Wick and Wick

[2013] FamCA 591

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WICK & WICK	[2013] FamCA 591
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom the  children live  - Parental responsibility – Where Father seeks orders for shared parental responsibility – Where Mother seeks orders for sole parental responsibility – Where history of alleged physical and emotional abuse of children while in the care of the parents – Where history of domestic violence – Where one of the subject children has been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder – s 60CC Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – MRR v GR (2010) 240 CLR 461 – Two of the three subject children to live with the Father – Father to have sole parental responsibility for the two subject children who live with him pursuant to the orders – One of the three subject children to live with the Mother – Mother to have sole parental responsibility for the subject child who lives with her pursuant to the orders – Mother to spend time with the two subject children who do not live with her every alternate weekend – Father to spend time with the child who is not living with him on the weekend that the two subject children who do live with him pursuant to the Orders are in his care.
APPLICANT:		Mr Wick

RESPONDENT: Ms Wick

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Damien Carter, Solicitor

FILE NUMBER: BRC 2804 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 31 July 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J

HEARING DATE: 6 May to 8 May 2013

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Shoebridge of Counsel appearing for the Applicant Father

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Simonidis Steel Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Richard Williams of Counsel appearing for the Respondent Mother

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Legal Aid Queensland

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Quinn of Counsel appearing for the Independent Children's Lawyer

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Carter Farquar Mediation & Family Law

Orders

IT IS ORDERED UNTIL FURTHER ORDER THAT:

1. The Father have sole parental responsibility for the children, B born on … 2004 and C born on … 2007.

2. The Mother have sole parental responsibility for the child, D born on … 2009. 

3. The children, B born on … and C born on … 2007, live with the Father.

4. The child, D born on … 2009, live with the Mother.

5. Commencing 9 August 2013, the Mother spend time with the children, B and C, every alternate weekend from after school Friday until the commencement of school on Monday morning.

6. The Father spend time with the child, D born on … 2009, on Saturday from 9.00 am until 6.00 pm, on the weekend the children, B and C, are living with him.

7. The Mother to deliver the child, D, to the Father’s residence at the commencement of the Father spending time with the child and the Father to return the child to the Mother’s residence at the conclusion.

8. The Mother and Father spend time with the respective child/children not living with them during the school holidays to be shared equally, save for the child D, who is not to spend overnight time with the Father.

9. The Mother to spend time with all of the children on Christmas Day in 2013 and the Father to spend time with all of the children on Christmas Day in 2014, commencing at 9.00 am Christmas Day and concluding at 6.00 pm on Christmas Day.

10. The Father to ensure the children, B and C, telephone the Mother every Wednesday evening between 6.00 pm and 6.30 pm for a period of no longer than fifteen (15) minutes.

11. The Independent Children’s Lawyer to nominate and organise a professional counsellor for the Mother and Father to attend, for the purposes of individual counselling aimed to assist them in managing the present conflict and their

    
    

    on-going parenting of the children, and if there are any costs involved, they are to be shared equally by the Mother and Father.

12. The Independent Children’s Lawyer to organise for the counsellor referred to in Order (11) hereof, to prepare a report which is to be provided to this Honourable Court no later than 4.00 pm on 25 November 2013, and if there are any costs involved, they are to be shared equally by the Mother and Father.

13. The children, B and C attend upon a child psychiatrist to be appointed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, for the purpose of receiving therapy, and if there are any costs involved, they are to be shared equally by the Mother and Father.

14. The Independent Children’s Lawyer to organise for the child psychiatrist referred to in Order (13) hereof, to prepare a report which is to be provided to this Honourable Court no later than 4.00 pm on 25 November 2013, and if there are any costs involved, they are to be shared equally by the Mother and Father.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The Mother’s partner Mr E, to undergo a Triple P Parenting Program course.

2. The Mother and the Father completely abstain from the use of physical discipline and assure that no one else exercises physical discipline on the children.

3. The Independent Children’s Lawyer to organise an updated Family Report to be prepared by Mr F, Consultant Social Worker.

4. The Independent Children’s Lawyer given leave to provide Mr F all reports in relation to the children’s psychiatric therapy (see Order (13) hereof), the Mother’s and Father’s counselling (see Order (11)) hereof), evidence of Mr E’s completion of a Triple P Parenting Program course (see Order (15) hereof), and any further filed documentation together with any updated subpoenaed documentation.

5. The parties shall attend and ensure the children attend all necessary appointments for the preparation of the updated Family Report.

6. IT IS REQUESTED Mr F prepare and release his updated Family Report by no later than 4.00 pm on 13 December 2013.

7. IT IS FURTHER REQUESTED that Legal Aid Queensland assist in funding in relation to Orders (11), (12), (13) and (14) hereof.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

1. The proceedings be adjourned for mention before the Honourable Justice Bell at 10.00 am on 17 December 2013.

2. Pursuant to s 62B and s 65DA(2), the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders, and details of who can assist parties to adjust to and comply with an order, are set out in the document entitled “Parenting orders – obligations, consequences and who can help”, a copy of which is annexed to these Orders.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 2804 of 2008

Mr Wick

Applicant

And

Ms Wick

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The relationship between the Father and the Mother commenced in or about 2002.  They were married in Country G, the Mother being Country G and migrated to Australia in 2005.

2. They travelled across Europe in 2006 and they returned to live in Australia in 2007 and the relationship broke down in March 2008.

3. Two children were born prior to the separation in March 2008, being B born in 2004 and C born in 2007.

4. The Mother and Father attempted a form of reconciliation and moved to H Town in 2009 living in separate residences.  Even at this stage the care of the children was conflicted.

5. As was said by Mr F a consultant social worker in private practice, in his report dated 16 September 2011 and filed in this Court on 29 September 2011 at paragraph 90 as follows:

   90.The history of this family is complex, extremely contentious, and can only barely be outlined or covered in the context of such a report.

   Mr F goes on at paragraph 91:

   91.The general history of the parent’s relationship is that it has been a chaotic and abusive affair which reflects poorly upon the personality of both parents.  There is a long history of past child protection investigations and police involvements which – in summary – depict the dysfunctional relationship between them and the insidious effect upon the children.

6. The Queensland Police Service (“Police”) and the Department of Communities, Child Safety & Disability Services (“the Department”) had been notified on numerous occasions on issues relating to the care provided by both parents.  I think it is totally unnecessary for me to put the voluminous number of reports from the Department into this my Reasons for Judgment, needless to say, having read them, I am more than satisfied that the Department has had an enormous amount of input with these parties.  On the one hand, they are concerned about the controlling behaviour of the Father, his temper exhibited to the parties and his rudeness to the Department staff.  On the other hand, the Mother is of concern to the Department because of her general lack of looking after the children (see affidavit of Ms J, Child Safety Officer at the Department which was sworn on 24 November 2011 but not filed and marked “A” for identification).

7. This has permeated the whole of the relationship between these two parties and has continued during the whole of the life of the two children and the third child D, who was conceived as a result of the attempted reconciliation.  I refer in particular and will be referring in particular, to Mr F’s reports.  He has in this case done two reports, one filed on the 29 September 2011 and the second filed on the 16 October 2012.

8. At paragraph 10 of Mr F’s report filed 29 September 2011, he referred to the voluminous material which enumerates the significant events and to a Police report dated 13 August 2004.  This is just shortly after B’s birth and related to the possible emotional abuse of B.  This was initiated by the Father’s mother.

9. Thereafter as I have said, there have been frequent investigations undertaken by the Department commencing on the 6 July 2005, wherein it is alleged that there is a domestic violence incident in that the Father attempted to hit the Mother – missed her and hit the child on the leg and that the workers from the Department during the interview, noted that the Father was extremely controlling in his attitude and manner.

10. In 2005 the workers from the Department concluded that the relationship between the Mother and Father was characterised by domestic violence and that even then, the child had been affected and that the Father was controlling.

11. An Order was made on the 12 March 2009 in relation to B and C in the then known Federal Magistrates Court by Federal Magistrate Jarrett as he then was, and in his Reasons for Judgment dated 12 March 2009 at paragraph 2 he says as follows:

    2.The orders that there will be for parental responsibility are orders for there to be equal shared parental responsibility.  It seems to me that that in this case is something of an experiment and whilst the Court is able in some cases to experiment – and it is worthwhile in some cases and not in others – I think this is a case where the experiment is worthwhile …

12. Such experiment regrettably failed miserably.

13. In 2008, B is alleged to have made complaints or disclosures of sexual abuse.  The Mother made these allegations to the Department whilst residing at a domestic violence shelter.  The child was interviewed, he made no disclosures however, he said that his Mother did bad things to him, locking him in a cupboard for time out.  Whilst conducting this interview, the Police noted that the Father interfered in the interview by calling out from another room, reminding the child to include other information.  The allegations were according to the Police, unfounded.

14. In May 2009 the Department was of the view that a notification they had investigated in February 2009 regarding emotional and physical harm was unsubstantiated.

15. In particular I wish to emphasise paragraph 68 of Mr F’s report filed 16 October 2012 as follows:

    68.In summation, these parents have a deplorable record of care of the children.  The future is also bleak.  Although this report has highlighted the father’s emotional harm of [B], it should not be presumed that there is not further information in relation to either parent that has not been elucidated within this assessment.

16. Mr F is more generally concerned in his report filed 16 October 2012 at paragraph 69 as follows:

    69.The more general concern is that this matter has a level of dysfunction which will endure the childhood of these children.  There are obvious deficiencies with each parent, but there is a more inexorable stress resulting from the parental conflict.  Over time this will exact an enormous toll upon them, let along [sic] Court resources, and has the potential to have a crippling effect upon their development.

17. Mr F at that time, had the opportunity of interviewing Mr E who has entered into a relationship with the Mother and the Mother has given birth to their child, K in or about March 2013 (see pages 14 to 15 (supra)).

18. I note that Mr F’s report only deals with investigations by himself up until July 2012 and does not take into consideration those matters which have taken place since then.

19. Needless to say, there has been no improvement subsequent to Mr F’s initial interviewing of the parties which according to his report filed 29 September 2011, says that he interviewed the Father, the Mother and the children on the 29 July 2011.

20. For the final report, Mr F interviewed the Mother, the Father, B and C.  He also interviewed B and C together on the 20 August 2012.  It appears as though Mr F interviewed Mr E, but no date was given in his report (supra).

21. Since the date of this interview, there have been in particular two sources of concern for the children that is Mr E, who as a result of an Order made by Principal Registrar Filippello on 6 December 2012, was not to be alone with the children.  On one occasion, it is alleged Mr E appears to have assaulted B at McDonalds and on another occasion acted inappropriately towards C at Hungry Jacks.

22. Mr E was arrested for common assault in relation to the incident which took place at McDonalds in relation to B.  Such matter was resolved by a form of justice mediation and he forwarded a letter to B in which he apologised in a form which appears to have been acceptable to those involved, (see letter which was forwarded to the Court at my request by Legal Aid Queensland enclosing the letter of apology dated 8 April 2013).  That matter is before the Court and does not appear to have been exhibited but I will today mark it exhibit “6” in a hope that it does not get lost amongst the voluminous material.

23. CCTV footage has been put before the Court.  Whilst it is alleged that Mr E was in fact violent and assaulted B in the McDonalds CCTV footage, I must confess I cannot see the assault being as extensive or as brutal as has been alleged by the Father and even the Police report which I have read, does tend to suggest that it was not quite as bad as what the Father believed.  However, it obviously shows that Mr E did react in a somewhat violent manner towards not only B, but to C, at Hungry Jacks.

24. This of course has given grist to the mill insofar as the Father is concerned who is of the view that B’s health, albeit life, is at risk if in fact B continues to be in contact with Mr E, either in a supervised capacity by his Mother or in particular if he is on his own.

25. This view of the Father is supported, he alleges, by the view of at least two specialists in fields other than the fields in which they tend to in this case, make a diagnosis of B’s health.  B is obviously a disturbed and emotional boy.  Insofar as Dr L, general practitioner and Ms M, psychologist (see her report filed on 5 May 2013) are concerned, he is exhibiting all of the signs of post-traumatic stress disorder.  Ms M supports her view by evidence from the school where she says his conduct at school is classic signs of post-traumatic stress disorder.  She is of the view that such post-traumatic stress disorder is engendered by the attitude of Mr E towards B and that B is affeared that his life is in danger and that this is the prime cause of the post-traumatic stress disorder.

26. On the other hand, Ms J a Child Safety Officer of the Department and Dr N a well known psychiatrist, are of the view that it need not necessarily be post-traumatic stress disorder.  B had, very early in the piece, been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder.  Dr N is somewhat suspicious of the diagnosis of Ms M, particularly because he said that notwithstanding her view that she is able to diagnose such difficulties, ie. post-traumatic stress disorder, in one or two interviews and not interviewing the other party to the alleged violence perpetrated upon B, he says that there is a possibility that he is not suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. 

27. I would much prefer Dr N, who I thought was a very well balanced expert.  He gave evidence whilst he is a psychiatrist, he concedes he does not specialise in child psychiatry, but I am of the view that his experience is such with post-traumatic stress disorder, that his evidence would be much more acceptable than the witness for the Father, Ms M.

28. In Dr N’s view, he stated that the Mother does not suffer a major mental illness.  He had the opportunity of interviewing the Mother personally as well as looking at a considerable number of documents which are particularised in his report filed on the 24 July 2012.   

29. Dr N in his report filed 24 July 2012 goes on to say:

    …

    it is clear the mother suffered a number of prejudicial features in her childhood which have been alluded to previously.  I suspect this has predisposed her to difficulties in regulating her emotions and having clear boundaries in relationships.  The lack of clear boundaries may also make it more difficult and challenging for her to manage difficult behaviours in her children.  Although I note the mother blames the children’s poor behaviour on the interference of the father, which may be true to a greater or lesser degree, it is my feeling that the mother most likely does have significant Cluster B personality traits.  In some respects her inability to regulate her own emotions and affect mirrors her inability to regulate the emotions and affect of her children and has lead [sic] to significant disruption in the normal attachment and bonding between her and in particular her oldest child.  It appears from the family report writer’s observations [and I have already favourably referred to [Mr F’s] reports] that the mother is overwhelmed by the eldest child’s behaviours and emotions and to some degree appeared detached and not available emotionally.

30. Dr N in his report (supra) goes on to say regarding the Father:

    With regards to the father, [Mr Wick], he is described by the mother as well as by numerous documents as both controlled in affect as well as controlling of the mother and of the children.  This perhaps reinforces my initial observations about the father’s potential personality structure.  On the other hand I could find no particular evidence that the father suffers any major mental illness.

    …”

    Dr N goes on to say:

    …

    There are numerous documents suggesting that the father has contributed to the eldest child’s alienation from the mother.  Even if this has not occurred in a conscious way, it does appear clear that the father holds a deep resentment towards the mother and that this may have unconsciously affected and influenced the child’s view of the mother.  What is clear is that both parents have showed limited ability to foster a relationship with the other party and have acted on occasion in a unilateral manner which would not be seen as in the child’s best interests with regards to maintaining a relationship with both parents or addressing the legitimate concerns of the other parent.

31. Dr N was of the view given Mr F’s concerns, and I have referred to Mr F’s reports, that it would appear difficult to recommend that these children remain in the care of the Mother.  She appears to be unable to adequately control and set limits on the two older children and as a result they have a propensity to run away, placing themselves at risk.

1. It is quite clear that the Mother is having difficulties particularly with B, and C seems to be going a similar way.  D is fortunately a non-squeaky wheel and has in effect, been given little attention in this case.

2. Ms M to whom I have referred, was of the view quite strenuously that in fact the children should live with the Father and that there should be little or no contact with the Mother, and she is strongly of the view that there should be no contact between Mr E and B (see page 19 line 25 of the transcript of Ms M’s evidence dated 7 May 2013).  She even goes so far on that same page to suggest that there should be no contact on an alternative basis if in fact B and C were to live with the Mother, if in fact Mr E was there.   

3. It was put to Mr E as he and the Mother are living in the same house, that should an order be made that he absent himself from the house while the Mother has contact with the children, would he comply with such?  Mr E was of the view that he could not.

4. The various requirements of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) in relation to s 61 and s 60CC etc., insofar as the initial presumption that is there to be joint parental responsibility. The Father on the one hand seeks such an order and the Mother on the other hand, seeks an order for sole parental responsibility.

5. Insofar as this parental responsibility is concerned, I believe it is trite to say that equal shared parental responsibility will only work if in fact there is a coming together of the minds of the parties in relation to the welfare of the children in this case.

6. It is quite clear that on the evidence before me that allegations of domestic violence have been made against the Father, that B has been exposed to domestic violence, (see the Department’s report in which the parties blamed each other and see the report of Ms O filed on the 3 March 2009 at paragraph 7.2).  Even B has made statements to Ms O in her report (supra) at paragraph 7.33 as follows:

   7.33    …

   ... “my daddy smacks my mummy like that (he demonstrated a smack on himself) and he locks the door and he pushed her under the carpet”.

   …

7. The Mother and Father have not been able to agree as to whom and for how long B should attend counselling.  The Mother was not invited to attend upon B’s psychologist Ms M, whose report is before the Court (supra), and shows that she did not interview the Mother or the Mother’s partner, Mr E.

8. The parties are equally disparaging and suspicious of one another, although more so, in the assessment of the Father which was done by Mr F in his report filed 16 October 2012.

9. I am satisfied that the children’s welfare would not be advanced by there being joint parental responsibility, therefore, it is necessary for the Court to consider equal time or substantial and significant time with each parent, see MRR v GR (2010) 240 CLR 461.

10. Since I have found that equal shared parental responsibility is not in this case in the best interests of the children, there is negligible, if any, cooperation between the parents and it would be impossible, in my view, to consider that there be equal time between the parties.  An example of this is when B went missing at some time after 7.30 pm one evening and neither party contacted the other with a view to ascertaining where he was.

11. The children have been withheld from the opposite parent and some times for months at a time.

12. I could not be persuaded that there should be equal substantial time for the parties in this case.

13. Insofar as the requirements of s 60CC, it is necessary of course for the Court to consider those matters.

14. One has said that it is trite for a child to have a meaningful relationship with both of the children’s parents.  In this case, it is clear that the children are not having a meaningful relationship with both parents, particularly insofar as B and C are concerned. 

15. B appears on the evidence before me, to be alienated from his mother to an extent.  He has run away on at least two occasions, he has threatened to run away, he is difficult with the Mother and takes some time to settle down subsequent to his returning from contact with his Father.

16. C is exhibiting a somewhat similar attitude towards the Mother and this is of grave concern.

17. Insofar as D is concerned, the primary attachment is obviously to her mother with whom she has a close, warm and meaningful relationship with.  The Father has spent little time with D, saying in his evidence that he has “babysat” the child on approximately 17 times.  I emphasise the word “babysat”.  See also paragraph 58 of Mr F’s report filed 16 October 2012.

18. Regrettably there is an attachment of all of the children to the opposing parent, much closer in B’s case with the Father, perhaps somewhat ambivalent insofar as C is concerned, but closer to the Mother in relation to D.

19. The Court has to consider the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, from their being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.  It is impossible for me to go through every allegation made by each of the parties against each other, and I have to rely upon the experts in this case.

20. In particular, I refer upon the evidence of Mr F.  At paragraph 60 of his second report (supra), Mr F says this:

    60.[Mr Wick’s] role in events continues to be poisonous.  My ongoing concern is that he continues to encourage [B] to run away from his mother’s home and to disobey her and that he makes complaints which are vexatious.

21. Mr F goes on to provide some examples at paragraphs 61, 62 and 63.  Mr F however at paragraph 59 says:

    59.Previous concerns noted in relation to [Ms Wick] were with respect to possible neglect of the children’s emotional needs and her inability to control their behaviour, leading to instances where they were in danger.

    …

    It appears from a further statement in paragraph 59 as follows:

    … At the time of the previous report, this writer expressed a concern that the safety of the children could not be guaranteed in the care of their mother.

22. I might say the second report of Mr F (supra) has been one of the most critical of both parents that I have seen in many years of practice in this Court.

23. Insofar as C is concerned, it appears that unfortunately C tends to follow his big brother, B (see Mr F’s second report (supra) at paragraph 22).

24. It is quite clear in my view that psychological harm has been perpetrated upon, particularly B, but to a lesser extent C, and fortunately D appears to be of little interest to the Father, as I have said, he having “babysat” her on 17 occasions only.  That in itself, will probably react gravely against D later on in life.

25. The Mother says that such psychological harm includes, inter alia, exposing the children to negative views of the Mother and in particular the Mother’s partner, Mr E, encouraging B to run away from home, encouraging the children to disobey the Mother, encouraging the children to behave secretly in their contact with the Father (he is a spy for his father), and withholding the children from the Mother for periods up to six months without reasonable excuse.

26. I need go no farther than say as far as I am concerned, that each of the parents, in my view, have failed to take the opportunity to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the children.

27. There is evidence that the Mother is able and willing to facilitate and encourage a close relationship between the children and the Father.  Whereas the Mother says to the contrary, the Father is unwilling and unable to facilitate and encourage a close and meaningful relationship between the children and the Mother.

28. Mr F has no confidence that the Father will ever facilitate the relationship of the children with their mother expressly and implicitly.  The Father is bent on usurping the Mother’s care through the children and there is no doubt in my mind the Father will continue with this vendetta (see paragraph 70 of Mr F’s second report (supra)).

29. I am regrettably of the view that neither parent is able to adequately provide for the needs of the children, including emotional and intellectual needs. 

30. B’s school history has been quite bad, although it appears as though he may have settled down and is improving somewhat.

31. C is starting to switch off, in that he is sitting and staring into space.  This is highly suggestive of an emotionally disturbed child.  It appears that the only one who has no psychological behavioural issues is D, who has not had any significant time with the Father and has not experienced the poisonous attitude of the Father to the Mother.

32. I need go no further saying that I am view that the Father is equally unwilling or unable to provide for the emotional needs of the children.  The Father lacks insight.  He has failed to engage the Department in plans and did not meet any goals sought in the case plan.

33. I need go no farther to say that this is possibly one of the most distressing  children’s cases I have ever heard in 37 years of serving on the Bench.  The Father is poisonous in his attitude towards the Mother, he is doing everything to alienate, in my view, the children from her, save for D, who peculiarly, he has no interest in.  It appears he may have succeeded with B and is getting close with C.

34. What can this Court do?  See Mr F’s report filed 16 October 2012 at paragraph 68 (see supra).  This Court can sit here and criticise the parents and then come to the exasperating conclusion that it really does not matter what this Court does, it does not matter where the children are placed, their future is going to be somewhat suspect.  I say this, save for D.

35. Regrettably, I am of the view that perhaps B has gone too far.  If in fact I continue to keep B with the Mother and C to a lesser extent, it will only mean that the toxicity of the Father will continue and it will cause the children and I emphasise, “will cause the children greater harm and distress”.  It is grudgingly that, until further order, I will grant possession of B and C to the Father and I order until further order that the child D remain with the Mother. 

36. This is a regrettable step and I am mindful of the fact that children should not be separated from their siblings, but in this case, to protect D from the toxicity of the Father, I must ensure that the majority of her time is spent with her mother.

37. In an endeavour to perhaps lessen the toxicity of the Father towards the Mother, he will be able to class himself as having “won” and he may lessen his vituperation and generally bad behaviour towards the Mother, he may, I emphasise “may”.

38. It is regretful in this case that I have to order until further order, that the boys, B and C reside with the Father and that the daughter D reside with the Mother.

39. I am affeared for the emotional welfare of these children, however I cannot do anything.  There is nobody interested, if in fact someone else might have been interested, I probably would have removed the children from both parties, but I cannot do that on the evidence before me.

40. I now turn to Mr E, the Mother’s partner.  Mr F had the opportunity of interviewing Mr E of whom the Father makes many complaints, and I have touched upon two of them in relation to the alleged assaults perpetrated upon B and C at McDonalds and Hungry Jacks aforesaid.

41. Mr F is of the view (see paragraph 49 etc. of his second report (supra)) that Mr E may have some difficulties.  He has not had much to do with children in the past and his describing his entering into a relationship with the children as somewhat of a “shock” (see paragraph 52).  He believes that the dispute has affected the relationship to a certain extent and particularly at paragraph 53 appears to be totally ingenuous in this matter, believes that he does not have a problem with the children except when they come back from their father’s adding he can speculate why that is so.  Mr E says that sometimes he gets angry or upset, and sometimes he gets a bit annoyed.  Mr E also emphasises that, “It is hard for me coming from zero kids and a steep learning curve”, and I incorporate in these my Reasons for Judgment the comments of Mr F as contained in paragraphs 49 to 56 of his second report (supra).

42. The Mother and Mr E are still living together.

43. Since, as a result of my Orders, it will be that the relationship between himself and the two boys will be lessened, I do not believe that it is essential that I should in any way indicate to Mr E that he should undergo anger management courses.  However, a Triple P Parenting Program course may be of assistance to him in overcoming the “steep learning curve”.

44. I believe Mr E attending the Triple P Parenting Program course coupled with his experience with his new child K and with D, that he will be able to become supportive of the Mother, who really deserves as much support as she can get from any male with whom she has a relationship.

45. Further, Mr F in his second report (supra) was somewhat concerned about the relationship between the Mother and Mr E (see paragraph 66).  However, it appears as though the Mother and Mr E are still together and their relationship may have strengthened generally.

46. I note the last sentence of paragraph 67 of Mr F’s second report (supra) he says:

    …

    It does appear that she has more support currently than has previously been the case.

    This supports my view as well.

47. I therefore order that until further order, the Father do have sole parental responsibility for the children, B born in 2004 and C born in 2007 and that the Mother have until further order, sole parental responsibility for the child, D born in 2009. 

48. I do order that until further order, the children, B and C reside with the Father and that D resides with the Mother.

49. Otherwise, I will be ordering in accordance with the orders sought by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

50. It is necessary in this case that the Orders I make are on an interim basis.  I note this does not give any finality to these proceedings, but I have a responsibility which appears the parents are lacking, to ensure that the children’s welfare is going to be advanced.  Therefore, I wish the matter to be brought back before me at 10.00 am on 17 December 2013.

51. Further, I Order the Independent Children’s Lawyer organise an updated Family Report to be done by Mr F with his having the opportunity of considering the counselling to be undertaken by the Mother and Father, the psychiatric therapy to be undertaken by B and C and the Triple P Parenting Program to be undertaken by Mr E.

I certify that the preceding eighty-two (82) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Bell delivered on 31 July 2013.

Associate: 

Date:  31 July 2013