Willis &Willis
[2022] FedCFamC1F 607
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 1)
Willis &Willis [2022] FedCFamC1F 607
File number(s): WOC 1215 of 2018 Judgment of: REES J Date of judgment: 22 August 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Application by the father to spend supervised time then graduate to unsupervised time with the children – The mother seeks sole parental responsibility and that the father spend no time with the children – The paternal grandmother joins as a second respondent and seeks to spend regular time with the children – Where the mother has experienced family violence – Where the father has been diagnosed with alcohol misuse disorder – Where the children have a good relationship with the paternal grandmother – Orders made for the father to spend professionally supervised time with the children for an initial period of two years – Orders made for the paternal grandmother to spend time with the children on the first Sunday of every month except in January and on weekends during school holidays. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) section 60CC(2) Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 176 Date of hearing: 8 - 10 August 2022 Place: Sydney Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Alexander Solicitor for the Applicant: Hanna Lawyers Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr Hill Solicitor for the First Respondent: Inner West Solicitors Pty Ltd Counsel for the Second Respondent: Ms Saw Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Keleher Lawyers Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr White Independent Children's Lawyer: Helen Volk Lawyers ORDERS
WOC 1215 of 2018 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MR WILLIS
Applicant
AND: MS WILLIS
First Respondent
MS S WILLIS
Second Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
order made by:
REES J
DATE OF ORDER:
22 AUgust 2022
THE COURT ORDERS:
1.That the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children X born in 2009 and Y born in 2011 (“the children”).
2.That the children live with the mother.
3.That unless otherwise agreed, the children spend time with the paternal grandmother, Ms S Willis, as follows:
(a)On the first Sunday of each month (excluding January) from 10.00 am until 4.00 pm with the children to be delivered to the paternal grandmother at the T Shopping Centre in City B and returned by her to the mother or her representative at the same place.
(b)During the school holidays at the end of the first, second and third school term for the first weekend of the holiday from 5.00 pm Friday until 5.00 pm on Sunday.
(c)During the Christmas school holidays, for the second last week of the holiday from 5.00 pm Friday until 5.00 pm on Friday the following week.
(d)By telephone as agreed but failing agreement on each of the children’s birthdays, at Christmas and at Easter, the calls to be initiated by the paternal grandmother calling the mother’s mobile phone.
(e)By email as agreed but failing agreement once each fortnight, to an email address which the mother will provide to the paternal grandmother within 14 days and to which the mother will ensure that the children have access.
4.That for the purpose of holiday contact the parties will meet at an agreed halfway point between the mother’s residence and the residence of the paternal grandmother for change over. If there is no agreement, the mother will deliver the children to the home of the paternal grandmother at the beginning of each period and the paternal grandmother will cause the children to be returned to the mother or her representative at T Shopping Centre in City B at the end of the visit.
5.That in relation to any occasion when the children spend time with their paternal grandmother pursuant to these orders, the children’s paternal aunts and cousins may be present and the children’s paternal aunts may collect the children from the mother and return them to her.
6.That unless otherwise agreed, the mother and the paternal grandmother shall communicate by email except in the case of an emergency when they may use mobile phones.
7.That the mother will provide to the paternal grandmother any information necessary to assist the paternal grandmother to care for Y in relation to Y’s ongoing health, treatment and symptoms and keep her informed of any medical procedure that either child is to undergo.
8.That, in the event that the children cannot spend time with the paternal grandmother because of ill health, then the time will be made up on the first available occasion that the children are able to attend.
9.THE COURT NOTES that in the event of any medical concerns relating to either child while they are in the care of the paternal grandmother, the paternal grandmother will contact the mother and abide by the mother’s instructions.
10.That the paternal grandmother ensure that the father is not present at any time when the children are in her care and that he not be present on the property where she lives when the children are spending time with her at her home, subject to Order 16.
11.That the father is restrained from being in the City B local government area when the children are with the paternal grandmother in accordance with Order or within a radius of five kilometres of the home of the paternal grandmother during any period when the children are in the care of the paternal grandmother at her home, subject to Order 16.
12.That the father spend time with the children on one Saturday each fortnight, at the D Contact Centre in City C (“D Contact Centre”) for up to three hours and for the purpose of the implementation of this order each of the mother and the father shall immediately:
(a)Arrange to complete all necessary documents to facilitate the supervised contact.
(b)Provide any information required by D Contact Centre.
(c)Attend any intake session or assessment arranged with D Contact Centre.
(d)Comply with any reasonable request or direction of D Contact Centre.
13.That the paternal grandmother participate in the first three sessions of supervised contact and in other sessions as agreed between her and the father.
14.That the father pay the costs of the supervised contact.
15.That the supervised visits are not to occur on the first weekend of any month other than January or during any period when the children are in the care of the paternal grandmother.
16.That after 52 periods of supervised contact, the father have contact with the children at any time when they are in the care of the paternal grandmother in accordance with Orders 3 (a), (b) and (c).
17.That pursuant to Sections 65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) 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 adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and those 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).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Willis & Willis has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
REES J
Mr Willis (“the father”) and Ms Willis (“the mother”) are the separated parents of two children, X who was born in 2009 and is 13 years old and Y who was born in 2011 and is 10 years old.
The children live with their mother and her partner, Mr E. Mr E did not give evidence in the proceedings.
The children spend no time with their father and have not seen him since August 2018.
The mother asserts, and the father denies, that, at least for the latter part of their marriage, the father was both physically and verbally violent towards her. She also asserts that the father drank excessively and that he became abusive and violent when affected by alcohol.
Until he was cross-examined, the father maintained his denial that he had any problem with alcohol and he continued to maintain his denial that his drinking had caused him to behave as the mother alleged.
Ms S Willis, the children’s paternal grandmother (“the grandmother”), is a party to the proceedings seeking orders that the children spend time with her, independently of the father. The grandmother, who is a health professional, lives on a property at F Town with her partner Mr N. The father’s sister, Ms G, and her daughter H also live on the property and the father’s other sister and her three children visit regularly. The children have four cousins in the paternal family, all girls aged between 10 years and 15 years with whom they have had a close and loving relationship. Ms G was a witness in the grandmother’s case.
The Court was assisted by a Family Report and by an Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) appointed for the children.
The mother’s position was that she should have sole parental responsibility for the children and that they should spend no time and have no contact with either their father or their grandmother. Before submissions, that position was modified in relation to the grandmother and the mother consented to orders proposed by the ICL in relation to structured time for the children with their grandmother, cousins and aunts. However, she maintained her opposition to any contact between the children and their father.
The father sought equal shared parental responsibility for the children and that they spend time with him, initially supervised by his family, then on alternate Saturdays, progressing to alternate weekends and during school holidays. In cross-examination, it was the father’s position that he would accept any restrictions in relation to his time with the children, including professional supervision. At the commencement of submissions, the father abandoned his claim for equal shared parental responsibility and conceded that the mother should have sole parental responsibility for the children.
The grandmother sought time with the children on the first Sunday of each month and for a weekend in each short school holiday period and a week in the Christmas holidays. She also sought electronic contact with the children. Ultimately, there was agreement between the mother and the grandmother about the orders to be made for the children to spend time with her and the children’s aunts and cousins.
background
In order to understand the issues in dispute, it is necessary to have some understanding of the events which occurred.
The mother suffers from a medical condition which is controlled by medication. She has not had a medical episode since 2013.
The relationship between the parents deteriorated in mid 2017. The father formed the belief, the mother asserts wrongly, that the mother was having an affair. Although the mother, in oral evidence, asserted that the father was drinking heavily before that time and that he was verbally aggressive towards her, she stated that he was not physically violent. In the Child Dispute Conference memorandum dated 5 March 2019, the mother is recorded as saying that the father had not been verbally abusive before August 2017.
However, for the purpose of these proceedings, it is sufficient to find that, from August 2017, the father’s behaviour escalated. As is explained later in these reasons, I accept the evidence of the mother that his drinking escalated and that, as a consequence, he became physically violent towards the mother.
They separated on 24 February 2018 when the father left the home. The mother remained living with the children in City J and the father moved to live in Sydney.
After the separation, the father’s communication with the mother was aggressive and abusive. She annexed to her trial affidavits copies of messages sent to her by the father.
He sent her videos and articles showing women being raped and beaten stating “This is domestic violence”.
On 20 March 2018 he said to her, in a telephone call:
If you do not get back with me, your next partner will likely rape the fuck out of you and beat you to a pulp.
On 8 April 2018 in a telephone conversation about what the children had told the school counsellor, the father said, “I will fuck that counsellor up”.
On 9 April 2018 the father sent the mother an article from the local newspaper about a woman being assaulted.
On 22 April 2018 the father spent time with the children. The mother was present. The mother gave evidence that he appeared to be hung over and that he ordered vodka and soda to drink. The father in cross-examination denied that he was hung over but said he couldn’t remember what he drank. I accept the mother’s evidence.
On 2 May 2018 the father sent a message to the mother in which he said that “my voices” had told him that she was having an affair.
On 28 May 2018 the mother sent a text to the father, asking that they communicate “so that we can be effective for the girls… so that we are protecting them in the best way we can”. The father replied “I don’t want to protect them. You fucked me over”.
On 2 June 2018 the mother brought the children to Sydney to spend time with the father from 9.00 am. He arrived at 10.40 am and at 1.15 pm rang her and said “We are done early, can you get the girls now please”.
On 7 June 2018 the father told the mother that he would not commit to seeing the children unless she stayed the night with him. The mother refused.
On 9 June 2018 the father sent a text to the mother stating, inter alia:
I am here crying…
In a ball
In a dark ball
I have closed the curtains
I hate life without u
I am pitch black
(As per the original)
When the mother refused to drive to the father’s apartment he sent a text to her saying, inter alia:
You just don’t try ..no love
One day when it bites you…u will figure out hey that’s what love was…your hopeless and I hope the girls don’t grow anything up like u.
I will explain to the girl’s what love is .. and it is nothing like you have shown to me…..
(As per the original)
On 12 June 2018 when the mother attempted to discuss a parenting plan with the father he texted, inter alia:
Fuck u
Horrible
Can’t wait to explain to the girl’s what love is and cheap fucking lied
…
If your not coming back hope your fine with [Ms V] mum on the next contact
(As per the original)
(Ms V was, or had been, the father’s girlfriend).
On 13 June 2018 the mother sent a text to the father stating:
It’s not the things that have not been said and done that I cannot get past. It’s the things that have. We just need to be calm here. Lashing out at each other is the thing that keeps breaking us.
United front for the kids
The father texted:
Your girls will know what love is when I explain do the exact opposite to what you did … horrible horrible under the bus you should be so ashamed
Karma … big time
Such a liar.
I hope the karma eats u up
Hey do you think there is an integrity school we can send the girl’s to?????
I hope for as long as you live what you have done to the girls and to me…..
(As per the original)
On 19 June 2018 the father sent a text to the mother saying that he had cancelled her car insurance and that she could not drive her car.
On 16 July 2018, when the children were in the care of the paternal grandmother, the father sent a text to the mother saying:
I hope you Rot
For what you have done
Take a good look at who you represent and I hope my girl’s are nothing like you.
Horrible person
…
Even you know .. your girls are not safe right now…
Horrible
What a horrible feeling and you placed them there
Sleep tight.. knowing what you have done…
(As per the original)
The text continued to tell the mother that his sister Ms G is an ice addict, that his mother abused pain medication, that another family member was in jail and another a paedophile. The text concluded:
You left them there
Hope you left them in good hands…
How did you sleep?
(As per the original)
On the same day, the mediator from K Service telephoned the mother and said that she held grave concerns for the mother’s safety and that she should leave home.
The paternal grandmother, who was caring for the children at the time, texted the father and suggested that they meet at Suburb L. She stated, “I have two very confused sad little people here who want to see you”. The father replied “Say goodbye to them for me”.
The mother deposed that, on the weekend of 18 July 2018, she received 30 texts from the father and then blocked his phone number. He then sent her emails.
On 19 July 2018 the father removed the mother’s access to the company which operated their business and thus her income.
On 21 July 2018 the father sent an email to X that he needed to talk to her before he moved to City W.
On 23 July 2018 the father emailed the mother saying:
Could you let me know why you listed someone who touched your daughter’s legs inappropriately as an emergency contact?
In cross-examination, the father said that he could not recall how he became aware that the mother’s next-door neighbour had been listed as an emergency contact for the children or if that had ever happened.
On 27 July 2018 the children were organised to do a fun run with the father. He messaged them the night before saying “Remember the fun run”. He did not turn up. When they called him, he told them he had not left home in Sydney.
On 8 August 2018 the father emailed the mother:
no more of this ..
You have devastated me … I am in
TRAUMA
I hate you for tearing away my entire life worked and supported
your mean and I only cared for you and my girls. What you have done is horrible and now I am going to move past your nature and find something better than you.
(As per the original)
On 8 August 2018 he emailed:
I hope you … Your fake boobs, fake eyelashes, fake nails and your fake love marriage find the Karma it deserves and our girls don’t grow up anything like you.
(As per the original)
On 14 August 2018 the father sent an email to X, copied to the mother stating, inter alia, that even if she blocked his emails, he would “always tell X and Y the truth about what you did and what you have done’.
On 20 August 2018, the father cancelled the mother’s credit card.
On 30 August 2018, the father texted the children saying:
Good bye girl’s [sic] I love you to pieces. I love you so much and I miss you every single day. Be strong I love you and I am so sorry. Love your dad.
On 2 September 2018 the children called their father on Father’s Day. He said to them “I am going on a picnic with two other little children today”. The mother deposed that the children called him that evening and he told them about the fun things he had done with the two other children. She deposed that the children were upset by this conversation.
The mother gave a statement to the police on 4 September 2018 in support of the issue of an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (“ADVO”) against the father.
On 5 October 2018, when the mother was driving with the children, the father telephoned. She answered and said “The girls are in the car”. The father said “Hello girls” then screamed at the mother “I know where you are. I know where you’ve been, you went behind my back, you bitch, fuck you”. The mother said “The girls are in the car, please stop”. The father said “I will fuck you up”. The children cried.
On 6 October 2018, the mother and the father agreed that the father would meet the children at Suburb U at 2.00 pm. The children had their Father’s Day present to give him and Y baked his favourite profiteroles for him. On the morning, the father sent a text saying he wasn’t coming.
On 8 October 2018 the father spoke to the children on the phone and said “I can’t live anymore. I only get angry and yell at Mummy because I love her so much. I just want to come home”. Later the father sent a text to the mother saying “I know you’re a good mum”.
On 1 November 2018 there was a telephone conversation about financial matters where the father told the mother that the financial support of the children was her problem. He called her a “fucking bitch” and said “I am going to fuck you up. You have no idea what is coming for you, you fucking bitch”.
The mother contacted the police again on 20 November 2018 about the ADVO which had not yet issued. On 23 November 2018 she instituted proceedings seeking financial orders and she sought a child support assessment. The father responded to the child support assessment with a text to the mother saying “Oh, and I have a start-up so I only earn a dollar….. ooopps, you can have nothing … Sell the house now. Lol department of human services…”.
On 28 November 2018 an interim ADVO was issued for the protection of the mother and the children.
The mother took the children to the home of the paternal grandmother on Christmas Day 2018. While they were at their grandmother’s home, the girls telephoned their father.
In February 2019 the father spent some time with his mother at the home she shares with her partner, Mr N at F Town. The father’s sister, Ms G and her daughter H live in separate accommodation on the same property. The mother deposed, and Ms G did not dispute, that Ms G telephoned the mother and told her that she was concerned about H’s safety and had arranged for H to stay with her father.
The parents attended the Child Dispute Conference on 5 March 2019. The Family Consultant reported:
The mother described the father’s level of alcohol consumption and physical and verbal aggression dating from about August 2017, and escalating towards the end of the relationship. She alleges that the AVO was granted after she and the children had locked themselves in a room of the home to escape the father’s aggression and verbally abusive behaviour. She reported that ‘before the father passed out’ he had caused damage to their home.
According to the mother, there was no physical aggression towards her or verbal abuse of her prior to August 2017. She reported that, around this time, the father’s behaviour changed with him being aggressive, undermining her and being verbally abusive pushing and shoving her, resulting in bruising. She linked these behaviours to his alleged increase consumption of alcohol. She alleges that, since separation, the father has abused and harassed her by email and text messages, including sending her videos of women being raped and pushed down stairs. The mother also expressed significant concern that the father is somehow tracking her movements or perhaps having her followed. She said that she is fearful of his seeming unpredictability.
The father said that he is contesting the granting of the AVO at the next Court date (7 March 2019). He agrees that he was angry on the night of the incident which lead to the granting of the AVO and accepts that the children would have been ‘scared’. He, however, denies any physical aggression or having caused any damage to the home other than to have ‘thrown’ flowers on the ground.
According to the father, the relationship between him and the mother deteriorated from August 2017 as, he alleges, she was having affairs. He vehemently denies the mother’s allegations of him being physically or verbally abusive of her.
In relation to the issue of the father’s alcohol use, the Family Consultant reported:
The mother reported that, post-August 2017, the father would commence drinking around the middle of the day and consume up to four bottles of red wine. She said that as the relationship deteriorated the father would also consume beer.
The father acknowledged that he had used party drugs in the past. He was somewhat evasive about when he had last used any illegal substance but, when asked whether it was five, four or three years ago, admitted it ‘was less than three years ago’. He denies the mother’s allegations about his alcohol consumption reporting that he would drink two or three glasses of red wine ‘while cooking’. He is adamant that he has ‘rarely’ been adversely affected by his alcohol intake.
In relation to mental health, the Family Consultant reported:
She reported that ‘on about 12 occasions’ over a period the father has spoken to her about ‘hearing voices’, with him alleging that the voices were telling him that she did not love him and that she was having affairs. The mother alleges that the father has also told members of the paternal family about hearing ‘negative’ voices.
The father vehemently denies that he has ever told the mother that he hears voices. He said that he has no mental health problems, although he has commenced seeing a psychologist at [O Medical Centre] on a weekly basis to address the stress and distress following the separation. The father believes that the mother’s allegation of him hearing voices is a manifestation of the effect on her of her epilepsy. He said that he has concerns about the number of seizures the mother has, asserting that they occur weekly and sometimes daily. He said that his mother (the paternal grandmother) provides ‘cannabis oil’ for the mother to assist her to manage her seizures. The father alleges that, on occasions following seizures, the mother makes statements about ‘being in a black cloud’. He questions whether she might have thoughts of suicide.
The Family Consultant stated:
The writer believes that, in the context of the allegations about the father’s behaviour, the existence of the current AVO, and the mother’s concerns about the father’s excess drinking, no consideration ought to be given to the father spending time with the children until the Court has more detailed information about each parent’s allegations about the other.
The children spent four nights with the paternal grandmother during the April 2019 holidays.
On 3 June 2019, the father came to court drunk. The events of that day are examined in detail later in these reasons. After that day, the father commenced hospital rehabilitation and it is not disputed that there has been no communication at all between the parents or between the father and the children, since that day.
Since January 2020, the father has lived at the home of the paternal grandmother at F Town.
In August 2020, Y’s health deteriorated and in April 2021, she was diagnosed with a tumour. The mother did not tell the father or the paternal grandmother of the diagnosis. Y had surgery on 8 April 2021 but the tumour cannot be safely removed.
Orders were made on 14 July 2021 requiring the mother to provide monthly reports about Y’s condition to the paternal grandmother.
In 2021, the father contacted the relevant authorities and attempted to have the mother’s driving licence cancelled, alleging that she had had an accident because of a medical episode. In cross- examination he conceded that he had no knowledge of her having had a medical episode causing an accident and that he was aware that if her licence were cancelled she would not be able to transport the children, or take Y to necessary medical appointments.
alcohol abuse
The issue of the father’s drinking and the extent of his alcohol use dominated the hearing. The mother alleged that the father drank heavily, up to four bottles of wine at a time and that he became angry and violent when he drank.
In his trial affidavit, sworn on 4 April 2022, the father denied that he had ever abused alcohol.
He told the Family Consultant that “he has never had a problem with alcohol and that he used to have two three glasses of wine per day”.
In his affidavit sworn 5 August 2022 he deposed that he drank one bottle of wine a night.
The father’s denials in relation to his drinking could not be accepted.
In cross-examination, he conceded that he had drunk to excess but he consistently minimised both the extent of his alcohol use and his consequent behaviour. He evinced no understanding or appreciation of the effect that his drinking and his behaviour had on the mother or on the children.
On 3 June 2019, when the matter was listed before a senior registrar, the father came to court drunk. He was advised by his solicitor to leave and had to be helped by his mother away from the building. In cross-examination, the father said that he had drunk vodka and taken Valium that morning.
The grandmother took the father to a rehabilitation facility here he was refused admission. She deposed that the father was tested for alcohol at the facility and “the test came back extremely high. The recommendation from the facility was that he had to detox first before the facility would admit him”.
The grandmother told the Family Consultant:
She said that she understands that [the father] started drinking a lot when the marriage broke up, and said that she thinks he may have become an alcoholic. She said that he went into hospital for detoxification, and then moved to a rehabilitation program.
In cross-examination, the grandmother said that she had taken video footage of the father on that day so that he could not deny that he had been drinking.
The father’s sister, Ms G, told the Family Consultant that, at one point, the father was “a full blown alcoholic”.
The mother deposed that she saw the father being helped from the court and that she spoke to the grandmother a few days later about the incident. She deposed that the grandmother told her:
…from court I went directly to the psychiatric ward with [the father] however he was too drunk and they would not accept him until he had been through rehabilitation. We then went to the rehab facility and he blew a blood alcohol reading at least 12 hours after his last drink of .38. I was astounded. They said he should have technically been dead in court that morning.
Although the father, in cross-examination, adamantly insisted that his admissions to hospitals in 2019 were not related to his drinking, but rather to anxiety, the notes produced by the hospitals suggest otherwise.
The husband was admitted to the M Hospital on 5 June 2019. On admission, he was noted to be “self presenting… in order to detox himself from alcohol.” He stated that he drank a bottle of wine each day for the past five to seven months and before that time was a moderate drinker. Contrary to his oral evidence that the only time he had taken diazepam was on the morning of 3 June 2019, the admission notes state that he took diazepam regularly. The notes state that the father’s liver function tests were consistent with alcoholism. The notes state, “Patient appears to minimise his alcohol consumption”.
The father is recorded to be “Expressing intent to stop alcohol use” and “keen to go into private rehab facility”. The notes contain a recommendation that the father’s “regular diazepam doses” be reduced.
On 11 June 2019, the notes record that the father “does not feel safe to discharge home whilst awaiting bed, believes high risk relapse”.
The discharge summary, dated 14 June 2019, notes the presenting problem as “Withdrawal from alcohol” and recommended that he be admitted to Q Hospital for “ongoing inpatient alcohol rehabilitation”.
The notes produced by Q Hospital record a diagnosis of “Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed Mood” and “Alcohol Use Disorder”. He was discharged from Q Hospital on 6 July 2019 but continued to attend counselling sessions for a time.
I do not accept the father’s evidence that his alcohol consumption was not problematic.
However, I do accept his evidence that he has stopped drinking to excess. The father was ordered to undergo random urinalysis testing and has done so since February 2019. None of the test results indicates excessive consumption of alcohol. He has also at the request of the ICL, and not compelled by any order, undertaken CDT testing between June and October 2021 and returned results which are consistent with his evidence that he is not drinking to excess.
Both the grandmother and Ms G, who live on the same property as the father, gave evidence that they had not seen him drinking, other than a toast at the grandmother’s birthday celebration.
Although the father did not acknowledge before me the true extent of his alcohol abuse, I am satisfied that he well understands that it is his consumption of alcohol and his consequent behaviour which caused him to lose his relationship with his children and that he is motivated to maintain his sobriety. I accept that the husband has not drunk to excess since the catastrophic events of 3 June 2019.
Because I do not accept his evidence about his alcohol use, I must regard his evidence about the mother’s allegations of physical violence with great caution.
physical abuse
The mother alleges that after August 2017 the father, when drinking, was physically violent towards her. The father denied that he had ever perpetrated physical violence against the mother.
Whilst she details a number of incidents, there are two more serious allegations which I will examine in detail.
The first incident occurred in January 2018 when the mother deposed that the father was drunk and accused her of having affairs. She deposed that he stood over her and screamed at her then pushed her against the kitchen bench where her leg was bruised. She deposed that she suffered bruising on her thigh and that she took photos of the bruises. In cross-examination she explained in some detail how the bruising occurred. Photos of the bruise were in evidence.
The second incident occurred on 24 February 2018 when the mother deposed the father was drunk and called her a “bitch” and a “slut” in the presence of the children. She deposed that he cornered her between the glass balcony wall and the balcony pillar. She screamed. He pushed her against the balustrade causing her to lean back over the balcony edge, about six meters from the ground. The mother screamed for help. She broke free and gathered up the children, taking them to bed. The father came into Y’s room and tried to grab Y from her. She left Y’s room and the father followed her into the bathroom and pushed her against the sink, continuing to scream at her. The mother ran with the children into the master bedroom and locked the door. The mother deposed:
[The father] began screaming and banging on our bedroom door. [He] was smashing things against the bedroom door, tearing up flowers and anything he could find throughout the house and screaming “Your Mummy is a fucking bitch! She is kicking your Daddy out onto the street. I hope you don’t end up a fucking slut like your mother”.
The mother deposed that the father continued to scream at her for an hour and she sang to the children as loudly as she could to drown him out. She texted her brother to come and get her and, when the father passed out, she and the children ran from the house.
There is other evidence that corroborates the mother’s assertions that the father behaved violently.
In March 2018, the counsellor recorded that X said she had telephoned her father “he was yelling” and X was upset.
On 12 March 2018 the counsellor noted that Y “expressed sadness and concern over the 24.2 night”.
On 27 April 2018 the mother had a telephone conversation with the father's sister, Ms G, who had been to dinner with the father. The mother deposed that Ms G said:
[The father] was extremely erratic, hearing voices and verbally aggressive. He told me about what had happened back in February when you had to lock the girls and yourself away from him to be safe. He was trying to explain to me that he hadn’t done anything wrong. I will do anything to keep you and those girls safe. They should not be near him right now.
Ms G deposed:
Between 2018 and 2019 I was aware that [the father] deteriorated significantly following the breakdown of his marriage and I was aware that he was drinking heavily. During this period felt extremely sorry for him but he was not in a fit state to be around kids and I did not want him around [H] during this time.
Ms G gave evidence and did not dispute that the conversation occurred. Ms G said that, on this or another occasion, when she was at dinner with the father and their mother, he became angry and “flipped the table”.
On 4 June 2018 the counsellor notes that X said her father had not been home “since the big argument” which I infer to be a reference to the events on 24 February 2018. X spoke of listening to arguments between her parents. She noted “X guessed that the yelling and fighting probably the biggest reason (why the parent’s remained apart)”.
Records produced by P Service note that on 16 July 2018 the father was asked to leave the City C office when he attended for Family Dispute Resolution. The mediator noted that:
… [the father’s] aggressive tone began to escalate and he was leaning over the table and staring angrily at me…[he] then exhibited a facial expression that I can only describe as rage and I then began to feel concerned for my safety.
The mediator contacted the mother and advised her of the safety concerns.
On 13 August 2018 the counsellor reported to the mother in an email:
… had a longish session today with the girls… they actually retold the “yelling” night story where the bedroom door was locked … still trying to make sense of it…
[X] and [Y] both agreed what I should contact you about was their fear that Dad might visit them when grandparents are looking after them when u have 2 days in Sydney? Dad might yell at grandparents… and [X] just wanted to know why Dad says he misses us but he doesn’t spend time with us – [Y] said he even sent us a photo of a place we love to go to – but he didn’t invite us…
(As per the original)
On 26 November 2018 the counsellor noted that X feared that her father would harm or kill her mother. Both children remembered their father telephoning while they were in the car and swearing at their mother. “[X] reported putting her hands over [Y’s] ears and [Y] ‘clinging to me’”.
On 28 November 2018, X’s school counsellor wrote an email to the mother in which she said that X was worried that her father might harm or kill her mother. X said that her father was angry at everyone, including his mother.
In the Family Report, the Family Consultant stated that X remembered some incidents involving her father. She reported:
[X] said that she has seen [the father] do violent things to her mother, such as trying to push [the mother] off a balcony. She said that, on one occasion, she, [Y] and [the mother] went to bed and they could hear [the father] screaming outside the door. She said that they sang loudly together, so as not to hear him swearing and smashing things at the door.
The Family Consultant reported:
[Y] said that she was scared of her father when she was little. She said that he once threw a wedding ring into [X's] face.
The father in cross-examination said that there had been an incident where he threw his wedding ring but that he threw it on the floor, not at X.
Because I do not accept the father’s denials of his abuse of alcohol, I cannot accept his denials of physical violence towards the mother where there is other evidence that provides corroboration for her allegations.
I accept that the father was physically violent towards the mother as she alleged.
the evidence of the family consultant
Ms R conducted interviews between March and May 2021 and provided a report dated 15 June 2021.
The children were not observed with their father and had not seen him since August 2018.
Ms R identified the issues:
37.Whether the children will suffer if they do not have any arrangements for spending time with their father
38.Whether the prospect of the children spending any time (even supervised time) with their father will be so stressful for [the mother] as to impinge upon her parenting capacity
39.Whether the children can safely maintain relationships with their paternal family members, in the event that there are no arrangements between the children and [the father].
Of her interview with the father, Ms R reported:
54.[The father] perceives that the embargo on the children seeing him is completely unreasonable. He said that he has never hurt [the mother] or the children, and that he denies all the claims about him being violent or aggressive. He said that he was not fussed about the AVO because he has no intention of going near the family home, the children's school, or anywhere on the [Z Region]. [The father] claimed that [the mother] took out the AVO because she was allegedly having an affair with the school principal, implying that [the mother] wanted [the father] out of the way.
55.[The father] denied sending [the mother] threatening messages and said that he sent her one news article about family violence, to demonstrate how different this was from her experiences with him… there is not one shred of evidence that he is guilty of any of [the mother’s] claims.
She reported:
56. He believes that [the mother’s] claims are financially motivated and that she benefited greatly - and dishonestly - in their financial and property settlement.
Further she recorded:
58.[The father] said that he is aware the children have been seeing a counsellor, but understands that this was the school counsellor. [The father] does not consider this counsellor to be independent, as he believes the counsellor would be affected by talking to the principal or [the mother].
59.The Family Consultant asked [the father] why [the mother] would fabricate her allegations of violence, as he claims. [The father] said that it is because [the mother] is extremely greedy, and lies about things. He claimed that she lied about the value of the house.
60.[The father] also claimed that [the mother] has lied about her health and the status of her [medical] condition. He claimed that he observed her to have regular and incapacitating [medical episodes] and believes that she struggles to control her [medical condition]. He suggested that this may be risky for the children if they are with their mother when she is having a [medical episode] and, for example, driving at the time. He proposed that [the mother] undergoes testing to assess her history of [medical episodes], and claimed that [the mother’s] current doctor is also her best friend and, therefore, unreliable.
The father was asked specifically about the mother’s allegations that he abused alcohol. Ms R recorded:
61.Regarding [the mother’s] claims about his alcohol use, [the father] said that he has never had a problem with alcohol and that he used to have two three glasses of wine per day. He said that he does not drink at all now because he is on a healthy diet. [The father] said that he admitted himself to hospital in 2019, but that this was not due to alcohol addiction. He said that he was using alcohol around that time, but that his alcohol use was not problematic. He said that he has suffered from depression and anxiety, and feelings of abandonment and suicidal ideation, and that he was prescribed benzodiazepine medication. He said that the medication disagreed with him and needed to be reviewed.
Ms R recorded that the father “described [the mother] in negative terms and sounded resentful about her actions”.
In relation to her interview with X, Ms R reported:
93.The Family Consultant asked [X] what she remembers about her father and she said that she remembers some incidents, but not what he looks like. She said that not all her memories are good, but that some of them are. The Family Consultant asked about the good memories and [X] said that she remembers her father buying her a doll. She said that they used to play a game together, but that he was a bit rough and that her sister would cry.
94.X said that her father drank a lot of wine and that she and her sister would find him in unusual places, such as asleep on the trampoline. She said that she would find wine bottles in the home. She said that she used to feel worried when her father was at home and that her mother would take her and [Y] out for smoothies.
95.The Family Consultant asked [X] if she ever feels like seeing [her father], and she said that she does want to see him, but that she would also feel a bit worried. She said that it would be better if her paternal grandmother is there. The Family Consultant asked about the last time that [X] saw [her grandmother]. [X] said that she and her sister saw some pictures on their grandmother's phone and that they were upset because their cousins are seeing [her father], and they are not. She said that she was upset around the time of Father's Day and that seeing her father would make her feel normal.
96.[X] said that she is worried that, if she sees [her father], "someone" might follow her afterwards and that he may not follow his mother's ([Ms S Willis's]) instructions. [X] said that she has seen [her father] do violent things to her mother, such as trying to push [her mother] off a balcony. She said that, on one occasion, she, [Y] and [the mother] went to bed and they could hear [the father] screaming outside the door. She said that they sang loudly together, so as not to hear him swearing and smashing things at the door. She said that she dreamed that her father was chasing her upstairs, but that she cannot remember if this really happened or not.
X told Ms R that she liked her mother’s partner “but not in the same way as Dad”.
In relation to her interview with Y, Ms R reported:
101.There was some conversation about [the father], and [Y] said that she has not seen her father because he has been unwell. She said that he needs to control himself, then she and her sister can see him. She said that she has not seen him for a long time and that she would like to see him. [Y] said that if her mother was there as well, she would be worried that [he] might swear at them. [Y] said that she was scared of her father when she was little. She said that he once threw a wedding ring into [X's] face.
Ms R commented:
111.… if events during and post-separation occurred in the manner described by [the mother], then it would appear that [the father] showed little regard for the children's wellbeing and feelings, and that he has been overtaken by rage and vengeful motivations. Again, if this is the case, it is understandable that [the mother] would be wary of any contact with [the father], and concerned about the potential for harm.
112.On the other hand, [the father] has denied behaving in a violent or threatening way at any time, and claims that [the mother] has fabricated claims to excise him from her and the children's lives. If this is true, it is understandable that he would feel wronged and aggrieved at being separated from the children.
Noting what the father’s mother and sister told her about the father’s behaviour, Ms R stated:
113.… there appears to be some acknowledgement that he struggled to control himself at this time, and that some of his behaviour was inappropriate, at least. If this is the case, it is unfortunate that [the father] has, apparently, been unable to acknowledge, and take responsibility for, his behaviour as doing so might provide some assurance to [the mother], and to the Court, that he has recognised the problematic aspects of his approaches and taken steps to address them. The Family Consultant also found it concerning that [the father] seemed to refer to [the mother] with anger and resentment, and that he did not see a link between her expressed fears, and this behaviour.
114.Similarly, [the father] denied that his alcohol use was problematic, despite records from his hospital admissions, and other reports, suggesting that his alcohol consumption was deleterious to his behaviour and mood. It is to [the father’s] great credit that he has sought support and participated in relevant treatment programs. However, it is concerning if he has limited insight into his previous issues and a pattern of denial, and this raises questions about his assurances of his good intentions.
Ms R noted that the children’s willingness to resume contact with their father could be considered a “testament to [the mother’s] restraint regarding the exposure the children have had to her own fears and concerns about [the father]”.
She stated:
119.Even if there is seen to be no danger of physical harm, it would be important to check that [the father] does not denigrate [the mother] as he did, at times, during this assessment. [The father’s] continued and apparent resentment and denial adds weight to [the mother’s] concerns about his ability to prioritise the children's wellbeing.
Ms R expressed concern about the effect on the mother’s ability to parent the children if they have contact with the father.
In cross-examination, Ms R was asked about the children’s attitude to seeing the father. She said:
My impression was that the children had had a relation with their father and that that there were some positive aspects to that relationship, and that they also had some memories of his behaviour, or as alleged behaviour I should say, towards their mother, and that this was very disturbing for them. So I felt that those two factors were responsible for the conflict.
Ms R was asked whether she had concerns about the father spending unsupervised time with the children. She said:
I would be concerned about a number of things. Possibly about the way [the father] may speak to the children about their mother. Possibly about his impulse control and how that might impact on the children. Possibly about how he might speak to them about previous events if they were to ask him about those and ask him for his explanation. So those would be some of my concerns.
She did not support the father’s time with the children being supervised by his mother or the paternal family. She said:
I think contact services tend to be more objective, and they don’t have issues of loyalty that family members might have if they are responsible for supervising time, and possibly being in a position where they may have to set some limits or adjust some things during that time. So I think contact centres can be in a better position to do that, especially in initial stages of supervised time.
The Family Consult, in her oral evidence, said of the father's behaviour before 3 June 2019:
I think it would be very frightening for [the mother] to have received those text messages and other information. And my concern, again from my reading of the material I've been sent, and from my interviews with [the father], was that he didn't seem to acknowledge the impact of that behaviour on [the mother] or, potentially, the children. So I would be concerned about that potentially happening again, and having a detrimental impact on all of them.
She was also concerned that the father did not appear to have accepted responsibility for his past behaviour. She said:
… according to [Ms Willis], there were a number of behaviours that made her feel threatened for her safety, and uncomfortable, and many of them did not relate to physical violence. So for example, she described their financial arrangements after separation, which she felt left her very disadvantaged and unable to financially support the care of the children for a while. And if it was the case that [Mr Willis] made that happen in a deliberate way, then that would be an example of controlling and coercive behaviour.
Ms R said that the father’s attempt, last year, to have the mother’s driving licence cancelled was also an example of coercive and controlling behaviour. She said there was a pattern of the father trying to threaten and intimidate the mother.
Ms R was asked to consider whether there was a benefit to the children in understanding that their father, whom they had been told was sick, was not sick anymore. She said:
If that could be said with confidence, I think that might be helpful for them to know. It might be, I think a next question for them might be well, are we going to then see him if he’s not sick any more…
Ms R was unsure whether the children should see their father. She said:
I’m not sure what the best way forward would be for the children. Again, I would be concerned about the father’s lack of acknowledgement of the impact of his behaviour, and whether there’s still a question mark as to whether he has insight into the impact of that behaviour. So that – that’s what would concern me. I think – and as I said in my report, if he has sought that assistance and maintained abstinence, I think that is to his great credit, and I think that’s really good. And obviously, good for the children to hear about that too. But I would be – there seems to be a vindictiveness in some of the alleged behaviour, the text messages, over a period of time, and that seems – as far as I’m aware, I’m not sure that that has been acknowledged as to the potential for harm. And that’s what would concern me, and the level of anger and resentment that he still seemed to be maintaining towards their mother. Those factors are what would concern me as to whether they might creep in to his time with them, even if it occurred on a regular and reasonably frequent basis.
When asked to what extent the father’s apparent rehabilitation should be considered, Ms R said:
I think rehabilitation is, as I said before, your Honour, is admirable, and I think that is a very important factor. And I think it will be hard for the children if they don’t see their father. That absolutely will be hard for them if there’s no time whatsoever. What concerns me is whether the apparently vindictive aspects of his feelings towards them – either whether those have been rehabilitated, so his alcoholism may have been addressed, but I’m not sure whether those aspects of his relationship with the mother have been, and I would just be concerned about the potential for harm. But again, as I said before, I think if he was seeing the children, say, every fortnight then maybe, eventually, those conversations – if there was potential for those conversations, less those more destructive conversations to occur, then they would start occurring if that was going to happen. But if there was less frequent time, then there would be less opportunities for those conversations to occur.
consideration
It is not in dispute that the children would benefit from having a meaningful relationship with their father. The issue to be determined is whether, in all of the circumstances surrounding the breakdown of the relationship between the parents and the behaviour of the father between August 2017 and June 2019, it is possible for the children to have such a relationship with him and for the mother’s parenting and her emotional well-being to be protected.
As the primary considerations expressed in section 60CC(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) make clear, the protection of the children from harm from being exposed to family violence is to be given priority over the benefit of having a meaningful relationship with their father.
any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child’s maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views;
The children’s views about the matter must be given appropriate weight.
On 2 December 2018, the school counsellor noted that both children were sad because they perceived their father was rejecting them.
On 17 June 2019, the school counsellor reported on a joint session with the children. She recorded that both children said they missed their father and “wished he would get better soon so they don’t have to wait until they are 18 to see him”. Y said that she “likes it when she sees her dad”. Both children told the counsellor that they miss their father and they make him cards and get him birthday presents. X said she still has cards she made for Fathers’ Day at school but that she hasn’t been able to give them to him.
The children’s comments to the Family Consultant have been set out earlier in these reasons.
The mother gave evidence that on an occasion when the children had been with their grandmother, and had seen photographs of their father, they were distressed because other family members were seeing him and they were not.
Although the children have some anxieties about seeing their father, I accept that they wish to see him and those wishes, particularly those of X, must be given the weight appropriate to her age.
the nature of the relationship of the child with:
(i) each of the child’s parents; and
(ii) other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
It is not in dispute that the children have a close and loving relationship with their mother who has always been their primary carer. For long periods she was their sole carer. It is agreed that in 2015, 2016 and 2017 the father spent about half of each year overseas working.
They like Mr E.
They have a close and loving relationship with their grandmother, and their cousins and aunts.
They have the remnants of a loving relationship with their father. Clearly they missed him when their parents separated. It is understandable that they have some reservations about resuming their relationship with him, having regard to their memories of his behaviour towards their mother.
the extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity:
(i) to participate in making decisions about major long term issues in relation to the child; and
(ii) to spend time with the child; and
(iii) to communicate with the child;
I do not accept, as the father has asserted, that the mother has kept the children from him because of greed, or vindictiveness or that she has acted other than as she believed was necessary to protect the children.
The evidence establishes that, after the separation, she tried to maintain the children’s relationship with their father but was unable to do so, at least in part, because of his drinking and his anger.
The ADVO which effectively prevented the father from having a relationship with the children was taken out because she had genuine fears for her safety.
The father’s contact with the children was suspended on 3 June 2019 as a result of his drinking.
the extent to which each of the child’s parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent’s obligations to maintain the child;
The father currently pays $4.27 per week in child support for each child.
the capacity of:
(i) each of the child’s parents; and
(ii) any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs;
Over the period between August 2017 and June 2019 the father was incapable of providing for the children’s needs because of the effect of his alcohol consumption. Since June 2019, he has been prevented from having any contact with them because of the orders made by this court.
He is genuinely motivated to spend time with his children on whatever basis the court might allow. I accept that he understands that he must carefully rebuild that relationship so that the children regain their trust in him and that he is capable of behaving sensitively with them.
the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents;
It cannot be disputed that, for a time, the father abrogated his responsibilities to his children. I accept that he recognises that fact and now wants to make amends to them.
I am not satisfied that the father understands the effect that his behaviour has had on the children’s mother. If he does have an appreciation of the effect on her, it was not communicated during his evidence. Indeed, when challenged about the behaviours with which he was confronted by incontrovertible evidence, his replies were focused on his own distress at the time and his feelings at the time that he was not being adequately supported.
The father maintained that attitude in the Case Outline document that was prepared on his behalf. He stated:
In the years following separation, the Mother embarked on a mission to sever and undermine the Father’s relationship with the children.
Further, the Case Outline document states:
The estranged situation the Father finds himself in, is a consequence of the Mother’s conduct. Additionally the Mother does not give the sense of being contrite in any way during these proceedings, either in her Affidavits filed on her behalf or during the four (4) sessions that she had with [Ms R] for the preparation of the Family Report.
In the Case Outline, the father refers to the mother’s “[medical condition] and illicit substance abuse” being significant risk issues and suggests that “the Mother may make drastic decisions for the children or herself which may cause significant harm”. There was no evidence to support the father’s assertions that the mother’s medical condition was not well managed and the allegation that she used illicit substances, which she denied, was not put to her.
The Case Outline asserts:
… the Mother has failed to place the father at ease regarding known drug dealers attending at her family home and potentially putting the children at risk of unacceptable harm.
Again, those allegations were not put to the mother.
The Case Outline states:
The Mother has issues relating to her stress and her apparent lack of capacity to respond to the Father is [sic] anything other than a histrionic and over-dramatized manner.
The document states “The Father has been estranged from the children by the conduct of the Mother”.
The statement in the Case Outline document that:
It is clear that the Mother cannot provide for the children alone, and has reported to her GP has [sic] recent as 19 July 2021 that she is ‘struggling with appointments for [Y] and lockdown/homeschooling”.
is staggering in its lack of empathy or understanding of the position the mother found herself in with a seriously ill child in the middle of the Covid-19 lockdowns.
The Case Outline document supports the concerns of the Family Consultant that the father’s attitude towards the mother is vindictive and that there is a risk of his speaking inappropriately to the children about their mother.
The mother was cross-examined about what she may have told the children about the proceedings. In a note of a conversation with the children made on 17 June 2019 (two weeks after the court attendance on 3 June 2019), the school counsellor asked the children what they knew about the court proceedings. She noted:
·Because dad was drunk they have to start the case all over
·Daddy has all the money so the courts are trying to get some for Mum
·Dad is not well, but he is getting help to not drink at a place which he will stay for 2 months
·The courts said it is a good idea for Daddy to stay away from the girls until they are 18 years old. Everyone agreed. No one is on Daddy’s side any more.
·…
·[Y] stated that “Mummy thinks the court decision is good because daddy is drinking”.
(As per the original)
It is to the mother’s credit that the children’s understanding was that their father was unwell but the conversation with the school counsellor suggests that the mother was not as careful as she should have been to shield the children from information.
any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family;
I accept that between August 2017 and February 2018 the father perpetrated physical violence and verbal abuse on the mother. The children witnessed that violence and abuse. After separation until June 2019, his communications with her were abusive and his use of financial control was abusive.
I accept the evidence of the mother which is set out at paragraph 191 of her trial affidavit, of the physical effect on her of contemplating the children’s spending time with the father. (I note that the mother resiled from her evidence that she felt similar symptoms when contemplating the children’s spending time with their grandmother).
I accept that the mother has been diagnosed with and is being treated for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of the father’s behaviour towards her.
However, I do not accept that the fact that the father was a perpetrator of violence for a period of time must have the consequence that his children can never have a relationship with him.
As in all decisions relating to the best interests of children, there must be a balancing of the benefits to the children of having a relationship with their father against the detriments, in this case, principally the detrimental effect on their mother of contact with him.
The mother gave evidence that, although she in no way agreed that there should be contact, if it were to occur, then she would be comforted if there were professional supervision. Ms R, in cross-examination, also recommended that the father’s time be professionally supervised.
The mother was worried that the father might overbear the grandmother and her partner. Ms R expressed her concerns that the father might be critical of the mother in similar terms to those which he used in his interviews with her.
On balance, the children will benefit from spending time with their father and rebuilding their relationship with him provided this occurs in an environment which their mother accepts is safe. They will be able to satisfy themselves that he is no longer unwell and he will have the opportunity to prove to them that he is the loving father they missed.
The orders will provide for the children to spend time with their father at the contact centre run by D Contact Centre at City C on alternate Saturdays for a period of up to three hours depending on the availability of the centre. After two years of supervised contact, the father will be able to spend time with the children when they are in the care of their grandmother.
costs of supervision
The father’s contribution to the cost of the care of the children is minimal. He will pay the costs of supervision.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and seventy-six (176) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Rees. Associate:
Dated: 22 August 2022
0
0
0