July 2023 in circumstances I will consider later.
The principal issue at trial was whether the father engaged in serious family violence throughout the relationship, and whether this continued with stalking and intimidation post‑separation, and further whether this was a continuation of similar behaviours in his prior relationship with Ms G, and also a reflection of his violent behaviours towards others, including in commercial contexts.
The question is whether the father has engaged in family violence, and so is likely to engage in family violence towards the children and/or the mother if permitted time or communication with the children in future, and so whether in legal terms the father is a person who poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the children.
At the conclusion of the trial, the ICL and the mother both submitted that the father is an unacceptable risk of harm to the children.
The father's case is that the mother has fabricated and/or exaggerated all her allegations in a calculated attempt to alienate him from the children, or the children from him, and to exclude him, from the children's lives for her convenience having entered into a new relationship with Mr B.
The father's position until day one of the trial was that there should be equal shared parental responsibility, with the children to live equally between the parents in a week about arrangement changing over each Friday. The father proposed, and I note the Further Amended Response to Initiating Application filed 27 August 2024, what he referred to in various pieces of correspondence as a “Zero Contact Parallel Parenting Agreement”.
At trial and in closing submissions, the father provided the final proposed minute of order (MFI 9), which proposed that the mother has sole parental and decision-making responsibility, that the children live with the mother, that the children spend time with the father alternate weekends from, effectively, Friday to Monday, one half of the short school holidays, week about in the long school holidays, and on special occasions.
He proposed orders for communication via an application, that each parent be permitted to attend school functions, and other standard orders for keeping informed, non-denigration and non-discussion of proceedings.
The mother's minute of order at the trial (MFI 7), sought sole parental and decision-making responsibility, that the children live with her, that they have no time and no communication with the father, supported by s 68B injunctions directed to the father for her protection and for the protection of the children, and passport orders.
The ICL’s minute of order at the end of the trial (MFI 12), proposed sole parental and decision-making responsibility to the mother, that the children live with the mother, passport orders, and no time and no communication orders with the father, supported by s 68B and, if necessary, explicit s 68C injunctions as raised in oral submissions.
The ICL also sought an order pursuant to the harmful proceedings provisions of the Act, given the father's conduct to date and his repeated statements in correspondence, confirmed in oral evidence during the trial, that he will never stop seeking the orders he wants, and that he will make the mother's life hell and keep her in court for 15 or 25 years, or at least until the children are adults until he gets his way.
As this is an oral decision, and to avoid additional stress to the parties waiting to learn the result, for reasons I will now give: I find that the mother and her witnesses, Mr B and the maternal grandmother were, generally, witnesses of truth; and, that the father was a witness of little, if any credit, whose evidence was so riddled with clear dishonesty that it must be treated with great caution and cannot generally be relied upon.
I find that the evidence more than comfortably establishes to the very high requisite evidentiary standard, noting s 140(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and the authorities starting with Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 (‘Briginshaw’), and taking into account the seriousness and significant gravity of the allegations and of the consequences of those allegations, that the father has engaged in family violence as defined in the Act against the mother throughout the relationship, including post-separation right up to the trial, in particular, that he has made threats to the mother of serious violence and has engaged in ongoing stalking as part of a pattern of continuing coercive control.
I find that the father poses a high and serious risk of serious psychological harm to the children and to the mother and that these risks are unacceptable, noting the principles in M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 in the High Court and Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-092 in the Full Court of this Court.
I also separately find that though there is limited evidence of physical violence, the evidence of F referred to later, in particular, causes me to find that there is a risk of physical harm to the children, particularly when they are older, if they do not obey the father, which risks are also unacceptable.
I also separately find that there is a risk of psychological and physical harm to the mother, who I find has been subjected to death threats by the father. The psychological risk is obvious, and the physical risk is real in that though there is limited evidence of physical violence the father might dramatically escalate from death threats to action, as unfortunately occurs with distressing regularity in this jurisdiction.
Consequently, I find that the children's best interests require that I make orders that there be no time and no communication with the father and, given the father's repeated breaches of AVO’s and stalking and ongoing harassment, that these orders be supported by extensive s 68B injunctions and an explicit s 68C orders, largely in line with the ICL’s proposal.
Obviously, the mother in these circumstances will have sole parental and decision-making responsibility and the children will live with the mother.
In respect of the harmful proceedings order, it would be very unusual, indeed it will be very unusual, to make a harmful proceedings order at this stage.
However, the evidence shows the father's conduct to date. His own evidence is it is his intention never to give in, and to use litigation against the mother and to make her life "hell" until he gets his way.
The father’s repeated statement of this intention satisfies me that the evidence comfortably meets the statutory test. I find, subject to an exclusion that must lie in relation to the father's right to appeal this decision and these orders, that this is a rare case in which it is appropriate to make a harmful proceedings order now to avoid the children and, indeed, the mother as their carer, from being embroiled in endless litigation brought not for any valid purpose, but primarily to punish and harm the mother for having left the father.

I note that the evidence in the trial canvassed many different issues, but the central, and I find determinative issue, is that of the father's family violence, and so I will focus mainly on that issue in this judgment, and will not consider the various other factual matters raised which cannot, in my view, given the evidence of family violence, affect the outcome of these proceedings.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The proceedings commenced on 24 October 2023 when the mother filed an Initiating Application.
On 24 November 2023, the matter was allocated to the Evatt List, an ICL was appointed, and a Child Impact Report requested, which was prepared and released on 19 January 2024.
Interim orders were made on 14 February 2024 for the children to live with the mother, and for the mother to have sole parental responsibility for medical and allied health decisions. It was ordered that the father would spend time with the children for up to one occasion each week for two hours, with such time to be supervised by EE Contact Centre.
On 28 February 2024, a Family Report was ordered, which was prepared and released on 17 September 2024. A s 102NA order was made.
On 30 September 2024, I effectively granted expedition and set the matter down for a final defended hearing commencing on Monday, 18 November 2024.
THE TRIAL
The matter ran for five days from 18 November 2024. All parties were represented, including by counsel.
The mother read or relied upon the following documents:
(1)Further Amended initiating Application filed 27 September 2024;
(2)Affidavit of Ms Warshawsky filed 12 November 2024;
(3)Affidavit of Mr B on 12 November 2024;
(4)Affidavit of Ms J, the maternal grandmother, filed 12 November 2024;
(5)Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk filed 24 October 2023; and
(6)Case outline filed 16 November 2024, List of Objections, and the Minute of Order referred to.
The father read or relied upon:
(1)Amended Response filed 27 August 2024;
(2)Affidavit of Mr Lewerentz filed 11 November 2024, excluding annexure L which was not read;
(3)Case outline filed 17 November 2024; and
(4)Final Minute of Order sought.
The ICL read or relied upon the following:
(1)Child Impact Report prepared by Ms K (“Court Child Expert” or “CCE”) dated 12 January 2024;
(2)Family Report prepared by Ms K dated 4 September 2024;
(3)Case outline filed 18 November 2024; and
(4)Final Minute of Order sought (MFI 12) referred to.
A large range of documents were provided in court books and marked for identification only.
Numerous documents were tendered and admitted into evidence. Those exhibits will be referred to as necessary.
The mother, the maternal grandmother, Mr B, the father, and the Court Child Expert were required for cross-examination.
I will focus primarily upon the evidence of the father, to some extent the mother, and the Court Child Expert.
I will come later to the evidence of Mr B and the maternal grandmother, but the reality is their evidence added little to the key issue. I say that without criticism of the fact they were called. Indeed, it was essential for Mr B to be called, given his deep involvement in the children's life.
ALLEGATIONS OF VIOLENCE AND FAMILY VIOLENCE
The mother alleges that the father engaged in emotional, financial, sexual, verbal and physical abuse, as well as physical and technological stalking throughout and after the relationship.
The nature and extent of the alleged abuse is set out in the mother's affidavit and also captured by both the Child Impact Report and the Family Report.
However, given the major issue was the father's alleged history of violent behaviours towards not only the mother, but to other people, including his prior partner, Ms G, and children Ms E and F, and towards the mother during the relationship and post-separation, and given the plethora of evidence around the issue of the father’s violent behaviours from sources other than the mother, and given the father's oral evidence often confirmed his intimidation and violent behaviours and his belief that he was entitled to engage in them, it is convenient to deal with the issue by starting with the father's alleged history of violence and family violence prior to his relationship with the mother, before considering the allegations and evidence of family violence in and after the parents' relationship.
FATHER’S ALLEGED HISTORY OF VIOLENCE TO OTHERS
Hearsay evidence
The father was cross-examined on numerous police and other documents containing hearsay evidence admissible only by reason of s 69ZT of the Act.
Accordingly, its weight must be carefully considered due to the absence of the alleged complainants for cross-examination. I have taken the hearsay nature of that evidence and, in particular, of the COPS events into account in assessing its weight. Nevertheless, the volume of material creates a constellation of evidence which, when viewed all together, overwhelmingly persuades me that the father has engaged in a long-term pattern of consistent behaviour of making threats of violence to many people.
Family violence
One of the issues in this case is what constitutes family violence. The issue is not the legal issue, with the definition of family violence in s 4AB of the Act being broad and inclusive and clearly covering verbal threats, intimidation, stalking, harassment and coercive control, which the father's behaviour towards the mother was.
The issue that arose is the father's fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes family violence or, indeed, violence. He repeatedly made statements in his evidence that he believes he is entitled to threaten people, including the mother, and to make threats which would reasonably be considered threats up to threats of murder, so long as he does not act on the threats.
He said that although he had made these threats, and admitted that he made them for the purpose of intimidating people, he made it clear that he believed that since he had not acted on the threats, he did not see a problem with that behaviour. The reason why the father does not understand that threatening people and causing them fear through threats, including of murder, is a form of violence and is not acceptable behaviour is unclear.
I do note, that every so often in his oral evidence when he was having one of these threats which he admitted making put to him and was being challenged on his behaviours the father would say words to the effect that he understood his behaviour was unacceptable, but then whenever pressed further he reverted to justifying his conduct.
Considering his evidence as a whole it is clear, and I find, that the father holds the persistent belief that he is entitled to make threats at will for the purpose of intimidating, harassing and threatening people and coercing and controlling them into doing what he wants. I find that his occasional acknowledgement that this is unacceptable behaviour to me in oral evidence were no more than what he described to the Court Child Expert, at Family Report [68], in relation to his plea of guilty in another context, as having to “write letters saying ‘BS’ like I’m remorseful”. I do not accept that the father has any remorse whatsoever for any of the threats that he has made to the mother.
Evidentiary standard
The allegations made against the father are extremely grave and, while the relevant standard is the civil balance of probabilities, the gravity of the allegations, which include that he has made serious threats of violence up to and I find including of murder; and the consequences of my findings that he has made such threats, which are that he will never see or speak with, or communicate in any way with his children again; and will be subject to injunctions that will mean he will be arrested if he breaches those orders; and that he will not be allowed to come back to this Court without the leave of this Court, are such serious and grave orders that a very, very significant degree of satisfaction is required, and I have very much had in mind s 140(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and, although Briginshaw was a common law case, the principles set out in Briginshaw as applicable under the Act, in coming to very grave findings against the father, that I make.
Late 2016 to Late 2017 – M Shopping Centre, Suburb L
The father was asked about any troubles he had had at M Shopping Centre, Suburb L when he was operating a business there. He said that M Shopping Centre had not extended leases, and his business lost 80 per cent of its income after they shut down most of the centre for 18 months.
In response to the question of whether he had threatened their staff, the father replied words to the effect that they threatened us more than we threatened them, which was an evasive answer. It was again suggested that he had threatened M Shopping Centre’s staff, and he did not deny it, but merely suggested that perhaps this was justified by the fact that they had threatened him without specifying what he meant by them threatening him.
He also said that during protests lots of threats were made by lots of different people and he was one of them, again seeking to deflect and failing to answer the simple direct question of whether he had made threats, and also seeking to suggest that because other people were making threats to M Shopping Centre staff, that would justify him doing so.
Foreshadowing the evidence of complaints to police he was clearly aware were coming, the father then said if counsel was going to bring up “[Ms N]” that she was walking around while we were trying to trade saying it was mandatory, and that she was being threatened by a lot of people at the same time. The father appeared to admit that he had threatened Ms N but sought to justify his behaviour on the basis that he was one of many.
The father was then taken to a COPS event reference dated late 2017 (Exhibit D):
… [Mr LEWERENTZ] has a [business] within [M Shopping Centre, SUBURB L] and is believed not to be paying rent for the space he occupies. [LEWERENTZ] has been making remarks and this has caused [M Shopping Centre] employee ......... to be fearful of [LEWERENTZ] and not be able to come to work at this time. [In] 2016 the POI, [Mr LEWERENTZ] has made a remark to ......... stating that he would "Drag "her (.........) around the centre by the hair ". This was never reported to police. [In] 2017, the POI has sent ......... ([Manager]) a text message saying "I'd also get you remind ......... to stay away from me, especially in the carpark" (Sic). . [In] 2017, the POI has had a conversation with ......... and made a remark to her in relation to the victim ......... where he said "She is lucky that I don't run her over in the carpark". [In] 2017, police attended [M Shopping Centre, Suburb L] and spoke to ......... and ......... about their concerns. Police had earlier spoken to ......... about obtaining all the details involving the parties to the OIC via email to follow up. This was not appropriate for ......... who requested police attend. About 4:40pm on [a day in late] 2017, police were informed that the POI had been to NBN and made a complaint about [M Shopping Centre] "Bullying". Police were informed that this report was nothing to do with the POI bringing [M Shopping Centre] into the media spotlight and that it was a separate issue as staff member ......... who works an average of 3 days at the centre for [M Shopping Centre], was unable to come to work due to her being fearful of the POI. Police to obtain statements from Witnesses and look at charging the POI with 3 x Intimidation sequences pending further discussion with ......... and .......... .......... is believed to have made a report at [Suburb O] Police Station [in late] 2017. Event to follow.
…
[Late] 2017 0830 ......... attended [Suburb O] Police Station […] and made a statement in relation to the POI. While present all possible outcomes of an investigation were explained to her. She advised that she did not want to face the POI in court however stated that she did feel intimidated by the POI. OIC has been emailed advising. Event to be returned […] for follow up.
(As per the original)
This was raised in the Family Report at [121]. The father addressed this issue at [160] of his affidavit, together with the other allegations discussed later in relation to events at his other business in Suburb P, saying that during a refit he was involved in media interviews to support other business owners and that the centre staff were pushing people to pay rent when they could not afford to. The father said this led to many altercations between centre staff and many business owners. I was not the only owner to have these altercations about the unethical behaviour. Again, the father was seeking to justify his behaviours by reference to other unidentified people allegedly behaving the same way, and by reference to the alleged unethical behaviour of M Shopping Centre.
In oral evidence, the father agreed that the person he allegedly threatened to drag around by her hair was the Ms N he had referred to, but said he did not remember if he had said that to her. He accepted he sent the text message in late 2017, but said that was because of her allegations, and not an admission of the allegation about dragging her by the hair.
He denied the allegation that he said she was lucky he did not run over her in the car park, saying, “I would never say that”. I reject the father's evidence that he would never say something like, “[s]he is lucky that I don't run over her in the carpark”, noting he has admitted, as I will go on to cover, saying similar and, indeed, much worse things, and making similar and, indeed, much worse threats.
In summary, having admitted that he was one of the people who made threats, and having then sought to justify his behaviour by saying that the M Shopping Centre staff threatened him or us, without specifying how or indicating any actual threat of violence as opposed to demands for the lawful payment of rent under a contract, the father then sought to deflect or minimise responsibility by suggesting he was one of the many people making threats, as if being one of many making threats was acceptable, and denying he would ever threaten to run over someone, a denial which can be given no weight given the evidence of the threats the father admits, which I will come to later.
It was also interesting that the father in this context went to the media and, apparently, accused M Shopping Centre of bullying and portrayed himself as the victim, which is consistent with his approach to these proceedings, where he told the CCE many things which caused her to believe he considered himself the victim, and where his oral evidence before me was often clearly predicated on him being the victim, and where he justified his violent behaviours and threats in oral evidence by suggesting or implying that he was the real victim in this matter.
I give this hearsay material, and the father's admissions to the extent that they were made, some weight in the overall assessment of his propensity to act in a threatening and intimidating manner, while simultaneously seeking to portray himself as a victim to garner sympathy, noting the other similar evidence of this conduct, and that this conduct pre-dates his first meeting the mother, who he blames for manipulating him into engaging in similar threatening behaviours towards her.
Relationship with two oldest children
The father sought to suggest in his evidence that he has excellent relationships with his older four children as evidence that he is no risk to the subject children, and it is likely the mother has fabricated evidence against him.
Mr C
In cross-examination, the father said that Mr C was born in 1994 in New Zealand, that he spent substantial time with him until Mr C moved with his mother to Australia in 1998 when Mr C was four. He said he moved to Australia in about mid-2000, coming later as he had to conclude his affairs in New Zealand. He said that he moved to New South Wales even though Mr C and Mr C’s mother were in Western Australia because, he said, Mr C’s mother thought it would be better if he lived in Australia.
He said that he and Mr C spoke on the phone every week and Mr C came over for two visits to New South Wales. It is not clear how the father living in New South Wales was better for his relationship with Mr C than living in New Zealand.
Apart from the father's evidence that they remain on good terms, there is no independent evidence of an ongoing relationship with Mr C.
Ms D
In cross-examination, the father agreed that apart from a very brief relationship for a few weeks with Ms D's mother, he had little to do with her. There was no reliable independent evidence as to the nature of the father's relationship with his child, Ms D.
Father’s former wife and two children – Ms E and F
The father's former wife is Ms G. They had Ms E in 2004 and F in 2007.
The father gave oral evidence that he was working and played a standard working parental role in their upbringing. In oral evidence, the father said that he and Ms G separated in 2017, denying that there was any acrimony. He said that Ms G did not want him to leave, and that Ms E and F lived week-about with him for a period.
Mid-2018 – ADVO for protection of former wife
The father was taken to the COPS entry for a date in mid-2018 (Exhibit M):
…The informant……… and the POI [Mr LEWERENTZ] were in a relationship for 18 years and seperated for the past 10 Months. They have two children together ......... 13yrs old and ......... 10yrs old. The informant is now in a relationship with Witness .......... [In early] 2018, the children spent the night at the POI's residence, during the stay one of the children advised the POI that their mother was in a new relationship with the Witness .......... This infuriated the POI, resulting in the POI sending abusive messages to the informant, and getting in a verbal argument with the informant at changeover with the children. Due to the verbal abuse from the POI, the informant attended [Suburb P] Police Station advising of the incident and requesting Police make a record in the event the situation escallates. The POI also contacted Police admitting to getting in an argument with the informant, stating he didnt want a strange man around his children. Police advised the POI that he has no control over who the informant has a relationship and that if he was to continue with his verbal abuse to the informant that it may result in an AVO. No further Police action pending, no offence currently detected.
(As per the original)
Ms E was 13 and F was 10 at that time.
In oral evidence, the father denied this was the first time he had heard of Ms G's new partner, saying he learned about him when Ms E and F contacted him saying this new man “was doing things in front of them”. He denied he was “infuriated”, or that he sent “abusive messages”, saying they were “concerned messages” asking that Ms G not see her new partner except when the children were with him.
He was then taken to the COPS entry for another date in mid-2018 (Exhibit N):
…The PINOP ......... and the Defendant [Mr LEWERENTZ] were previously in a relationship for 15 years marriage before separating [in mid] 2017. They resided together at ......... with their daughters ......... aged 10 years and ......... aged 13 Years for the duration of the relationship. After the separation the Defendant moved out of the residence and moved to an address in .........whilst the PINOP continues to reside at ......... with her daughters. [In mid] 2018, the PINOP dropped her daughter ......... off at a [sports] field […] as she was meeting the Defendant at the location. Both children stay at the Defendants house on Wednesdays and he takes them to school the next day. . As soon as the PINOP was in proximity of the Defendant he began to threaten the PINOP's Current Partner of four weeks ......... saying words to the effect of "I will cut him up and put him in the garbage", "he is not to be around my children or I will finish him off". The abuse and threats continued for approximately 15 minutes until the end of [sports] training. ......... recorded the conversation for the safety of the PINOP. The PINOP provided police a copy of the recording. [The next day] at 2:12pm the PINOP received a text message from the Defendant which read "If ......... is there with my children he is fucked". [Two days later], ......... received a phone call from the Defendant whilst at a [campground]. The Defendant made it known to ......... that he was aware where they were and stated that he was tracking her mobile phone. The Defendant stated "I am not tracking his phone because I can not be bothered. I just care about you guys". During the conversation the Defendant said words to the effect of "You need to be home by 9:30pm tonight or I will come and finish off .........". The PINOP overheard the entire conversation as it was on loud speaker which she recorded and provided police with a copy. The Defendant also said "I will be making sure you guys come back tonight because I do not want you there staying with him". The conversation went for several minutes and consisted of the Defendants strong desire for his daughters to not be in company of ......... and leave the camping ground. About 5:50pm [that day], police attended [Town S] Police Station where they were met by the victim. Police obtained a types statement from the victim as well as a copy of the above mentioned text messages. Whilst police were obtaining a statement from the PINOP, ......... received a text message from the Defendant which read "Big mistake! I never threaten anyone.. I act swiftly with brutal force... im coming for them now...". As a direct result of the Defendants behaviour the PINOP is fearful for her safety the safety of her children and the safety of .......... She feels intimidated and stated she is fearful that the Defendant's behaviour will escalate and he will become physically aggressive towards her and her family. The PINOP holds concerns for her children being the company of the Defendant without supervision…The PINOP is fearful of the Defendant and expressed concerns for the safety of herself her children and .......... She fears the Defendants behaviour will escalate and he may become physically aggressive. FEARS HELD BY POLICE: Police are of the Belief an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order is Necessary for the Protection and safety of the PINOP and…
(As per the original)

The father's oral evidence was that Ms E recorded the conversation which was given to police and that neither he nor Ms G were aware she was recording. I find the fact that Ms E, then age 13, recorded the conversation is evidence of Ms E's concerns about the father's conduct, and inconsistent with the father's evidence that his concerns were generated by Ms E and F coming to him seeking his protection from the mother's new partner because they were afraid of the new partner.
The father said that Ms G's new partner was not there when he said he would “cut him up and put him in the garbage”, by which I understood the father to be trying to suggest it was less relevant as a threat. The father's willingness to use threats of violence, including and up to a threat of murder, which I find this was, as a tool of intimidation is scattered throughout the evidence.
The father was asked what he meant by his threat to “finish him off” and whether it was a threat to kill. The father tried to avoid answering the question by saying that he was “upset” and “expressing how I felt”.
Throughout the evidence, when faced with questions about why he made threats, the father would seek to justify this by saying he was upset. It is clear that the threats to cut Ms G's new partner up and put him in a garbage bag and to finish him off were threats of murder, that the father intended them to be understood as a threat of murder, and that in the father's oral evidence before me, he did not accept that he had done anything wrong because he believes that if someone has upset him he is entitled to make threats up to, and including, threats of murder.
There was a common refrain in the father's oral evidence or justifying threats of violence by saying he was merely expressing how he felt, clearly holding the view that his hurt or upset feelings were sufficient justification for making these extremely serious threats of physical violence, including of murder.
However, he also said on a number of occasions words to the effect of that “at no time have I been physically violent towards anyone”. The father clearly thinks that the fact that he has not acted upon his threats of serious physical violence meant that they were alright. The father's evidence taken as a whole, and I will come to more of it in due course, makes it clear that he holds the view that it is entirely permissible and acceptable and reasonable for him to threaten to kill or seriously injure someone, as long as he does not actually carry out, or attempt to carry out, the threatened violence.
As I will also come to in due course, the fact that the father has also, I find, told people including the mother that he has military service and training and that he has killed people in the course of that service, so that he is a person who is more than capable of committing an execution or of killing someone, makes those threats significantly more intimidating and serious.
The father went so far as to defend the statement that if Ms G's new partner was around those children he would "finish him off", on the basis that the children had come running out crying that the new partner had a “big wet cum stain” on his trousers, and that they had come down the stairs screaming. If it was the case that Ms E and F were scared of the new partner and seeking protection from the father, then one asks rhetorically, why was it the father's threats that Ms E recorded? I give no weight to what the father says about this. I will return to this when I consider the evidence of the complaints of Ms E and F to DCJ.
In relation to the proposition that he was making a threat to kill Ms G's new partner, the father in oral evidence said words to the effect of “I was using those terms of a form of intimidation”. There is no doubt the father understands that his purpose in, and the effect of, his serious threats is to intimidate, to coerce, and to seek to control other people, so they do what he requires of them.
The fact that the father gave evidence that he was using threats to kill as a form of intimidation in the context of a justification, which he appeared to consider reasonable and explaining his behaviours, shows just how little the father understands of what is acceptable behaviour in our society.
The father clearly believed, and continues to believe, that threats of murder as a form of intimidation are an acceptable response if his feelings are hurt and if that expresses his feelings for the purpose of intimidating people into doing what he wants them to do. When asked whether the words, “he is fucked” was also a threat, the father said that Ms G's new partner was a violent man. This response, he clearly believed, justifies his behaviours, confirming this by saying words to the effect, “any father who doesn't is no father at all” in terms of threatening someone he believes may be a risk to the children.
The father accepted that he was tracking his daughters' phones and that he knew they had gone to the police station and, indeed, were at the police station when he texted one of his daughters, “[b]ig mistake!” I never threaten anyone. I act swiftly with brutal force. im [sic] coming for them now”, which text message was seen by the police and the accuracy of which text message the father did not contest.
When asked what he meant by that message to his daughter's phone, he said he got upset and just tried to get his point across, but then he said in oral evidence words to the effect “if I was going to do something, I wouldn't say anything anyway”. That oral evidence was given in a way that made it clear that the father intended to convey in court that he is a person who may “do something” such as commit serious acts of violence, and that if or when he does, no warning will be given. It was an extraordinary and striking piece of evidence to give in court under oath in the context of trying to persuade the court that he is not a violent man. It had the complete opposite effect, as it must have had on any rational listener.
The father made it clear that he did not think sending those messages to his own teenage daughter's mobile phone while at the police was in any way inappropriate.
Later in oral evidence, the father agreed that in 2018, he pleaded guilty a charge, for which was sentenced to a conditional release order without conviction (see exhibit ICL3), but even when acknowledging that plea in oral evidence to me, he showed no contrition, instead stating he pleaded guilty merely “to get it out of the way”.
He also emphasised that his threats were not to Ms G or the children, even though it was one of his daughters who received the threats and Ms G who received others and that the children heard them, again seeking to justify his behaviours on the basis of his belief he was entitled as a father, to make any threat he deemed necessary to the new partner, and to convey those threats including through his children.
The father's oral evidence before me defending these behaviours was at least as concerning to me as the behaviours recorded, due to his vehement and current defence of his right to track, harass and threaten to murder if that is what he believes is necessary to “get his point across” and to enforce compliance with his will, and that he holds the view that severe coercion and control through threats of murder is reasonable so long, he says, as there is no actual physical violence involved.
Those beliefs, repeated throughout his oral evidence, are entirely consistent with the mother's evidence of his behaviours during the relationship, and of the evidence of his post-separation behaviours.
May 2018 – Child protection materials relating to Ms E and F
The Court Child Expert noted the child protection material in relation to Ms E and F in mid-2018 in the Family Report at [100]:
100. The child protection collateral material contained reports of allegations that the father had physically, verbally and emotionally abused [Ms E] and [F]. Records pertaining to a report received in [mid] 2018 stated “[F] disclosed that her father [Mr Lewerentz] has become verbally and physically abusive towards her in the past 18 months. He has been hitting, punching, yelling, scratching and locking her in a cupboard. The last occasion she was locked in the cupboard was for about half an hour…[Mr Lewerentz] has also threatened to end [F’s] life if she didn’t do what she is told” (subpoena 1). An additional report in [early] 2019 stated “[F] disclosed…that her father [Mr Lewerentz] had twisted her arm up behind her back. It was reported that [Mr Lewerentz] has dragged the children up the stairs by their arms…He has also kicked [Ms E] when she was 4”. Additional information was provided on this date, pertaining to an alleged incident between the father and [F] in the car. “[F] was in the car and sitting in the back seat with her sisters. She was being a bit whiny. [Mr Lewerentz] stated that if you don’t fucking stop I will pull over and kick you out. [F] continued to whinge and push boundaries. [Mr Lewerentz] was on the freeway and slammed on his breaks so that the car came to a dead stop. [F] hit her head on the seat in front of her” (subpoena 1). It appears that these reports were not assessed by DCJ.
(Emphasis in original)
The Court Child Expert also noted at Family Report at 101 that in August 2018, police recorded a history that F and Ms E had time off school:
101. ... “due to the ongoing separation issues and stress this incident is causing”.
(Emphasis in original)
The father addressed, Family Report paragraph 100 in his affidavit at his paragraph 147, denying all and any allegations of abuse. He said amongst other things that:
147. … [F] has made countless allegations over the years at school saying that she was about to be abducted in front of [R School] and got the police involved. [F] lied about a number of other things that were documented that had nothing to do with me…
The father maintained this position in oral evidence. This child protection material is, again, hearsay material, but noting the father's threats made through one of the children's phones while they were at the Town S police station, I take it into account as evidence that, particularly in relation to children who have reached an age where they may be less compliant, there is firstly a serious risk that the father will engage in verbal abuse, up to and including threats “to end” his own child's life, which is consistent with his verbal threats to adults, and which threats he was willing to convey through his children and Ms G to the new partner. That is consistent with general view that he is entitled use violent threats to express his feelings and compel compliance.
Second, while he says there is no evidence that he has acted on his threats of violence, this is evidence that he may use excessive physical force on a child in his control who does not comply with his will. That is a simple step from his proven use of verbal abuse and emotional abuse and manipulation and threats and not inconsistent with the belief that is appropriate.
Although hearsay evidence, I find this report by his child to be significant evidence, given the father's oral evidence was that his many threats were merely that, threats, and there was no evidence that he had acted on those threats or used physical violence, and I find that such complaints made by his own child to DCJ at a time when he was making threats of murder to Ms G's partner are to be given significant weight as evidence of a risk of escalation from verbal to the use of excessive force or even physical violence on a non-compliant child.
25 June 2018 – Bleach incident
The father was taken to the COPS entry for mid-2018 (Exhibit O):
… [In mid] 2018 the victim attended [Suburb P] Police Station where she reported a breach of the ADVO. At this stage, it is believed that the victims 10 year old daughter ......... witnessed the incident. The accused had custody of his daughters over the weekend from Friday […] through to Monday […] when the accused dropped the two girls off to school. On Saturday [...] the accused's eldest daughter was required to work a shift […], however, she needed to collect her uniform from the victims residence. It was agreed by the victim that her two daughters could attend the residence where it was believed that the accused would remain outside complying with the ADVO whilst the children entered the house to collect the clothing that was required. It is alleged that when the accused attended with his children, he entered the victims house where he proceeded to fill a spray bottle with bleach and then squirted an item of clothing belonging to the victims partner that was situated in the rear lounge room. It is further alleged that whilst in the house the accused went upstairs into the victims bedroom where he continued to spray bleach over further items of clothing that were located in the wardrobe in the bedroom. This clothing belongs to both the victim and her partner. The bleach being sprayed onto the clothing has resulted in the items being discoloured where the bleach has removed the colour from the clothing. It is believed at this stage that there are approximately 15 items of work clothing belonging to the victim that were damaged and about 8 items belonging to her partner. The victim attended [Suburb P] Police Station […] to report the matter. She provided Police with a DVEC regarding the incident. It is believed that part of the accused's actions were witness by his 10 year old daughter ........... It is alleged that the accused has breached condition 8 of the ADVO by entering the residence, and whilst inside he has committed a further offence by damaging property belonging to the victim and her partner. The accused is to be offered the opportunity to be interviewed. Breach AVO LPC ......... […].
The father addressed this in his affidavit at paragraph 133:
133. … I knew of the bleaching incident because my children told me what they had done. I took full responsibility for it as I was concerned about the repercussions on my children […] as he was living with them at the time.
The father's oral evidence was that he falsely admitted to being guilty of the offence when it was, in fact, his children who had caused the damage. He said he did this to protect his daughters.
In the context of the totality of the evidence concerning the father's behaviours and beliefs, with which this incident is consistent, and that he was subject to charges in relation to the mid‑2018 incident at the time, I reject the father's oral evidence and prefer his contemporary confession as evidence of the truth of what occurred. This is evidence of an escalation of the father's violent threats into actual property damage in breach of an AVO, showing that even for people who are primarily making verbal threats, there is always a risk that, in moments of frustration, they will escalate from verbal threats to action, being either damage to property or physical violence.
Breach of ADVO
It was common ground that the father received a good behaviour bond for breach of an ADVO against Ms G. The CCE referred to this, apparently under misapprehension that it related to the mother at paragraph 68 of the Family Report:
68. The father reported that he received a […] Good Behaviour Bond on a recent breach of the ADVO, stating that he pled guilty as he needed to go overseas. He reported that he had to “write letters saying ‘BS’ like I’m remorseful”. He reported that the mother had gone to Court, despite not being required, and had been speaking with the Police Prosecutor. He likened this to the behaviour of a narcissist, describing it as a means of control when she cannot communicate directly with him, however intimated that she is seeking to harm him through the manipulation of others.
In oral evidence, the father was taken to this, and accepted he said this to the CCE. He sought to justify it, repeating the common theme in his oral evidence that he did nothing physical and only communicated with her, and so it was a technical breach.
Despite, at points in his evidence again, purporting to accept the broad definition of family violence to include threats and coercion of control, and the breaching of AVO’s around contact and communication, it was abundantly clear from the father's repeated statements in oral evidence that he does not accept that anything less than physical battery is unacceptable behaviour.
21 July 2018
The father was taken to the COPS entry for mid-2018, Exhibit P, in which the father is referred to as the alleged victim:
… [In mid] 2018 the Victim contacted Police in relation to receiving text messages from the P/N and her partner. Police attended a some time later and could not raise anyone at the residence of the Victim. Police made contact by phone and spoke at length to the Victim. The Victim stated he had received text messages and calls to the mobile phones of his daughters however nothing directly to his phone. The Victim informed Police that he felt this to be harassing in nature. Whilst speaking to Police the Victim began asking what form of force he could use of the partner of the P/N turned up at his house. The Victim then made claims to be a [martial artist]. Police formed the opinion that the Victim holds no fears of the P/N or her partner. Police rang and spoke to the P/N. The P/N explained that the Victim has bee to her residence and poured bleach on clothing which lead to the AVO. The P/N seemed to have fears of the Victim. Police spoke at length to the P/N about the texts and were reassured that no texts were sent to the Victim. As the Victim made no mention of text messages being sent to his phone Police believe that the only communication between the two households was from the P/N to the daughters. No further action will be taken in relation to this matter….
The father's evidence was that Ms G's new partner had called him and threatened to send people to beat him up. He accepted that he asked police what force he could use, and told them that he practices a martial art. He said that this was amongst other skills and that he had “trained in a lot of hand-to-hand combat”.
15 JANUARY 2019 – CHILD SUPPORT DEPARTURE
The father was taken to the COPS entry for early 2019, Exhibit R. The father and the mother and X were stopped at the airport on the way to New Zealand due to an alert from mid-2018 for unpaid child support. They were unable to leave the country.
In oral evidence, the father denied that his child support payments for Ms E and F were in arrears but agreed that he paid about $2000 and was allowed to fly to New Zealand two days later. He denied the mother paid this. It does not matter who paid it.
This ties in to the father's financial history and what appears to be a clear intent on his part to obfuscate his financial position and to avoid paying child support.
As I have said, there was an enormous amount of cross-examination of the father as to his true financial position. The only thing I can be sure of is that he was not candid and that I have no idea what his financial position was, but since there is no child support or property application before me, and since the other evidence of family violence is overwhelming, I will not seek to go through or untangle whatever his true financial position may be.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT / MILITARY BACKGROUND
One of the issues that arose during the course of the trial was whether the father had told the mother that he had a military background, had been in the special forces, had worked as a hit man, and had killed people in the course of his work, and whether this was part of a pattern of coercive and threatening intimidation to persuade the mother that he was a dangerous man with whose directions she should comply.
I am comfortably satisfied those statements were made by the father to the mother as alleged by her and were made for the purpose of intimidation to ensure that she understood that he was a dangerous man, and that his verbal threats were able to be backed up by an experienced, trained, military person who had killed.

One of the reasons I say there can be no doubt they were made to the mother, is that the father made similar statements to other people for similar intimidatory purposes before he ever met her, and though he sought to obfuscate in his oral evidence before me, as I will come to, he ultimately said numerous things in oral evidence which indicated that he was a highly trained military operative who still has engagement with, and is protected by, an employer.
There is a question which arises, which is whether these statements were: firstly, true or based on truth, noting the father appears, as I will come to, to possess IT surveillance skills which might be at a sufficiently high level for such work; or, secondly, were false but believed by the father, which might suggest grandiose delusions and serious mental health problems as raised by the Court Child Expert in the Family Report [116]; or were entirely fabricated, not only to the mother, but also to the Court.
In any case, these statements were clearly conveyed to the mother to intimidate her.
Early 2019 – T Centre
The father was asked about issues he had with the management at T Centre and read a COPS event entry dated early 2019 (Exhibit E):
… The victim is the Manager of [T Centre, Suburb P] and the PN is a tenant within the […] centre operating a [a business]. . There has been a dispute between the parties relating to an outstanding power account where power was disconnected to the PNs [business] and the PN has restored the power himself without management approval. . As a result of this and a dispute involving back rent owed, management issued the PN a breach notice for his actions.. The PN has also been informed by management that they would not be offering him a new lease as of March and he would need to leave the […] centre at a specific date. This has also heightened tensions between both parties. . Management have then received an email from the PN stating: I am not a problem unless you make me one. I waited for 3 hours to have that matter resolved before returning power to my site ... I paid for it to be returned within 30 mins. I suggest you and your team stay away from me, I am moving out into ......... ... my lease will expire in March, any other action will result in you finding out my Government trained skill set and the reason why [M Shopping Centre's] wiped my rental arrears during the development. ... After receiving this email Management have issued the PN a further breach notice and the PN has responded once again stating: All you had to do was leave me alone, you only have yourself to blame. Kindest regards. The content of the emails received did not directly threaten the victim or state any specific actions by the PN. The victim stated that he was not overly concerned by the emails but after consulting […] Management in Sydney they recommended that police be notified and a record be made in the case of any further escalation or issues involving the PN. Police have attended the PN [business] and discussed the issue. NFPA.
(As per the original)
The father agreed there was a rent dispute at this other business, which was separate to the Suburb L business, and he had reconnected his power. He accepted that the email he had sent included the statement, “I am not a problem unless you make me one”. He said that he had said this because, “I don't like bullies”. The possibility that it is the father who is the bully did not appear to occur to him.
In relation to the statement “any other action will result in you finding out my Government trained skill set and the reason why [M Shopping Centre] wiped my rental arrears during the development”, he said he did not recall saying that.
The father then said, in relation to his “[g]overnment trained skill set”, that he received training that and then words to the effect “I cannot discuss as it could compromise people still in the field”, suggesting that he had information that could compromise current activities.
I find that the father made reference, as alleged, to his government-trained skills in his communication with the management of T Centre, and that the purpose of his statements was to intimidate and threaten them in the context of a commercial dispute.
Section 130 – Public Interest Immunity
In the context of having declined to answer questions on the basis that he might compromise national security, the father was offered an opportunity to seek advice about making an application, pursuant to s 130 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), concerning public interest immunity.
After taking legal advice during an adjournment, no application was made.
The father then said his reference to “government skills” was just a form of words “to invoke some form of intimidation” suggesting it was an idle threat with no substance behind it.
Thus, at that point in his evidence, the father was purporting to suggest that he had made up his reference for government skills, that it was not true, despite what he had said only a little while before on oath about compromising current activities.
On his own evidence the father accepted that references to government skills and specialist training were intended to intimidate. I find that a reasonable person would find them intimidating.
This was another extraordinary piece of oral evidence from the father who was seeking to persuade the Court that he was not a violent man.
In relation to the subsequent email where he is alleged to have said “[a]ll you had to do was leave me alone, you only have yourself to blame”. The father said he did not recall sending that email.
Mid-2019 – M Shopping Centre Suburb L
The father was taken to a COPS event reference dated mid-2019 (Exhibit G):
Time: 4.19pm [mid] 2019 VIC: ......... ......... ......... .................. ......... ) POI: [Mr LEWERENTZ] . There is an ongoing dispute between ........... ................ ) and the POI after the POI 's lease was terminated based on default. [In mid] 2019 the victim contacted the POI to discuss potential surrender terms for his lease. During the conversation the POI made a number of threats: * That there were plenty of people under pressure in [Suburb L] and that it wouldn't take much to push someone over the edge and to the point where they would take matters into their own hands." * People are running around in America every day shooting people up because they have been pushed too far. * He had killed […] people in his life because he was told to do it and although he was not proud of it, he did what he was told. " * Alot of people who worked in [Suburb L] that were going to be leaving very soon based on the situation he was going to create. The victim informed the POI that he wasn't interested in listening to his threats and the POI hung up mid-sentence. The call was terminated at 4.36pm. The matter was reported to Police by ........., Risk and Security Manager, [M Shopping Centre, Suburb L] ...........
(As per the original)
This was raised in the Family Report at paragraph 121 and addressed by the father in his affidavit at paragraph 160, to which reference has already been made.
In oral evidence, the father denied that he had said “take matters into their own hands”, but in relation to “people around running around in America every day shooting people”, he said he was merely stating a fact about life in America. He denied that referring to people in America shooting others, in the context of this communication, was in any way an attempt to threaten or intimidate. He said it was just a statement of the facts. That oral evidence was fanciful and dishonest.
In relation to the allegation that he had said he had killed people in his life, because he was told to do so, and although he was not proud of it, he did what he was told, he denied he would have used that specific terminology, but did not deny that he conveyed that information.
When asked whether he had killed people, he said he could not disclose anything that happened before he came to Australia, referring back to his evidence concerning national security issues, in relation to which he had not sought privilege under s 130 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), and which had then said was just a form of words with no substance behind it. Despite that, the father but came back to the position of seeking to suggest to the Court that, indeed, he had worked for the government and may have killed people as part of his service.
I find that it is likely that the father made the recorded threats.
I find that the clear intention of the statement was to suggest to the people he was communicating with that he, a person who was under pressure, and a person who had killed people in the context of a military background, had the skills and experience necessary to orchestrate a mass shooting of the kind that, unfortunately, regularly occurs in the USA, and that he could or would do so if pressed in the commercial negotiation.
This was a clear, extreme and violent threat of a mass terrorist shooting by someone claiming to be a highly trained military person with experience in killing, who was on edge and willing to use his lethal skills if he did not get his way.
Government Agency /
The father was then asked about the mother's report to the expert set out in the first section of Family Report:
116. The mother reported concerns that the father had grandiose delusions. For example, she stated that the father had told her that he had worked for the government in New Zealand and that he had also worked as a “hitman” in New Zealand, allegedly implying to her that he had killed people…
I note that the mother's history of what she was told is similar to the content of the father's email. The father's evidence was that he had never told the mother he worked as a hitman and he denied that he told her he had ever worked as a hitman.
When asked if he had told the mother he was specially trained, he replied that he had “worked for a government agency”, had never said he was “special forces”, but that “I am trained by the government”. He denied that he said or implied he had killed people.
Given that it is clear that he had said and implied precisely that in the email referred to, which the mother could not have been aware of until subpoena material had come in and would not have been aware of at the time when she first spoke to the Court Child Expert, I am comfortably satisfied that the father also made this claim to the mother, and that he made it to the mother for the purpose of intimidating her.
The father was subsequently asked about his affidavit evidence at paragraph 157, referring to paragraphs 116 to 118 of the Family Report, where he said:
157. I'm not prepared to discuss anything related to my time in New Zealand over 24 years ago.
He then gave the answer that “I cannot discuss anything to do with my [specialist] background”, confirming in oral evidence that he did indeed have, or says he has, as the mother had said he told her, and as his email suggested, a specialist background.
Email of 8 August 2024
The father made claims to the ICL and mother's solicitor in an email of 8 August 2024 (Exhibit AM), which I will come to in chronological order, as it follows a series of threatening emails of 4 to 5 August 2024 (Exhibit AL), in respect of which he gave evidence that he and the children are the subject of the current protection and oversight of a government contractor, who is monitoring the children and who is monitoring these proceedings. I will come to that in more detail in chronological order.
It cannot be doubted that the father has repeatedly made claims that he has, and does, work for, or is protected by, a government contractor, that he has specialist skills, and I find that he has told the mother and other people that he has used those skills to kill.
I should say that there are many members of the community who do that arduous work of serving in the government and who are, unfortunately, required to, in the defence of Australia, kill. None of the comments I have made here should be taken as any suggestion that these people who serve Australia are in any way violent people. The issue here is that the father has made these claims, true or not, for the purpose of intimidation.
DECEMBER 2020 – THAT U BUSINESS
The father was taken to paragraph 21 of his affidavit in which he said that:
21. … From [late] 2020, I started a business called [U Business] with a friend, which I worked from home.
The father was taken to paragraph 119 of the Family Report where the mother reported:
119. The mother raised concerns that if someone does something that the father doesn’t like, she alleged his immediate response is to hurt them or wrong them, to feel “back on top”. The mother reported that the father had multiple issues in his work relationships due to this. She provided the example that when the father had ceased working for a […] company and been locked out of their computer system, the father had logged into the company’s booking system and deleted all of their bookings and contacts. The mother also alleged that the father had threatened to kill the person who had reported them to DCJ if he was to find out who it was.
The father addressed this in his affidavit at paragraph 159:
159. Paragraph 119: I had built that company from the ground up, the name, the brand, systems and documentation. A new partner in the company decided to push her dominance and force the founding partner to remove me. So, I moved the systems that I had built and wasn't paid to do. I owned the systems. However, recently the owner came back to me and I worked with him for four weeks on various jobs to help them out.
The father's oral evidence, when questioned about this event, was inconsistent with his statement in his affidavit, in that he agreed in oral evidence that he had been paid an hourly rate. On his oral evidence, therefore, he was not the owner of the work product and had no legal entitlement whatsoever to delete the system he had built. He accepted in oral evidence that he deleted the system in retaliation and justified the act of retaliation by saying words to the effect “well, who likes to be fired by one of their closest friends in 20 years”.
I consider this another example of the father's view, maintained throughout his oral evidence, that he is entitled to retaliate and to hurt people, including through the destruction of property and the damage to business, if he thinks they have disrespected or hurt him. This is more evidence of the father’s willingness to move beyond verbal threats to harmful action.
HEALING ABILITIES AND DATE OF DEATH
The father was asked about the mother's reports to the CCE set out in the second part of the Family Report at paragraph 116:
116. … She had also reported in the previous assessment that the father believed that he had some psychic and/or healing abilities, however the father denied this and stated that anything that he had said about this was in jest. The mother denied that the father had not said these things in jest and provided the example of the father allegedly claiming that he had “regrown his tubes with his healing ability”, following a vasectomy. She further stated that he believes that he has passed on these ‘abilities’ to the children.
The father's evidence was that this was a jest. He said that a “little Indian man” told him that he would die at age 85 of a heart attack and gave him the day of death, and it was a family joke, and he never claimed psychic abilities or healing abilities. In relation to passing on gifts to his children, he said he passed his genetics. Similarly, when taken to the DCJ note referred to in the Family Report at paragraph 117:
117. A report to DCJ referenced [in early] 2023, refers to the father having “concerning spiritual beliefs, for e.g. he believes that he is immortal (after a previous filed [self-harm] attempt)” (subpoena 1). An additional report [in early] 2023 stated that that the father “says that he can see spirits, has healing properties, knows when he will die, but then thinks he will not be able to die until the exact date” (subpoena 1).
(Emphasis in original)
The father's evidence was that this was a family joke, the mother was aware of it and that nothing more, and that it was on his “[Social media] Countdown”.
Mid-2022 – Social Media post
The father was then taken to his social media post dated mid-2022 (Exhibit H):
… I'm writing this as I have finally realised that there are very few people in this world that actually know anything about me and even fewer that have even taken the time to ask or been there for me in my darkest hours ...
[…].
I am a little different to most people which some of you know and I've lived the knowledge of my death since the age of 18yrs which up until recently has worried me.
…
This post included a picture of a “death clock” from an online application in which an assumed date of and precise time of death can be inserted, and the number of days, hours, minutes and seconds of life left to show. The father had inserted a date and time. There was also a picture of a tombstone with his name, the inscription of "Father to" and the names of his six children, and that same date of death. I note that given his assumed date of death, he will be 85.
The father says that the date was written on a piece of paper, and when asked if he had kept the piece of paper, he said he had it in a box of stuff, but had had to be re-do it as the paper was over 30 years old. He said that the countdown clock was an application you download. That evidence was consistent with his affidavit evidence at paragraph 158 of his affidavit addressing the issue.
In respect of the post, he said it was written as an affirmation of life, a melancholy post, and confirmed that the reference to a self-harm attempt when he was young, but again, said the countdown clock was not something he seriously believed.
Mid-2023 - text messages
The father was taken to a text message to the mother in about mid-2023 (Exhibit J), in which he included a picture of the same tombstone shown in Exhibit H, with the updated death clock showing days, hours and minutes to that day of death. It said in part:
… I wish I could climb into a hole and die but I can't
To which the mother replied:
How can I get any sleep
You're being an absolute jerk
The father's evidence was he did not recall that text, but he was obviously tired and went to go to sleep. I understand that he maintained a position that the alleged knowing of his day of death was just a long running joke.
FAMILY VIOLENCE AND SEPARATION
The mother's evidence of family violence is recorded in her affidavit, including under the heading “DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND RISK OF HARM CONCERNS” starting at paragraph 25 and continuing through to paragraph 56, however it is also included throughout other parts of affidavit referring to, for example, alleged financial coercion. The father addressed and denied these allegations.
The mother's and father's respective histories and claims and counterclaims are also set in part in the Child Impact Report from paragraphs 19 to 35 and throughout the Family Report.
In relation to the issue of whether or not the father engaged in coercive or controlling behaviours towards mother throughout the relationship, I prefer the mother's evidence to that of the father.
As is often the case, the father's behaviours during the relationship occurred in private and behind closed doors, and this is, in that regard, primarily a “she said he said” contest.
In coming to the view that I prefer the mother's evidence of family violence during the relationship, I place great weight on the clear and compelling evidence of the father's threatening behaviours towards third parties in commercial negotiations, towards Ms G and her partner, towards and involving Ms E and F prior to meeting the mother, and the similarly clear and compelling evidence of the father's threatening, stalking, harassing and intimidating behaviours towards the mother and others post-separation, in respect of which there is clear evidence which I will come to.

I'm satisfied that while any person who has to deal with the father's behaviours would suffer significant stress, given her background and her particular mental position, requiring the mother to have any dealings with the father at all would put a serious strain on her mental capacity to the point where it is likely to seriously impair her parenting capacity in a way which would be so great as to significantly negatively impact the children's care.
This is as much a reflection on the nature of the father's behaviour as it is of the mother's vulnerability.
I note that the father accepted in cross-examination that he had raised the mother's history of childhood trauma, as the child court expert raised, to discredit her, saying, in effect, that he had but that the mother’s allegations against him were pretty harsh too.
MR B
Mr B gave evidence in the mother's case. He was a generally honest witness whose evidence adds little, if any, to the critical issues before me. I note the fact sheet (Exhibit L), for a recent conviction for common assault which was tendered, and no one, not even the father, suggested that Mr B posed any risk to the children.
Given the overwhelming evidence on the critical issue of family violence and unacceptable risk, and without any disrespect intended to Mr B, who was, indeed, an important witness for the court to hear from, given his deep involvement in the children's lives, I do not think Mr B's affidavit or oral evidence, which I have considered, requires any further consideration or reference to here in this judgment.
MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER
The maternal grandmother gave oral evidence. It would be an understatement to say she does not like the father. Nevertheless, her evidence relevant to the key issues was relatively indirect. And given the other substantial evidence in the proceedings, as with Mr B, whilst I am not critical of the maternal grandmother being called, her evidence adds little, if anything, to the key and critical question of whether or not the father presents an unacceptable risk of harm, and no further consideration is required.
FAMILY REPORT AND EXPERT OPINION
The same CCE prepared the Child Impact Report (“CIR”) of 12 January 2024 and the Family Report of 4 September 2024.
In the CIR, the CCE noted the mother's history of coercive controlling violence and emotional and psychological abuse, with sexual coercion and intimidation if she refused the father's advances and the history of post-separation threats and intimidation. In the CIR, the CCE recorded each party's histories. Consistent with her role as an expert, which is to illuminate rather than decide, the CCE did not seek to make findings of fact but noted many matters about the father which caused her concern.
They included the CCE’s concerns at paragraph 113 of the Family Report:
113.…However, information gathered throughout this assessment process has raised some concerns about the father’s capacity for distress tolerance, emotional regulation and inflexible and/or distorted thought patterns.
The CCE noted at Family Report paragraph 115 the issues of potential suicidal behaviour by the father and the mother's concerns of grandiose delusions relating to the alleged government employment and financial positions and the father's alleged belief in his knowledge of the date of his own death. The issues raised sufficient concern for the CCE to say, at paragraph 152:
152.This report has identified significant risks of psychological harm to [X] and [Y] pertaining to family violence, parental mental health issues and parenting concerns. Their experience of the parental dynamic, inclusive of family violence and the parents’ inability to effectively communicate and co-parent, in addition to their own developmental challenges is significant.
The CCE raised serious concerns about the father at paragraphs 156 to 160 of the Family Report. And the CCE set out very concerning matters at paragraphs 165 to 169 and following:
165.Based on the information available it is this writer’s view that the current psychological risks of family violence to the children and the mother is extremely high and further exposure to this type of behaviour by the parents would be extremely detrimental to the children’s long term emotional wellbeing.
166.There are significant developmental consequences commonly seen in children living in family violence situations. These include:
i.Manifestation of significant mental health difficulties including anxiety, depression and trauma,
ii.Poor self-esteem, increased aggression, anti-social behaviour, self-harm, lower social competence and mood problems; and
iii.Developmental milestones not being achieved, school difficulties, peer conflict, loneliness.
167.Further, the children are likely to become more aware of and in turn more impacted by the experience of the father perpetrating psychological abuse, emotional abuse and/or utilising dynamics in the co-parenting relationship to control the mother as they get older. It is also a risk that if the father’s perpetration of intimidating and controlling behaviour towards the mother is able to continue, that the mother’s capacity to be emotionally available and attentive to the children will be compromised.
168.If the Court finds that the comments made by the father in relation to undermining the children’s relationship with the mother are as reported, this would be an indicator that the father is using coercive control tactics on the children, who are highly susceptible to influence. An assessment of the degree of risk of coercive controlling family violence can also be informed by an analysis of whether the primary perpetrator inflicts psychological (or physical) harm on a child and/or actively uses or manipulates a child in the dynamics of abuse or coercive control within the family system.
169.Coercive controlling family violence can have a profound impact on a primary parents’ parental functioning, including their mental health and wellbeing and their ability to make decisions and act accordingly. What is known about the effect of this dynamic on the parenting capacity of the primary parent is that once they are no longer in this situation, their parenting capacity can rapidly improve, which could be why the mother has indicated that her coping mechanisms, insight and overall mental health and wellbeing has also improved since final separation.
The CCE said at [177]:
177. Given the pattern of coercive controlling family violence, the potential lethality and the father’s lack of insight, it is view of this writer that the father should spend no time and have no communication with the children. The Court may wish to consider the benefits and challenges associated with the father spending supervised time with the children or spending no time with the children.
And at [188]-[190]:
188.If the Court finds that the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the children, in relation to family violence and/or his mental health, it is recommended that the father spend no time with the children. If this finding is made, it is further recommended that the Court considers placing injunctions on the father making contact or approaching the mother or the children.
189.It is also recommended that consideration be given to restraining the father from removing the children from their school, daycare or any other locations; and that a copy of the Final Orders be provided to the children’s respective educational and/or care providers.
190.It is recommended that the Court consider provisions for allowing the mother to provide a copy of this report to any current and/or future health and/or mental health practitioners that are conducting any assessments or providing therapeutic services to either herself or the children.
Based on the updating information given to the CCE when she gave her oral evidence, the CCE maintained at trial her view at paragraph 177 of the Family Report.
In a careful and skilful cross-examination of the CCE by counsel for the father, many concessions were obtained from the CCE about the limitations of her ability to know the truth of the mother's allegations, and also about the many benefits to the children of having a relationship with a father, and the many harms and losses they are likely to suffer by reason of the loss of a paternal relationship.
The CCE agreed to all of this and indicated that she would support a relationship between the children and the father if, as a matter of fact, it is safe for the children to have one. The CCE said that that is ultimately a matter for the court, based upon my findings as to whether or not the mother is to be believed and whether or not the father has engaged in family violence and presents a risk of family violence.
The CCE accepted that if the mother had exaggerated her allegations and the father's denials were accepted, then it probably would be appropriate for the children to have a relationship with the father. As I said, her evidence was all dependent on my findings of fact.
However, given the findings I make her expert opinion evidence was clear that the children's best interests must require that there be no time and no communication with the father.
SUMMARY
The father's history of violence and family violence and the use of threats of violence is extensive and concerning as I’ve said already. This extends to his commercial life, his prior relationship and his relationship with the mother.
The father demonstrates a lack of impulse control, noting the recent emails to these proceedings. He holds a firm belief that he is entitled to punish people who defy or upset him, not only by making serious threats of violence, but, for example, with physical damage and destruction of property noting the bleach incident and the software removal incidents. He also engaged in excessive physical chastisement of F and that appears to have commenced with the children. His verbal abuse and threats extend to his own children. He clearly believe that he is above the law regarding AVOs, noting he sent threats to F and/or Ms E at the police station for being at the police station. He has a firm belief that he is entitled to persuade people he is capable of killing them based on his experience and to threaten to kill them unless they do what he wants so long as he does not actually act on those threats.
In my view the evidence and my findings all provide a strong foundation for the CCE’s concerns and lead me to also come to the view that, given my findings of fact, the father is a persistent family violence offender who believes he is entitled to use, and will continue to use, family violence by reason of threats, stalking and intimidation, and will possibly escalate to physical violence, and that this means he presents a clear and unacceptable risk of both psychological and potentially physical harm to the children, and to the mother.
The only result can be that the orders proposed by the ICL, and the mother are made.
I find that there is no other way in which these children or the mother can ever be safe.
The fact that the father clearly believes that he is in the right is one of the most troubling aspects of the case.
The fact that, although he occasionally purported to acknowledge his wrongdoing, he repeatedly justified himself gives me grave concerns that the risks the mother and children face from the father continue, even with this court's orders in place.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Objects of Pt VII of the Act are to (a) to ensure that the best interests of children are met, including by ensuring their safety; and (b) to give effect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child done at New York on 20 November 1989 (s 60B).
The paramount consideration is the best interests of the child per ss 60CA and 65AA.
Parental responsibility
The parties seek parenting orders (s 64B), which the Court has power to make (s 65D(1) within the context of the objects of Part VII (s 60B) and the requirement that each child’s best interests is the paramount consideration (s 60CA and s 65AA) having regard to the mandatory criteria (s 60CC).
The parents have parental responsibility (s 61C), being all duties, powers, responsibilities and authority conferred by law upon parents (s 61B), unless and until an order is made changing that position.
An order allocating parental responsibility for a child in relation to “major long-term issues” may be made to one or more
People and may prescribe whether those persons have joint or sole decision-making authority in relation to all or only specified issues (s 61D(3)). “Major long-term issues” includes matters such education, religion, culture, health, name, and changed living arrangements (s 4(1)) and defines what “joint decision-making” requires in respect of such issues (s 61DAA). This does not require consultation about minor decisions which fall outside the concept of “major long-term issues” (s 61DAB).
The nature of the finding I make that the father is an unacceptable risk of psychological and physical violence means that parental responsibility can only go to the mother on a sole basis.
General considerations – section 60CC (2)
Safety
I note that I have considered these findings in the context of s 60CC, which requires me to consider, in the general considerations, the children's safety and what arrangements would promote the safety, including safety from being subjected to or exposed to family violence, abuse, neglect or other harm of the children, and each person who has the care of the child, whether parental responsibility or not, which includes, in this case, Mr B, who cares for the children who live with him.
For the reasons given, I find that the father is an unacceptable risk of psychological and also physical harm to the children and to the mother and to Mr B. The only arrangements which can promote the safety of the children and their protection from family violence, abuse, neglect or harm is for them to have no time and no communication with the father, and for these orders to be supported by s 68B injunctions and s 68C injunctions as proposed by the ICL and the mother.
Views of the children
I note that, due to the age and developmental status of the children, they are unable to be interviewed by the CCE, given their very young ages.
The findings with regard to risks and abuse means that their views are not matters that need to be taken into account.
Needs of the children
I am required to consider the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the children. I find that these can be comfortably met by the mother, particularly once relieved of the stress of having to deal with the father. I find that father has no demonstrated capacity to put the needs of the children above his own needs and he's unable to meet those needs.
Parental Capacity
I am required to consider the capacity of each person who has, or is proposed, to have parental responsibility for the child or children to provide for children's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs. For the reasons given, the mother has adequate capacity to meet these needs and the father has virtually no parental capacity and poses unacceptable risks.
Benefits of relationship
I am required to consider the benefits to each child of being able to have a relationship with a child's parents.
It is clear that, as a general rule, children benefit from having a relationship with both parents, as the CCE conceded and as the legislative scheme envisages, and that it would be best for these children if the father was able to control himself so that they could have a relationship with him.
It is also clear that there is no doubt that the children will probably suffer long-term negative psychological consequences as a result of the fact that they will know there is a father that they do not see. There is a risk they will blame themselves. There is a risk that they will have the white knight syndrome, where they blame their mother and/or Mr B for the fact that their father does not see them.
All of these negative consequences are a result of the father's behaviours.
However, all of these likely significant and long-lasting, indeed, lifelong, negative psychological consequences pose less risk to the children than the serious and unacceptable risk the father poses, and all of these negative consequences the children will suffer are solely a result of the father's behaviours and inability to control himself and fundamental belief that he is entitled to engage in serious family violence to control others.
Family Violence
I am required to consider, s 60CC(2)(a), dealing with family violence.
I note the issue of family violence has been considered extensively already by me today.
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture
I am required to consider, by section 60CC(3), the standalone best interest test for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.
These children are not Aboriginal nor Torres Strait Islander children.
The other issues that are relevant, I have considered.
As I have said, a consideration of the statutory framework must lead to a conclusion that the ICL’s proposals are appropriate.
HARMFUL PROCEEDINGS ORDER
The ICL seeks a harmful proceedings order within part XIB, Subdivision 1B, pursuant to s 102QAC, on the basis of the father's threatening and harassing conduct throughout the course of these proceedings and his repeatedly stated intention that, if he does not succeed in this proceeding, he intends to use litigation process as a mechanism of harassment and intimidation to seek to get his way until the children reach adulthood.
In that regard, I refer to the evidence that the father's stated intention to the CCE was that he was going to “keep…[the mother] in Court for 15 years to get my kids 50/50”, that unless and until he gets his way, he will make the mother’s life hell for the next 25 years, and that he will “ensure that [Ms Warshawsky] has the same ability to build a happy family life with our kids that I currently do” and would dedicate his life to ensuring his children are back in his care.
The father did not resile in any way from these statements in his oral evidence and made it clear that no matter what the outcome of these proceedings, he will continue litigating.
While he says his intention is to protect the children, I believe and find that he intends to continue litigation as a form of an acceptable, in his view, "tactic", to punish the mother and to intimidate her unless and until he gets his way.
In effect the father's stated intention is to engage in ongoing litigation abuse.
Having regard to the history of these proceedings and the father's conduct during them, including his repeated statements of intention and the manner in which these have been delivered with clear threats of harm, the evidence comfortably satisfies me that the criteria in s 102QAC are met.
I am satisfied that the mother would and will suffer psychological harm, noting her psychological history and the impact of these proceedings on her, and major mental distress, and a detrimental effect on her capacity for care for the children if subjected to ongoing litigation by the father after these proceedings are finally concluded.
I am satisfied that, as a consequence, the children would and will suffer significant harm by reason of the likely negative impact on the mother's parenting capacity of allowing litigation abuse to occur, through the father being able to continually start proceedings after these proceedings. This assumes at the moment that this judgment will stand and will not be overturned on appeal.
I make that finding that a harmful proceeding order should be made cognisant of the extremely high standard that is, and indeed should be, required to be met to satisfy a court that it is appropriate to remove from the citizen the right to come before the court and to commence proceedings without leave, given that this is a very significant restriction on a fundamental and fundamentally important legal right of a citizen in this country.

It is not an order to be made lightly and I have not made it lightly.
I have given significant consideration to whether the order should not be made, and to whether perhaps the mother should wait to see whether the father does, in fact, carry out the threat to continue litigation regardless of the outcome.
However, given the history, given what I consider to be the likelihood that it will occur and the very potentially serious psychological consequences for the mother, if, having concluded this proceeding and any appeals from it, she is then faced with another round of litigation, and given that the finding is not based on inferences but on the father’s repeatedly stated and maintained intention, I have come to the view that this is one of those rare and unfortunate cases where such an order is required.
Those will be the orders.
As I have said, although the likelihood is that the father is probably lying or suffering from delusions, given that the father has said he is currently having the benefit of access to someone working for the government to stalk the mother, and that he has used technology to stalk and harass the mother, and given, as I have said, it is common knowledge that, unfortunately, it is a problem for state police forces that people who are associated with them use their resources to stalk and harass, and noting that I have an obligation to refer matters to people such as the ATO or other Commonwealth agencies if I believe there may be a breach of the law going on, and given that if the father is using the resources of a government contractor working for the intelligence or the security community they would want to know that so they can stop it, a referral must be made.
Accordingly, while acknowledging it is unlikely to be true, I consider I an obligation to refer a copy of this judgment to the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, who I will refer to as IGIS in the orders, to determine whether the father is by himself or with the assistance of any other person abusing his access to the resources of the security community to stalk, harass and intimidate the mother and her household, and so to take any action they deem appropriate if such abuse is taking place.

I certify that the preceding three hundred and sixty-nine (369) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex-tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Smith.
Associate:
Dated: 17 January 2025

File number(s):	NCC 3356 of 2023
Judgment of:	SMITH J
Date of judgment:	20 December 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Oral decision – Final Hearing - Where serious allegations of coercive and controlling and intimidating behaviour against father – Where father alleges previous military training and covert Government employment – Where father alleges these proceedings are being monitored by the security services to protect the children – Where father demonstrated high levels of cyber stalking skills - Where evidence establishes a long history of threats of physical violence against other people and the mother – Where father says he will use litigation process to make the mother’s life hell regardless of outcome of these proceedings – Where father believes he is entitled to make threats of physical violence so long as he does not act on them - Orders for the father to have no time and no communication with the children – s 68B restraints on the father for the protection of the children and their carers alongside s 68C order – live with and sole decision making authority to the mother – s 102QAC order made against the father preventing him from instigating further proceedings against the mother other than to appeal these orders
Legislation:	Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 128, 130, 140 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pts I, VII, XI, XIB, ss 4AB, 60B 60CA, 60CC, 61B, 61C, 61D, 61DAAA, 61DAB, 64B, 65AA, 65D, 68B, 68C, 69ZT, 102NA, 102QAC
Cases cited:	Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] HCA 34 Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-092; [2022] FedCFamC1A 97 M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69; [1988] HCA 68
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	369
Date of hearing:	18-22 November 2024
Place:	Newcastle by Microsoft Teams
Counsel for the Applicant:	Ms Rowan
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Umbrella Legal
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Ball
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Single Law
Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Ms Kaiti
Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	NLS Law

NCC 3356 of 2023
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:	MS WARSHAWSKY Applicant
AND:	MR LEWERENTZ Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:	SMITH J
DATE OF ORDER:	20 DECEMBER 2024