Woods & Hendry - [2022] FedCFamC2F 1205

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
Woods & Hendry [2022] FedCFamC2F 1205

File number(s): PAC 2429 of 2019

Judgment of: JUDGE NEWBRUN

Date of judgment: 8 September 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Parenting - final parenting hearing - competing parenting proposals - best interests of child - final parenting Orders made

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA

Cases cited:
Champness & Hanson (2009) FLC 93–407

Gorman & Huffman and Anor [2016] FamCAFC 174

Moose & Moose (2008) FLC 93–375

Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90–725

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 273

Date of hearing: 10–12 August 2022

Place: Parramatta

Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr Ndou, Lovemore Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Gibbons

Solicitor for the Respondent: Takchi & Associates

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Ms Stolier

Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Brian Samuel & Associates
ORDERS

PAC 2429 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS WOODS

Applicant

AND:
MR HENDRY

Respondent

AND:
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

order made by:

JUDGE NEWBRUN

DATE OF ORDER:

8 September 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.All previous parenting Orders between the parties be discharged.
2.The Mother have sole parental responsibility in respect to the child X, born in 2018.
3.The child shall live with the Mother.
4.The parties do all things necessary and sign all documents required to complete any and all intake procedures at Suburb A Children’s Contact service in order to enable the child to spend supervised time with the Father once each month.
5.The child spend time with the Father supervised by Suburb F Children’s Contact Service for a period of up to of three (3) hours from 2:00pm to 5:00pm on the first Friday of the month or on such other as advised by the contact service.

6.The Father shall pay all costs of supervised time noting that the Father is presently not paying child support.
7.The Father be permitted and authorised to forward to the child any presents, cards, photographs or letters in respect of any special occasions such as the child’s birthday, Christmas or any other occasions of special significance to the child.
8.Within 21 days of the making of these Orders the Mother shall provide the Father with a postal address to forward such presents, cards, photographs or letters.
9.Without admission both parties be restrained from:
(a)Exposing the child to violence, including physical or verbal threats or intimidation, whether such threats or intimidation or violence be directed at the child, the Mother, the Father, or any other member of either party’s household;
(b)Physically disciplining the child;
(c)Denigrating the other or members of the other party’s family in the presence or hearing of the child and each party shall do all acts and things reasonably necessary to prevent any other person doing so;
(d)Discussing these proceedings or any issues arising out of these proceedings with the child or permitting any third party to do so;
(e)Making critical or derogatory remarks on social media, such as Facebook or Twitter in relation to the other parent or referring in any way to the proceedings;
(f)Being under the influence of alcohol in the presence of the child or whilst the child is in his or her care to a point of a blood alcohol level of in excess of 0.05;
(g)Using, ingesting or administering to himself or herself any illicit or non-prescribed drugs (other than over the counter medication);
(h)Bringing the child into contact with any person under the influence of illicit drugs or alcohol in excess.

10.The Father is to forthwith enrol in and complete (in the event that he has not already done so) a men’s behaviour change programme facilitated by G Counsellors in person.

11.The Mother continues to ensure that the child attend day care for a minimum of two (2) days per week and that she further follow all reasonable recommendations of the day care provider in respect to the child’s attendance at day care.
12.The Mother shall provide a copy of these Orders to the child’s day care provider and school upon the child commencing schooling.
13.The Mother shall continue to engage with her Department of Communities and Justice case worker, the Mother’s domestic violence case worker and her counsellor/therapist as recommended by each of them.
14.The parties are restrained from communicating with each other, except for in relation to communication of proposed supervised visits between the child and the Father, which communication shall occur via SMS or email.
15.The Father is restrained from sending abusive or denigrating messages to the Mother or from seeking additional visitation with the child, whether supervised or unsupervised time.
16.In the event of any inconsistencies between these Orders and a family violence order in place between the parties these Orders shall apply.
17.Pursuant to sections 65(D) 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 the parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these Orders.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
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 Woods & Hendry has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE NEWBRUN:
INTRODUCTION

This final parenting hearing relates to the child X born in 2018.
On 24 December 2019 interim parenting Orders were made providing, inter alia, that the child live with the Mother and spend supervised time with the Father.
On 23 April 2020 interim parenting Orders were made by consent providing, inter alia, for H Contact Centre to supervise the child’s time with the Father.
On 29 May 2020 certain Court Orders from 24 December 2019 were suspended. Orders were made for the Father to have supervised time by H Contact Centre for two hours each week, with a notation made that the Court expected the Father to proceed to participate in a men’s behaviour change program as soon as practically possible.
The Mother’s proposed final parenting Orders are set out in her proposed Minute of Order. Inter alia, she seeks Orders that the Mother have sole parental responsibility for the child; the child live with the Mother; the child have no contact with the Father; alternatively that the child spend time with the Father supervised by the Suburb A Children’s Contact Service for one period of three hours each three months.
The Father’s proposed final parenting Orders are set out in a document headed, “Father’s Proposed Minute of Final Orders”. The Father seeks Orders, inter alia, to spend unsupervised time with the child, increasing on a graduated basis and progressing to overnight time.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer’s (“ICL”) proposed Minute of Final Orders seeks Orders, inter alia, that the Mother have sole parental responsibility in respect to the child; the child live with the Mother; that the child spent time with the Father supervised by Suburb A Children’s Contact Service for a period of up to three hours from 2:00pm to 5:00pm on the first Friday of the month; that the Father is to forthwith enrol in and complete a men’s behaviour change program facilitated by G Counsellors in person.
The Mother relied upon her Affidavit filed 31 March 2022, Child Dispute Conference Memorandum (“CDC Memorandum”) dated 15 November 2019, and Family Report dated 16 November 2020.
The Father also relied upon the above CDC Memorandum and Family Report, and the Father’s Affidavit filed 21 March 2022.
The ICL relied upon the above CDC Memorandum and Family Report.
The Exhibits were as follows:
(a)Exhibit A: Court Attendance Notice for the Father;
(b)Exhibit B: Facebook Messenger messages from the Father to the Mother;
(c)Exhibit C: Facebook Messenger messages between the Mother and the Father;
(d)Exhibit D: Further Facebook Messenger messages between the Mother and the Father;
(e)Exhibit E: Letter from G Counsellors;
(f)Exhibit F: Family Report dated 16 November 2020 and Child Dispute Conference Memorandum dated 15 November 2019;
(g)Pages from the Father’s Tender Bundle:
(i)Supervised visit report, pages F20-F27;
(ii)Correspondence from G Counsellors, page F29;
(iii)Urinalysis results for the Father, pages F31-F32;
(iv)Father’s Centrelink statement, page F33;
(h)Mother’s Tender Bundle;
(i)ICL’s Tender Bundle.
EVIDENCE
In the determination of this case the Court has had regard to all of the documentary evidence referred to above, together with the oral evidence of the parties and the Family Report writer. Throughout these Reasons the Court will refer to a number of facts taken from that evidence. Any such reference should be regarded as a finding of fact unless a contrary intention is clear from the context. In determining disputed questions of fact the Court is required to assess the evidence on the balance of probabilities. In order to limit the size of this judgment not all factual issues will be addressed. However, those that are relevant to the Court’s determination will be considered either in this section or whilst addressing the section 60CC factors (see below). Evidence referred to under the section 60CC considerations shall, in the event of any conflict with the evidence referred to in this section, take precedence.
The Mother’s Affidavit
The Mother is aged 33 years, and the Father is aged 39 years.
The parties met sometime in 2016. They were never in a serious relationship. The Mother has a child from a previous relationship namely E currently aged 12 years. The Mother had a drug and alcohol problem in 2017 and this child was removed from her care. She has since addressed her drug and alcohol problem and she now sees and spends time with E once every month.
When the Mother discovered she was pregnant with the child, X, she moved to Queensland and the Father continue to live in NSW. After the birth of the child, the Mother travelled to Sydney once to spend time with E (for one week) and, having brought the child with her, the Father would spend time with the child. The Father travelled twice to Queensland to spend time with the child; once at the birth of the child where he stayed for a week and the second time, when the child was about five months of age, he stayed for five days.
At the time the Mother that the Father both parties were using ice. The Mother hasn’t touched ice since May 2017. The Mother has also attended a drug and alcohol course.
There has always been a history of violence between the parties. The Father was always the perpetrator. During the time that the Mother resided in Queensland the parties would argue constantly over the telephone about the child. The Mother, when living in Queensland, shared accommodation with her sister.
The Father used to make threats of violence to the Mother and her family members including her sister. He would threaten to come and kidnap the Mother’s sister’s children. He would threaten to harm the Mother’s sister. The Mother previously had a female partner who passed away sometime in May 2018. Following that occurring, the Father would make comments to the Mother such as: “You will be joining your partner soon”.
In November 2018 a final DVO was put in place for five years for the Mother’s protection and that of her sister in Queensland.
Around the end of 2018 the Mother moved back to Sydney. This was after the Father had threatened that if she did not move back to Sydney with the child prior to his birthday, “all hell was going to break loose.”
Following the Mother returning to Sydney with the child, the parties got into another fight and when the Mother told the Father that he could not take the child to his workplace, the Father got very agitated and physically pushed the Mother away.
Following this, the Mother allowed the Father to spend time with the child even though the Mother still held serious concerns about his volatile behaviour. The Mother would always supervise his time with the child which would often go for about an hour. The parties would constantly argue during this time. The Father insisted on keeping the child overnight and when the Mother refused, he would make threats of violence and call her names.
In early May 2019 the Father physically pushed the Mother away after he had refused to comply with the Mother’s request to bring the child inside the house as it was too cold outside. A short time later the Father threatened the Mother that if she did not allow the Father to keep the child overnight her day would come.
The Mother is very fearful for her life and that of the child. She is constantly worried that the Father might carry out his threats.
Following the Court’s interim parenting Orders of 24 December 2019, relating to the child spending supervised time with the Father (initially supervised by a contact Centre), the Father verbally abused the Mother and threatened her with harm unless the Mother handed over the child to the paternal grandmother in relation to a proposed visit between the child and the Father.
The Father verbally abused the Mother in March 2020, and sent abusive text messages to the Mother in relation to the Father spending time with the child or having FaceTime with the child.
In early April 2020 out of fear and tired of the ongoing abuse, the Mother allowed the Father to see the child under her supervision for about an hour. The Mother did not feel safe or comfortable during this time despite the maternal grandmother being close by. The Mother had previously supervised discrete limited time between the child and the Father in late January 2020, and late February 2020.
The Mother has had to move out of her house and move into a woman’s refugee camp which is where she is currently based.
The Mother does not support the paternal extended family supervising the child’s time with the Father because the Mother believes that they cannot control the Father who does as he pleases. The Mother has explained to the paternal grandmother the current Court Orders however she still contacts the Mother demanding that the Mother let the Father see the child despite the fact that they would be breaching Court Orders.
The Father sent the Mother abusive text messages following the release of the Family Report (dated 16 November 2020). He has also been charged with breach of an AVO and was sentenced in May 2021 to 300 hours of community service, as well as a Community Corrections Order until 26 May 2024.
The Mother develops anxiety on each occasion the Father calls the child or spends supervised time with him because the Mother believes the Father is unpredictable. The Mother believes the Father is like a time bomb which can explode at any given time.
The Father’s Affidavit
In about May 2019 the Father attended the Mother’s house and knocked numerous times on her door to see the child. The Mother did not answer. Out of anger and frustration for not being able to see and spend time with the child, the Father messaged the Mother saying, “I would kick your front door”. The Mother then reported the Father to the police.
From early June 2020 to about mid-September 2020 the child spent supervised time with the Father at his home through H Contact Centre.
In about October 2 December 2020, the Father would occasionally spend time with the child through visiting the Mother.
Between December 2020 to March 2021, the Father was unable to afford the contact visit as he had lost his job due to COVID-19.
In May 2021 the Father recommenced spending supervised time with the child through H Contact Centre for a period of three hours each visit. H Contact Centre then advised the Father that due to a recent lockdown imposed by the government they were unable to supervise and manage visits. Visits with the child then ceased on 10 July 2021.
On 29 July 2021 interim parenting Orders were made for video communications between the child and the Father twice per week. On a without admissions basis, an Order was made that the Father not engage in abusive communications with the Mother during these calls.
On 20 October 2021 the Father’s application for unsupervised time with the child was dismissed following a contested interim hearing. The Father was ordered to complete a men’s behaviour change program in person. Orders were made for any time between the child and the Father to continue to be supervised until he has at least completed a men’s behaviour change program.
Between July 2021 and November 2021 the Father spent time with the child by FaceTime. The Father continues to spend time with the child twice and sometimes three times a week via FaceTime.
On 17 November 2021 the Father recommenced his supervised time with the child and would spend two hours each visit. He had one supervised visit in November 2021, one in December 2021, two in January 2021 and one in March 2022.
The Father has been in contact with the child’s preschool to keep him updated as to the child’s progress.
There is a current AVO imposed on the Father by the Suburb J Local Court expiring in May 2024 for the protection of the Mother and child. The Father was also sentenced to a Community Correction Order for three years expiring May 2024 and 300 hours of community service.The Father alleges that all these offences relate to the Mother not allowing him to spend time with the child.The Father states that he is sorry for his behaviour however he was frustrated and continues to be frustrated as the Mother does not allow him to spend any unsupervised time with the child. The Father believes that the Mother would do anything necessary to prevent him from spending time with the child.
The Father alleges that he has restrained from taking drugs since 2017. He alleges that he has also stopped consuming alcohol.
The Father’s urine drug tests, chain of custody, on 24 June 2019, 28 October 2019, 11 December 2019, 18 March 2020, 3 August 2021, 10 August 2021, 13 July 2022, and 2 August 2022, were negative for illicit drugs (and negative for alcohol for tests on 3 August 2021, and 10 August 2021). A CDT test on 18 March 2020 was negative for recent or ongoing excessive alcohol use.
The Father has attended and completed the Keeping Kids in Mind parenting course organised by K Counselling of City L to help him increase the support he offers to the child and minimise issues with the Mother. He has also enrolled in an anger management programme at K Counselling in accordance with the court Orders. Further, he has successfully completed the following courses:
(a)Seeing Red Program;
(b)Supporting Victims of Domestic Violence;
(c)Be in Control, Psychology of Self-Control Impulsivity Course;
(d)Psychology of Self-Control core impulsivity course; and
(e)Impulsive, Destructive and Explosive Anger Management course.

The Father has contacted G Counsellors and he is on the waiting list to undertake “Taking Responsibility” course. He was advised by the officers of G Counsellors that this course is conducted face to face and due to COVID-19 and the restrictions imposed on face to face contact, there has been a backlog of enrolment as the sessions were cancelled.
He has made more recent contact with G Counsellors and participated in an assessment intake on 15 March 2022 and another assessment intake has been scheduled for 29 March 2022.
He has also contacted M Families in order to enrol in “Facing Up” Course, who also had a backlog of enrolment due to COVID-19 and he was placed on the waiting lists. M Families is unable to provide him with confirmation letter of my enrolment until he has completed the intake assessment.
On 15 March 2022 G Counsellors NSW confirmed with the Father in writing that he had completed the first assessment on 15 March 2022 and had booked the second assessment on 29 March 2022. He was advised that the Family Safety Program involves one on one casework sessions and a Taking Responsibility 18-session group program for men who, inter alia, are ready to take responsibility for their use of violent and/or abusive behaviours in their significant relationships.
Oral evidence of parties
The Mother
The Mother gave oral evidence and was cross-examined. The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of her oral evidence.
The Mother stated that she was undertaking studies to become a tradesperson.
The Mother was cross-examined by the Father.
The Mother stated that there are good and bad days in terms of the child’s video calls with the Father. She stated that sometimes the child isn’t speaking or doing what the Father wants to do and that has been difficult. She stated that the child does get hung up on a lot and the child has told this to the Mother.
The Mother stated that the child was now in behavioural counselling. She stated the child does play up a lot.
The Mother stated that she came down from Queensland to Sydney because she was scared for her family. She stated that her sister’s family was threatened if the Mother did not travel to Sydney. The Mother stated that she had not wanted to come down to Sydney because she had a good support network with her family in Queensland.
It was put to the Mother that the Father has always been passionate about spending time with the child. The Mother stated that the Father has been passionate about spending time with the child; she stated that he is very aggressive or passive with passion. The Mother stated that the Father was not always easy to deal with.
The Mother confirmed that when the Father’s time with the child was decreased the Father became very upset and angry.
The Mother stated that when she had been breastfeeding the child there was a time when the Mother could not produce enough breast milk to go with the child but the Father wanted to spend time with him. The Mother confirmed that the Father didn’t understand the exigencies and whenever the Mother did allow the child to spend time with the Father it was never enough for the Father. The Mother said this was difficult.
It was put to the Mother that she conceded to the child spending extra time with the Father. The Mother stated that she felt very pressured doing it most of the time.
The Mother stated that she does not have an alcohol and drug problem. She has a child. She stated that she has turned her life around over the last five years. She stated that she can say that she does not drink (alcohol) and does not do drugs. She stated that she was a horrible person when she was addicted.
It was put to the Mother that since 2021 there has been no positive urinalysis test for the Father. The Mother stated however that there were two tests that the Father did not undertake. The Mother stated that she was reading the ICL’s notes on the Commonwealth Portal and she saw one or two tests that the Father did not complete.
It was put to the Mother that the Father would have learnt from having completed certain self-improvement programs. The Mother agreed but stated that there was still text messages that she receives from the Father which are abusive; for example the Mother is accused of being a liar, selfish, and evil.
It was put to the Mother that the Father has changed (positively). The Mother responded that she does not agree entirely. She stated that it was a big concern if the Father had not changed moving forward.
It was put to the Mother that even when the child spent supervised time with the Father, the Mother had no concern regarding that time. The Mother stated that it has always been a concern and that she does not know how the Father will be on his own (that is, without supervision).
The Mother stated there is a history of violence. She stated that the Father has a very short temper. She stated that the Father gets angry easily. The Mother stated that the child is high-energy and she does not know how the Father would cope.
The Mother confirmed that she left high school in Year 9. She did Year 10 at TAFE. Then she did trades work. Now she is studying.
It was put to the Mother that there has been no occasion when the child spent time with the Father that there has been an adverse outcome for the child. The Mother stated, “Not to my knowledge, no.”
The Mother stated she still has concerns that the Father is using drugs.She stated that drugs were found in the Father’s system in 2021. The Mother stated that she knows from past experience how hard it is to get off drugs.
The Mother stated that she attends AA (Alcoholics Anonymous). She is a happy person. She will always be an addict but she is not in addiction.
The Mother stated that the child’s last visit with the Father was last Monday week. She had brought the child to the visit. She stated that the parties spoke for about 20 minutes sitting down which was not in the presence of a supervisor. The Mother stated that she has ceased doing that; she stated that she thought there was no AVO but there was one.
The Mother stated that the Father says that when the child is older he will tell him everything which is not supportive of the child’s relationship with her.
The Mother stated that her former female partner, on the day that she died, did not consume drugs in front of her. The Mother stated that if she knew this woman was taking heroin she would have got an ambulance to help her. She stated that if she had known this woman had consumed heroin it would have been a different outcome (for the woman).
It was put to the Mother that she was not very fearful for her life and that of the child (in relation to the Father). The Mother disagreed stating that when the Father has been around the Mother and the child there has been violence, there is always arguments, and the Father gets angry with her during telephone calls. The Mother stated she was fearful.
The Mother was asked whether she was frightened on 1 August 2022 (when she was with the child and the Father). The Mother stated she was always fearful of him. She stated that this was a public place. The Mother stated that it was when things don’t go the Father’s way that he will blow up. She stated that it is always a concern for her and it is scary.
The Mother was questioned as to text messages sent by the Father to her since 31 March 2022. The Mother stated that there were not as many nasty messages, however the Father was very demanding asking the Mother to let him see the child and telling the Mother that she was selfish and was making “fucking lies”, telling the Mother she was pathetic, and blaming her because the Father could not have a birthday party for the child. In this context the Mother referred to the Father’s erratic and abusive behaviour.
The Mother stated that the Father does know the address of the child’s preschool. The Mother stated that she would not give the Father her address.
The ICL cross-examined the Mother.
It was put to the Mother that she did have text messages from the Father that were more contemporaneous that were abusive, to which the Mother replied in the affirmative. The ICL made a call for such documents.
The Mother confirmed that her communication with the Father is unpleasant. She stated that her experience, despite the supervised visit on 1 August 2022, was that the Father’s behaviour is unpredictable.
The Mother could not recall any instances where she and the Father were able to agree to something regarding the child.
The Mother stated that although the child could start school next year his daycare feels that he is not yet ready. The Mother stated that emotionally the child was not ready. The Mother stated that the next appointment with the paediatrician was in September 2022 and she would have the results of a school assessment for the child by this time. She stated that that assessment would determine if the Mother sends the child to school next year.
The Mother stated that the Father chose to obtain information regarding the child from the Kinderloop App. She confirmed that she wants information to be given to the Father regarding the child to be at arm’s length (from her). She confirmed that the Father’s abuse continues although it has toned down of late. She stated that the Father’s text messages to her are relentless at times and she feels prevailed upon at times.
The Mother stated that on 1 August 2022, when she was with the child and the Father, it was a spontaneous decision for her to allow that to occur. She stated that she had felt more comfortable being in a public place. When asked why she had allowed that visit to occur, the Mother stated that it had been a while since the Mother had seen the Father, the Father had done the travelling, it had not been too rocky over the telephone, and she just thought, “have a chat”.
The Mother stated that she would like a relationship between the child and the Father if the child was safe, and it was not hostile or abusive between the parties.
The Mother was asked, in the context of her affidavit evidence that the Father has anger issues, whether it worried her that the Father might explode if spending time with the child. The Mother stated that that was a possibility; the child was high-energy and can be naughty.
She stated the Father might get upset if the child did something “girly”. In this latter context, the Mother stated that the Father thinks that the child will be gay because the Mother was in a lesbian relationship. The Mother stated that she had heard the Father speaking like that. She stated the Father gets annoyed if the child does something “girly”.
The Mother was questioned in relation to video calls between the child and the Father. The Mother stated that “I do and I don’t” stay in the room during such calls. She stated that it was awkward when the Father asked her questions. She stated a few months ago the Father got angry when speaking to the child stating, “why aren’t you looking at me, is your Mother there?
The Mother stated that she ingests the medication mirtazapine which she finds beneficial for her mood.
The Mother stated that she engages with a care worker in relation to her eldest son.
The Mother stated that she has a counsellor, who is a psychologist, for her own emotional well-being whom she sees fortnightly.
The Mother was asked why she seeks a no contact order. She stated that that is related to the Father’s behaviour and what happened in the past. She stated that if there was to be a relationship between the child and the Father she wanted it to be safe. She stated that she does not want any relationship with the Father. She stated that if the parties could have a healthy co-parenting relationship that would be ideal.
The Mother stated that she would definitely feel uncomfortable if the court made an order for the child to spend time with the Father.
The Mother was asked what would be the impact upon her should the Father have unsupervised time with the child. The Mother replied by stating that it would impact her greatly. She is very concerned, scared and worried. She stated she does not know what it would be like. She stated it was very stressful. She stated that it (would) affect how she is with the child.
In the context of the ICL’s proposed Orders, the Mother stated that she would have more comfort if Orders were made for the Father to undertake a hair follicle test, spend supervised time with the child and complete a men’s behaviour change program. In the latter context, the Mother confirmed that she would like to know whether the Father had learnt anything from such a program.
The Mother confirmed to the Court that she ingests mirtazapine, an antidepressant, for depression.
The Father
The Father gave oral evidence and was cross-examined. The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of his oral evidence.
In evidence in chief, the Father stated his occupation was a tradesperson but he was now on Centrelink benefits.
The Father was cross-examined by the Mother.
The Father confirmed that he has one matter pending at Suburb A Local Court, relating to a malicious damage charge from about two years ago.
The Father agreed that the statement in his Affidavit (filed 21 March 2022) that he has restrained from taking drugs since 2017 was not correct. He confirmed a conviction on 17 March 2022 in relation to possess prohibited drug, drive vehicle with illicit drug present in blood, on 29 April 2021. The Father stated that the last time he used drugs would have been in April 2021.
The Father agreed that there was one occasion when he did not comply with an ICL drug test request because he could not afford it.
The Father was asked what he had learnt from the “Keeping Kids in Mind” course. The Father responded by stating that he had done the course a long time ago. He stated that he had learnt a lot from all the courses. He had learnt about being a parent to parent his son.
It was put to the Father that he did not remember what he had learnt from the courses that he had previously completed. The Father stated, “I’ve learnt.” Then he stated that he did not remember.
The Father stated that he had not completed the anger management course. He stated that he had been enrolled in it and then COVID-19 came in.
The Father stated that he had completed the “Seeing Red” program early in 2021. He stated that he had learnt about anger issues that he was going through. It had helped him through that. Through his anger. It was a five weeks course with group sessions.
He had done the “Supporting Victims of Domestic Violence” course online being a three-week course for a couple of hours each week. He said he had learnt different types of domestic violence and what (victims) all go through. To be supportive of what they’re going through.
He stated that the “Be in Control” course he had done online, which had been for about four weeks. He stated that he had learnt about impulsive urges – whatever triggers him. “If I get angry or whatever”.
He completed the “Impulsive, Destructive and Explosive Anger Management” course early in 2021. In relation to this course the Father stated that he had learnt about his anger.
The Father agreed that most of the courses that he had completed involved anger management. The Father stated that since completing these courses he has been able to control his anger.
The Father stated that in these courses he had learnt about communicating with the Mother.
It was put to the Father that from 4 April 2022 he had exchanged text messages with the Mother, to which the Father responded, “maybe”.
The Father recalled sending text messages to the Mother on 4 April 2022, and contained within Exhibit B.
The Father confirmed completing the “Seeing Red” program on about 21 November 2020. He stated that he had learnt about anger issues from this program.
The Father confirmed that he had addressed his anger issues having completed the courses (referred to in his Affidavit). He disagreed that he was not a changed man.
It was put to the Father that prior to doing the above courses he had referred to the Mother as an “evil cunt”, to which the Father stated “maybe”. It was then put to the Father that he had referred to the Mother as an “evil cunt” after he had completed these courses, to which the Father agreed stating that he still felt the same about not seeing the child.
As to the text messages sent to the Mother in April 2022, the Father stated that he had had a bad day and that he was frustrated. He stated that all the messages had been sent in frustration at not having seen the child for a significant time.
The Father stated he recalled sending a text message to the Mother on 29 January 2022 at 1:40pm and contained within Exhibit B.
The Father stated he still maintained that he had learnt to control his anger from the courses that he had completed.
It was put to the Father that there was a pattern whereby sometimes the Father sent nice messages to the Mother and then in other messages to the Mother he exploded. The Father replied by stating that he gets ignored about seeing the child.
It was put to the Father that it was his choice to use a private contact service over the Suburb A Contact Centre. The Father replied by stating that was his choice to use H Contact Centre instead of waiting a year (to spend time with the child at the contact centre).
The Father stated that the tone of his text messages to the Mother had changed since he had done the courses.
The Father was cross-examined in relation to paragraph 38 of his Affidavit which referred to, inter alia, a current AVO imposed on the Father by the Suburb J Local Court for the protection of the Mother and the child. He confirmed that as a result of his frustration he acted as he did. He stated, inter alia, that he blamed the Mother for not letting him see the child.
It was put to the Father that he had put a lot of pressure on the Mother to allow him to spend time with the child supervised by the Mother. The Father responded by stating that he had made no threats to the Mother and that his only threat had previously been that he would kick her door which he did not do.
The Father agreed that following the Court’s interim parenting Orders made 24 December 2019 he had sent a series of emails to lawyers which were abusive. He said he regretted this behaviour and he has apologised. He said the Court’s Orders of 24 December 2019 tore him apart.
The Father was asked why the Court would have confidence that he would not continue to get frustrated and abuse the Mother if the Court made Orders that were less generous than the ones he seeks (in relation to spending time with the child). The Father responded by stating that he would not do that.
The Father stated that the Mother could have agreed to him spending unsupervised time with the child despite the Court’s Orders that he spend supervised time with the child.
The ICL cross-examined the Father.
The Father stated that he had completed the courses (referred to in paragraph 40 of his Affidavit) because the Court had ordered him. He was asked whether he thought there was any good reason why the Court had asked him to do courses, to which the Father replied, “for the nasty messages I sent to the Mother”. The Father was asked whether his frustration in sending the messages to the Mother was a good enough reason to send them to her to which he replied in the negative.
The Father was asked whether he understood that sending messages of that nature to the Mother was a form of abuse. The Father responded in the affirmative but stated that it was also abuse to stop a Father seeing his son. The Father was then asked whether he was the victim to which the Father replied, “I should be”.
The Father was referred to his earlier evidence that the “Be in Control, Psychology of Self-Control Impulsivity Course” was that it was about what triggered him. The Father stated that he was triggered by not getting to see the child. He stated he does not get to see the child including at Christmas and Easter. He stated he was just trying to be a dad.

The Father stated that in the above course they had told him not to let it get to him; to not fall victim to the trap. Clarifying, he was told not to fall into anything they’re trying to do to him. The Father was then asked who were “they”, to which the Father replied that “they” was the Mother. He stated that he was told not to get easily frustrated when he was ignored, to just cop it on the chin. He stated that he cannot cop it on the chin.
It was put to the Father that he had sent a text message to the Mother on about 5 April 2022 stating, inter alia, “Poor X misses out cause of you and I can’t wait to show him every fuvking Mesg when he’s older cause he going to hate you so fuvking much for taking us away from each other”. The Father stated that he should not have written that message and that it was bad. The Father was asked why he thought it was okay to say that to the Mother. The Father replied by stating, “Why is it okay for them to do it to me.” A short time later the Father stated that the messages were not nice but what the Mother was doing to him was not nice.
It was put to the Father that he was not able to control his frustration even though he had completed the courses he had done. The Father stated that he was in the same position that he was in three years ago. He stated he still does not understand. He stated that there had been supervised visits now for two years. He stated that his time with the child should have been unsupervised two years ago.
It was put to the Father that he had become triggered during a FaceTime call with the child when the child was wearing makeup and he believed that the Mother had applied the makeup and the Mother was provoking him, to which the Father agreed.
In re-examination, the Father identified certain messages that he had sent to the Mother where he had obtained no reply from her. The Father stated that that was when he got triggered.
Exhibits
The Court does not propose to set out or refer to the entirety of the exhibits.
Exhibit A is a Court Attendance Notice for the Father, at the Suburb A Local Court, relating to an outstanding charge against him that on 5 December 2020 at Suburb A he did intentionally destroy property, to wit, a driveway gate the property of a third person.
Exhibit E, being a letter from G Counsellors NSW to the Father in relation to the Casework and a Taking Responsibility 18 session group program, confirms that he has completed two assessment sessions in March 2022; four individual sessions from April 2022 to early August 2022; and a further individual session has been booked for 12 August 2022.
The Child Dispute Conference
This conference (“CDC”) was held on 30 October 2019 with the parents by Ms N, Family Consultant.
The Mother’s statements to the Family Consultant regarding family violence perpetrated by the Father were consistent with her Affidavit filed 31 March 2022.
Mr Hendry said that Ms Woods has an ADVO on him in NSW and QLD but that he does not have any ADVO on her. Mr Hendry denied that he has a problem managing anger but he said that he had completed four of five sessions of anger management program at Well-being at Suburb A, in order to satisfy Ms Woods.
Mr Hendry denied that he had ever been physically violent towards Ms Woods. He said he had restrained her when she had been hitting him. Mr Hendry admitted to being verbally abusive towards Ms Woods and he also admitted to threatening her when she withheld X from him stating “I’ve sent some nasty messages.” Mr Hendry acknowledged she had breached the ADVO by contacting Ms Woods and asking to see X. Mr Hendry strongly maintained that he would never act on any threats and he said he does not wish to engage with Ms Woods other than to be able to have a relationship with X.
During the interview for the CDC, the Family Consultant observed Mr Hendry to speak very fast, get frustrated, distressed and to go on with what could only be described as a “rant” at times. The Family Consultant explained to Mr Hendry about his presentation when discussing these issues and he acknowledged this may be the case, stating that he is very distressed about not having the opportunity to spend regular time with X, which he referred to as “missing out”. The Family Consultant explained that such a presentation could make Ms Woods feel intimidated and advised Mr Hendry to implement the strategies he had been learning in anger management. Mr Hendry maintained that Ms Woods knows he would never harm her but he agreed that, for the time being, it would be better if they did not come into contact until things had calm down. Mr Hendry maintained that if he was able to spend time with X he would not be as distressed and worked up.
Ms Woods said the reason that she has not agreed to X spending time with Mr Hendry is because he is an irritable, aggressive person and there is an ADVO. She said that she is concerned that X will witness Mr Hendry get “worked up” because he is scary when this occurs. She said that, in addition, changeovers would be difficult because “we can argue over everything and anything” and she is concerned about X being exposed to this. Ms Woods said that Mr Hendry is not physically violent towards X but she said that he has not had much contact with him so has not had the opportunity to do so. She claimed she is concerned that he does not understand child development and therefore may not be able to tolerate normal child behaviour and may lash out at X verbally or physically.
In relation to the Mother’s previous illicit drug use, Mr Hendry acknowledged that Ms Woods had “cleaned up living with her sister.”
Mr Hendry claimed that the last time he used illicit substance was with Ms Woods, before X was born.
Both parents said they are willing to be drug tested. Mr Hendry reported he is currently doing weekly chain of custody drug tests because he is “desperate” to spend time with X and wants to demonstrate to the Court that he is not using illicit substances.
Ms Woods said she believes that X should have a relationship with Mr Hendry if it is possible but she does not believe this will be possible until Mr Hendry has completed drug and alcohol counselling, an anger management program and a parenting course.
Mr Hendry said he is willing to do a parenting program, such as “Circle of Security” and has the flexibility in his work hours to be able to complete a daytime program.
Mr Hendry has agreed to complete the parenting program circle of security. Venues offering this program can be located at <
The family consultant stated that it was unclear whether the content of the anger management program Mr Hendry is attending is adequate and he may benefit from completing a men’s behaviour change program with G Counsellors.
It is recommended that Mr Hendry be ordered to complete the parenting program Circle of Security. It was recommended that both parents complete a post separation parenting program.
It is recommended that both parents undergo hair testing to determine if they are currently using illicit substances.
It is recommended that Mr Hendry commence spending time with X under supervision at a children’s contact centre. Given Mr Hendry’s flexibility with his working hours, this could possibly occur at Suburb A on a Friday afternoon, when the waiting list is not as long.
The Court accepts the evidence of the Family Consultant.
The Family Report
The Family Report writer was Ms O, Family Consultant, and her report is dated 16 November 2020.
The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of the contents of the Family Report.
The Family Report interviews were held in October 2020.
The Family Report writer understood that the child spent supervised time with the Father supervised by H Contact Centre and which had occurred on occasions in June, July, August, and September 2020. At the time of the interviews, the child had been communicating with the Father multiple times per week via video call and had commenced spending ad hoc time with the Father supervised by the Mother.
The Family Report writer stated that the Mother lives with the child in a two-bedroom unit in the inner west of Sydney. The Mother is currently looking for paid employment and is in the process of enrolling in further education. The child attend the local daycare on a Thursday and Friday.
The Father lives alone in a two-bedroom rental house in Suburb P. He is self-employed as a tradesman and works flexible hours.
The Family Report writer stated that the Mother had alleged that the Father had been physically and verbally abusive towards her both prior to her pregnancy with the child and after he was born. The Mother had alleged that the Father had threatened to harm her.
The Father told the Family Report writer that he no longer uses any illicit drugs. The Mother told the Family Report writer that at present she only engages in limited alcohol consumption and no drug use.
The Mother was interviewed.
The Mother told the Family Report writer that she had concerns about how the parties could communicate in relation to the child.
After Ms Woods explained that she had allowed for X to spend time with Mr Hendry twice, in the weeks preceding the Family Report interviews, she said “I know I should not have” and said that her solicitor had advised her not to facilitate time and was not aware that she had done so. Ms Woods said she did not really know if Mr Hendry was in breach of the ADVO when he recently spent time with X. She said she had allowed Mr Hendry to spend time with X because “I just feel bad” and “I feel for [Mr Hendry]”. Ms Woods added “I just want to be able to get along with him”.
Ms Woods said that prior to the second recent visit, Mr Hendry had sent her several long text messages, displeased when she would not facilitate the time in her home. She recalled that Mr Hendry had cancelled the plan to spend time with X because he could not do it at her home. Ms Woods said that Mr Hendry then changed his mind and agreed to meet them at McDonalds. Ms Woods said that the time at McDonalds and the previous time at a friend’s house, had occurred without any major incidents. However, she explained that after X had spent some time with Mr Hendry at McDonalds, Mr Hendry started asking her if he could accompany them home to spend extra time with X. She said that Mr Hendry asked several times and that when she did not agree to his proposal, Mr Hendry “called me a dog”. She said that Mr Hendry was angry but not extremely angry and that she did not feel scared.
Ms Woods said she has no specific concerns about Mr Hendry’s mental health. However, she stated that Mr Hendry has had long term issues with “anger” which she said she did not believe were related to drug use.
Ms Woods said that Mr Hendry has been charged with multiple breaches of the NSW ADVO. She alleged that the most recent breach was when he threatened to kill her over the telephone. Ms Woods said that at the time Mr Hendry was in a “rage” and that she felt genuinely concerned for her safety. Ms Woods said that she does not feel protected by the current ADVO. She said that Mr Hendry had also made numerous threats to the maternal aunt when she and X were living with her in Queensland. This is what led to a five-year ADVO in Queensland against Mr Hendry, naming Ms Woods and the maternal aunt as protected people.
The Father was interviewed.
Mr Hendry said that his supervised time with X stopped because of the cost of the service. He then stated “I don’t think that is fair” that he needed to pay to spend time with his son. Mr Hendry said that he and Ms Woods had arranged his recent time with X without consulting the solicitors. He said that they had communicated through “Messenger” to arrange the time.
Mr Hendry said that he commenced using methamphetamine (ice) around ten years ago and was a daily user for a period. He denied using any illicit drugs since around six to seven months before X was born. Mr Hendry said he sought no medical or psychological assistance to stop using and said he just took vitamins and slept a lot. He claimed once he stopped using, he never had a lapse. Mr Hendry reported that he also had a history of regular cannabis use when he was a teenager and has used cocaine and MDMA (ecstasy).
Mr Hendry said that he had been convicted of driving under the influence of methamphetamines in 2015 and assault two to three times for being involved in “street fights”. He said that he has also been convicted of a breach of ADVO after he called Ms Woods “50 times”. Mr Hendry said he has been charged and is awaiting court for another breach of ADVO when he again called Ms Woods. Mr Hendry justified his breaches saying he just wanted to see his son. He commented “my criminal record is pretty good and pretty clean” and said he had only been in jail when Ms Woods had caused him to be.
Mr Hendry became visibly agitated when he was being asked about Ms Woods’ allegations of family violence, however, he was not aggressive. He denied ever being physically violent or ever threatening to harm Ms Woods. He conceded that he had called Ms Woods “nasty names” but said that it is understandable to have “outbursts” when you have your son taken away. Further he explained that the name calling was him trying to emotionally hurt Ms Woods because she was hurting him by not letting him see X. Mr Hendry said that he had commenced an anger management course in 2019 but not completed it. He said he has just commenced “Seeing Red” at K Counselling, Suburb A and said that there were four in the class, including one female.
Mr Hendry stated that he and the paternal grandmother, Ms B Hendry, have not communicated with each other in around six months. He said she is in her seventies and not really suitable to be involved in facilitating his time with X. He said that if a family member needed to be involved in changeovers, the paternal uncle, Mr Q or the paternal aunt, Ms R, would “100% per cent” be available to assist. Although, Mr Hendry made it clear he did not feel that this was necessary.
Mr Hendry said that he and X have a close relationship but stressed that they need more time together to further develop their relationship. He commented that, X “just wants me”. Mr Hendry described his parenting style as “firm” but “relaxed”. He said that he wants X to grow up being respectful and a “good boy”. Mr Hendry perceived that a parenting strength he has is that he can “say no” to X, where Ms Woods cannot do this. Mr Hendry said that he could improve on being there for X emotionally and work out what he is thinking and what is driving his tantrums.
Ms Woods said that she has not been present for much of X’s time with Mr Hendry, so she was unsure of the nature of their relationship. She acknowledged that the supervised contact reports were “all very positive”. Ms Woods said that X was happy to see Mr Hendry when they recently spent time together. She said that Mr Hendry “gets a bit frustrated and upset that X does not run up to him” when they meet. Ms Woods also stated that Mr Hendry does not know “how to handle X” when X has a tantrum but also said that Mr Hendry considers himself more able than her to discipline X. Ms Woods said that she does not believe Mr Hendry has a complete understanding of X and his needs. She gave the example that Mr Hendry gets upset if X does not hold the phone or talk to him properly when he calls. Ms Woods said that Mr Hendry is not open to feedback from her about realistic expectations for X using the telephone. She said Mr Hendry accuses her of causing the problem and that Mr Hendry says, “I get in [X’s] head and say bad stuff about his Dad”.
Under the heading “Evaluation”, the Family Report writer stated, inter alia, that the Father was highly focused on the Mother not having facilitated his time with the child.
The Family Report writer stated that the accounts provided by the parties and the supervisor from H Contact Centre indicate that the child is familiar and comfortable with the Father. In this context the Family Report writer stated that the Father aptly had commented that he requires more time with the child to further develop their relationship and for the Father to become more emotionally attuned to him.
The Father appeared limited in his knowledge of raising a child of the child’s age. The supervisor had commented in the supervision reports that the Father met the child’s needs but she did report that she prompted the Father to change the child’s nappy on several occasions and made suggestions about soothing the child when he was distressed. The Family Report writer stated that it was unfortunate that the Father has not yet completed the “Circle of Security” parenting group.
The Family Report writer stated that it would appear that the most significant risk of harm issue in the matter was in regard to the family violence allegedly perpetrated by the Father, including alleged threatening behaviour by him. On interview, the Father demonstrated limited capacity to take responsibility for the family violence. The family violence that the Father did concede to, the Father suggested was expected and justifiable given his situation and appeared to blame the Mother for his behaviour given she had not provided him access to the child even though the later incidents had occurred when there were various Court Orders precluding him from spending the time that he was requesting.
The Family Report writer stated that Mr Hendry’s narrative seemed to suggest that if Orders were made for him to spend, what he deems, a suitable amount of time with X, that this behaviour will not be repeated. This is a matter for the Court to make a determination on the likelihood and impact of ongoing family violence following Final Orders. Based on the information available to this report, Mr Hendry’s repeated breaches of the ADVO and alleged attempts at making arrangements contrary to the parenting Orders suggest a disregard and contempt for authority which is a further risk factor for family violence. The impression given by Mr Hendry’s actions is that he has a sense of entitlement to spend time with X and prioritises this over compliance with Court Orders. Mr Hendry’s behaviour raises significant concerns about his willingness to comply with future parenting or family violence Orders, as well as possible repeated episodes of family violence when Mr Hendry’s expectations are not met or he disagrees with an outcome for X.
On interview, Ms Woods said that she had agreed to Mr Hendry’s recent requests to spend time with X because she felt “bad” and wanted them to get along. Ms Woods has indicated in a previous affidavit that she had agreed for X to spend time with Mr Hendry due to the pressure Mr Hendry had placed on her. Ms Woods indicated that she agrees to the Orders that Mr Hendry is seeking but when asked in more detail about the Orders and their workability, Ms Woods indicated she was not confident about the proposal. This, along with the inconsistency in Ms Woods’ narrative throughout these proceedings, gave the impression that she was minimising and/or not speaking freely about her concerns.
The Family Report writer stated that there appears to be a dynamic, which is consistent with such patterns of family violence, between Ms Woods and Mr Hendry whereby, Ms Woods seems to make decisions that are contrary to the professional advice that she has received, in order to placate Mr Hendry. This is a concerning dynamic and means that Ms Woods had failed to follow Court Orders that were put in place to protect the safety and wellbeing of X. It was notable, that throughout the interview, when Ms Woods spoke about her reasoning behind her proposals, it was in related to what was fair or would make her feel less guilty in relation to Mr Hendry and not about what she believed was in X’s best interests.
If the Court finds that there is veracity to the allegations of family violence in this matter and it is likely to continue then both Ms Woods and Mr Hendry’s parenting capacity may be compromised. Ms Woods being exposed to ongoing fear and intimidation by Mr Hendry may have a negative impact on her mental health, capacity to be emotionally attuned to X, capacity to make sound risk of harm judgements in relation to X and self-confidence as a parent. Given Ms Woods’ history of vulnerability to addiction and her apparent inability to protect E from risk of harm it is particularly important that the Court give consideration to Orders that attempt to minimise any disruption to Ms Woods’ (who is X’s primary care giver) parenting capacity.

The Family Report writer stated that if Mr Hendry has perpetrated the family violence that Ms Woods alleges, then consideration needs to be given to Mr Hendry’s parenting capacity. It would raise concerns about Mr Hendry’s capacity to promote X’s relationship with Ms Woods, provide consistent, predictable and emotionally attuned care to X and engage in suitable disciplinary techniques. If X disappoints or frustrates Mr Hendry it may put X at risk of violent outbursts. Additionally, if there is veracity to the allegations of family violence, it may put X at risk of directly witnessing violence perpetrated by Mr Hendry in the future.
The Family Report writer stated that throughout the course of these proceedings there has been discussion about Mr Hendry attending a men’s behaviour change program. Mr Hendry has now commenced ‘Seeing Red’ at K Counselling Suburb A which is positive and he may well gain benefit from this program. But it is not a men’s behaviour change program. Given the nature and severity of the allegations of family violence allegedly perpetrated by Mr Hendry a program such as “Seeing Red” is not designed to address the specific issues required. “Taking Responsibility” run by G Counsellors and “Facing Up” run by M Families are the men’s behaviour change programs in Sydney.
The Family Report writer stated that if the Court has concerns about the ongoing risk of family violence, then a consideration will need to be made about the likelihood of X’s time being able to progress from supervised to unsupervised. If X is to continue spending time with Mr Hendry, it is likely to be in X’s best interests if his time with Mr Hendry continues to be supervised until he attends a men’s behaviour change program. Ideally this supervision would be undertaken by a professional supervision service. In the alternative a suitable family member, if one is available, could be considered for a supervisor. Ms B Hendry’s suitability could not be determined in the family interviews as Mr Hendry said their relationship had broken down and was not willing for her to be involved supervision or in the interviews. It does not appear that Ms Woods would be a suitable ongoing supervisor, given the allegations of previous family violence.
The Family Report writer stated that it appears likely to be in X’s best interests if Ms Woods and Mr Hendry do not come into contact at changeovers until a significant period of time has occurred whereby there is no conflict between Ms Woods or Mr Hendry, or instances of family violence. Suburb A Children’s Contact Service and Region S Children’s Contact Service are both able to facilitate changeover services.
The Family Report writer stated that X is a young child, with parents who are not able to respectfully communicate about his routines, needs and arrangements. X is only used to spending three hours of supervised time with Mr Hendry.
The Family Report writer’s recommendations were:
(a)Ms Woods have sole parental responsibility for X;
(b)X continue to live primarily with Ms Woods;
(c)X continue to spend supervised time with Mr Hendry until Mr Hendry has completed a men’s behaviour change program;
(d)That consideration then be given to X spending unsupervised time with Mr Hendry;
(e)That Ms Woods and Mr Hendry not come into contact with each other on changeover until there has been no significant conflict or family violence for a period of one year.
The Family Report writer gave oral evidence. The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of such evidence.
The ICL questioned the Family Report writer.
The ICL questioned the Family Report writer in relation to the Father’s current level of insight into his behaviours towards the Mother and this evidence was given:
MS STOLIER: So, ma’am, the Father gave – the Mother gave oral evidence yesterday or the day before yesterday that [X] is no longer receiving speech therapy, but he has been assessed, and that is ..... behavioural therapy report. She also gave evidence that the Father has continued to send her text messages which are abusive in tone. Sometimes they’re not as abusive, and sometimes they’re not abusive at all. She also reiterated her concern about the Father’s authenticity in relation to being clean of illicit substances. The Father, for his part, gave oral evidence that sometimes his text messages were not abusive, that he has done a number of courses, and he did those courses because he was ordered to do so by the court. Some of those courses have not been completed, but that’s due to COVID situation. He gave evidence that the trigger for his frustration is not being able to see his son unsupervised or as often as he likes. He gave very clear evidence that it was his view that the Mother was responsible for him not seeing his son. He blames her. And when the court asked him directly whether he – or reminded him directly that there were Orders in place which provided the supervised time for [X] with his Father that the Mother had to adhere to, the Father said he still expected the Mother to give him unsupervised time. He said he was the victim. When asked questions about the courses that he attended, he wasn’t able to articulate in any detail what he learnt from them. So, ma’am, given what you’ve read and what I’ve just put to you, are you able to make a comment about the Father’s current level of insight into his behaviours towards the Mother?
[MS O]:Look, I – I’m somewhat limited in commenting directly on the Father’s insight without having done an assessment myself or heard that evidence, but, certainly, there’s a number of things that you raised that – that we would be looking at in order to make an assessment of his insight. So, obviously, doing courses is a helpful thing in terms of creating insight and helping change problematic behaviour and improve parenting, but a way of assessing if there’s any kind of usefulness gained out of that is obviously someone’s capacity to explain, you know, what the course was about and in what way that can influence their choices and how they can kind of utilise the information gained. So that – the fact that he was unable to articulate in any detail what he had learnt is concerning and suggestive of not any increase in capacity to understand the implications of his behaviours. I guess it would appear that a significant kind of factor which indicates about the Father’s insight is the continuation of the abusive text messages. I think the Father has probably had fairly clear feedback thus far from the Court about the inappropriateness of that, this Court and other courts. So I can only presume that – assume that that is a lack of insight as to the understanding of the impact of his behaviour not only on the Mother but also on [X] and [X’s] then opportunity to have a relationship with him if he continues to make those choices with his behaviour.
MS STOILER: If the Court finds that the Father does have a lack of insight into his abusive behaviours, how might that lack of insight impact on [X]?
[MS O]:Well, in terms of the lack of insight, it means that the Court can’t have confidence that the behaviour will change I suppose is the key thing with that lack of insight. And then in terms of the behaviour, like, as you’ve correctly referred me to paragraph 90 – look, it raises lots of concerns about the Father’s parenting capacity, I guess things like his capacity to regulate his emotions and react in an appropriate and calm and non-threatening or scary manner in front of [X]. It raises concerns about the modelling that he’s going to provide to [X] in terms of how to respond if something goes in a manner that you’re not happy with. It might expose [X] to direct threatening behaviour himself if [X] does something to kind of – to displease the Father. It might expose [X] to the Father behaving in that way to other people. I mean, it’s – it’s quite risky and concerning behaviour, and it certainly would give the Court cause for concern about the Father’s parenting capacity. It also raises concerns about the likelihood of, I guess, that ongoing behaviour but kind of constant breaches of court Orders and just doing – doing as he sees fit independent of professional advice about what’s best for [X].
MS STOLIER: And would that include him continuing to apply perhaps pressure on the Mother to allow him to have [X] outside of any Orders this court might make?
[MS O]:         Yes, that’s a significant issue.
The Family Report writer was questioned as to paragraph 89 of the Family Report and this evidence was given:
MS STOLIER: And you’ve identified in your report at paragraph 89 Mrs – [Ms Woods’] history of vulnerability and her own – and the negative impact that such pressure – I’m extrapolating – might put on her mental health. Did you want to expand on that in any way in terms of her parenting capacity?
THE COURT: I will just stop you there for a minute. No one is seeking Orders that [X] live with anyone but [Ms Woods]?
MS STOLIER: Yes.
THE COURT: So in light of that…can you say something?
[MS O]:Certainly. So, yes, that’s what I was just going to say. I mean, it – [Ms Woods] is – you know, has been [X]’s primary caregiver and, you know, will need to continue to be – be his primary caregiver. And in light of the concerning behaviour exhibited by the Father, I guess if the Mother didn’t have so many kind of vulnerabilities, she might be more resilient and able to kind of, I guess, withstand the ongoing behaviour of the Father, but, you know, it’s well established that the Mother has a number of kind of vulnerabilities and has had, you know, difficulties with addiction herself and her mental health and has made some poor decisions in terms of her capacity to protect the – her children from risk of harm. And so given she needs to be [X’s] primary caregiver, one consideration which I think is an important thing for the Court to think about is if [X] is spending time with his Father and this sort of behaviour continues to occur or other behaviour that might evolve once – you know, if they were to start having a different sort of arrangement, then is it going to destabilise the Mother and put [X] at more risk. So I do think that’s a very significant issue. If the Mother is constantly, you know, stressed out and anxious and walking on eggshells and, you know, her interactions with the Father are very unpredictable, then that can certainly have a significant impact on her wellbeing.
The Family Report writer was questioned about the Mother’s proposal for sole parental responsibility:
MS STOLIER: The Mother, you will have read, is now seeking an order for sole parental responsibility. What do you say about that proposal from the Mother for sole parental responsibility, given what you’ve heard today and read?
[MS O]:I guess what – the information that I have is I don’t – I haven’t seen a clear and consistent pattern of [Ms Woods] and [Mr Hendry] being able to cooperatively co-parent [X] and share cooperatively kind of in decision-making about [X]. I would be concerned that having shared parental responsibility would create an environment that would put – you know, create more risk in that it would be more potential for disagreements between [Ms Woods] and [Mr Hendry], and one could potentially impact on [X] because decisions mightn’t be made in a timely manner, but I would also be concerned, then, about the Father’s capacity, based on what he has demonstrated, about his ability to kind of communicate and navigate difficult decisions that he might not agree with. I would be concerned about sort of ongoing behaviour that would be attacking and critical of the Mother and experience by the Mother as abuse. So it just – in terms of the practicalities, I – it – I really can’t see that that would be something that would be in [X]’s best interest.
The Family Report writer was questioned as to the impact upon the child of a no contact Order and she gave this evidence:
[MS O]:Well, in terms of the contact notes, yes, he does seem to have a – he – [X] definitely seems to enjoy his time with Dad, and I did notice that, you know, there were a number of times [X] wouldn’t want the time to end, and it was difficult for him to separate from Dad. I guess those still need to be kept in the context of the sorts of time they’re spending together is – it sounded like they – it was, you know – it’s fairly fun time. Kids spending three hours at an amusement park is – at a sort of – in a – what’s the – a games arcade is – most five year olds think that’s pretty fantastic. So I guess we don’t really have a lot of in-depth knowledge of [X]’s relationship with the Father other than he has experienced those as quite fun, and he seems to like and enjoy that from what we can, I guess, extrapolate from the notes. So I would assume that a no-contact order – initially, [X] might be quite disappointed by that. You know, he sounds like a pretty active little boy, and maybe kind of hanging out and doing pretty fun stuff with Dad is – you know, is a positive experience for him. Having said that, the Court would need to be – I guess give some consideration to the nature of his – [X’s] relationship with Dad from what we can work out from the contact centre notes, but that needs to be, I guess, compared against the long-term implications for him of possible exposure to family violence, possible exposure to problematic parenting by the Father, his experience possibly of Mum’s parenting capacity being reduced by the need for her to navigate difficulties with the Father. So, you know, it needs to be – those things all need to be taken into account. I guess in the longer term, too, you know, we all know, you know, for identity purposes, it’s likely to be helpful for [X] to have the opportunity to know his Father and understand more about who he is and where he has come from. Sometimes children who have no contact with a parent, obviously, can develop quite idealised ideas about the other parent. Sometimes they can become resentful of the parent they live with if they perceive that that parent hasn’t allowed them to have a relationship with the other parent. So, you know, I guess there’s a number of advantages and disadvantages which the court would need to weigh up to make that decision if it would be a no-contact order.
The Family Report writer stated that her expert opinion was that she could not say that if the Father completes the men’s behaviour change program that that was going to create a significant shift in the Father’s behaviour. She then stated:
[MS O]:In terms of – if the – depending on what the Court Orders are, if that’s going to help him in the context of having done the course – I mean, based on the Father’s amended set of Orders and what he seems to be perceiving as a suitable amount of time with [X], it looks like it’s highly unlikely that the Father is ever going to be satisfied by what the Court is going to order. And so, you know, Orders for some time coupled with completing the men’s behaviour change program, you know, doesn’t look like these problems are necessarily going to go away. I guess I note in – you know, it’s about the Father’s expectations and lack of capacity to understand perhaps – you know, someone used the word before about, you know, normal kind of Orders, and I noticed in some of the Father’s text messages, there’s sort of – there’s a theme of, “Why can’t we just be a normal family?” And he goes to his cousin’s parties and does normal stuff and, you know, saying to Mum why doesn’t she let him have a normal relationship with [X], which, you know, certainly speaks of that insight, I guess, that you guys were asking about before is the Father doesn’t seem to have insight that this isn’t a normal situation because there has been ongoing family violence and court intervention and AVOs and breaches, and so those circumstances of what might be perceived as normal are probably not going to happen here because it doesn’t appear to be in [X]’s best interests. So I guess from what I can tell, probably, the Father’s expectations appear so unrealistic about what’s appropriate. It’s hard to sort of predict that he will be particularly satisfied. I guess the other thing, your Honour, which is going to be a matter, having heard all the evidence, to consider – yes, the Father’s account is the trigger is solely that he has not got unsupervised time with [X]. I think the Court would need to form a view of, really, is this behaviour exhibited by the Father in complete isolation and completely incongruent with how he navigates the rest of his life because I guess if the court has concerns that it’s not just the question of the exact order he has got and it’s actually this is how the Father communicates/navigates things that he’s displeased with, you know, reacts when he’s feeling perturbed about something, you know, that is quite a different picture because that would suggest, I guess – based on the information I know – and please correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand the Father has some historical assault charges as well. And so I guess it’s looking at that bigger picture because, clinically, from what I can see, I couldn’t say to your Honour that I feel confident that this issue and the Father’s behaviour is solely related to the Orders as opposed to just general displeasure and this is how he reacts if he’s not happy with something. So in terms of co-parenting, that’s going to happen again and again and again throughout [X’s] life if both parents are involved in his life, and I would be concerned. You know, then there will be upset and, you know, abuse around the Mother’s decisions about other – a myriad of other kind of things in terms of parenting [X].
The Family Report writer was asked by the Court to consider whether possible protective Orders could be made if the Court was considering making Orders for the child to spend some form of unsupervised time with the Father. She stated, in response, that changeovers should not occur between the parties and preferably through a contact service, and the parties should not communicate via text at all. She had stated:
[MS O]: Based on the information about the text messages, it’s my thinking that logistically, if the court could work out some orders that means that Mum and Dad do not communicate via text, I think that’s preferable, so whether that’s, you know, a family member or it is just a set-in-stone – you know, if the court was going to make an order that it was time once a fortnight or once a month, it might just be a set date, and if Dad can’t do it, he can’t do it. Do you know what I mean? And the communication is through the – a suitable family member, and there’s no real negotiation because I don’t think – I don’t think negotiation is going to work for this family. So, you know, if, for whatever reason, the time needs to be missed, the time probably needs to be missed so that there’s not – you know, not room for disagreements over make-up time and things like that. But I just – I don’t think they should be communicating via text at all, which does make, you know, logistically, spending time – [X] spending time with the father much more difficult. (Court’s italics)
In relation to the parties not communicating via text at all she stated that that made the child spending time with the Father much more logistically difficult. The following evidence was then given:
THE COURT: Well, arguably, in that circumstance, if there was no text messaging permitted, there would have to be, as you’re inferring, very formal Orders…relating to the time…being facilitated?
[MS O]:Yes…And they would have to be fairly limited because, logistically, to not be communicating, [X] couldn’t be spending significant periods of time with Dad because there just wouldn’t be able to (be) sufficient kind of handover that would provide adequate care for [X] if that makes sense. I mean, I’m envisaging if it was that kind of scenario to be fairly, you know, limited daytime where [X] could do something pretty fun with Dad and, you know, have a bit of time with Dad and go back to Mum. It wouldn’t really be providing an opportunity for extensive kind of caregiving and, you know, multiple experiences in Dad’s care.
THE COURT:So those sort of formal restrictive communication type Orders would, of necessity, limit the ability of the parties to significantly co-parent the child?
[MS O]:Yes.

The Court has a significant concern that the Father continues to use illicit drugs. His criminal record refers to community corrections Orders for offences on 10 February 2021 (goods in personal custody suspected being stolen) and 29 April 2021 (possess prohibited drug) and a conditional release Order for drive vehicle, illicit drug present in blood committed on 29 April 2021. The COPS material relating to this latter Order indicates that the Father had been subjected to a roadside drug test by police on 29 April 2021 which returned a positive indication to methamphetamine in the Father’s oral fluid. The Court observes the Father has previous convictions for drive vehicle, illicit drug present in blood, and/or refusal or fail to provide oral fluid sample, with the offence dates being in 2014 and 2015.
The Father agreed that the statement in his Affidavit (filed 21 March 2022) that he has restrained from taking drugs since 2017 was not correct. He confirmed a conviction on 17 March 2022 in relation to the above possess prohibited drug, drive vehicle with illicit drug present in blood, on 29 April 2021. The Father’s negative drug and alcohol tests, previously referred to in these Reasons, span periods both before and after the Father’s illicit drug use on 29 April 2021. The Father stated in oral evidence that there was one occasion when he did not comply with a drug testing request made by the ICL due to financial reasons. There is no contemporary hair follicle test for the Father which would indicate whether or not the Father had been using illicit drugs for several months prior to the date of the hair follicle test.
The Court is of the view that the Father’s completion of the present men’s behaviour change program that he is participating in will probably not alone lead to a change in the Father’s persistent adverse attitudes towards the Mother; in this context, it is not without relevance that despite the Father having already commenced several sessions of the men’s behaviour change program, his oral evidence included evidence that he continued to blame the Mother for his lack of time with the child, he continued to maintain that he was a victim, and further it is apparent that the Father had not obtained significant educative benefits in completing the courses referred to in paragraph 40 of his trial Affidavit. Nevertheless, there would probably be benefit to the Father (and indirectly the Mother and child) completing this program, as discussed by the Family Report writer.
Taking into account the above discussed matters, there is an unacceptable risk of harm posed to the child if spending unsupervised time with the Father. Reiterating, there is a significant risk that the child will be exposed to the Father’s anger, volatile temperament and threatening behaviour both directed towards himself and others including the Mother; there is a significant risk that the child will be exposed to neglect by reason of the Father’s use of illicit drugs; and there is a significant risk that the Father will denigrate the Mother to the child even were the Court to make a non-denigration order.
Further, and importantly, the Court is of the view that should the child spend unsupervised time with the Father there is a significant risk that the Mother will experience significant stress and anxiety, with the real risk of illicit drug/alcohol relapse, with related reduction of her parenting capacity for the child. The Court should add that it is of the view that should the Father continue to spend weekly supervised time with the child there is a significant risk that the Mother will experience significant stress and anxiety, taking into account, in particular, her persistent fearfulness of the Father and her reasons for such fearfulness. The Court now refers to the following matters in this regard.
The Court finds that the Mother has achieved substantial rehabilitation from her own previous addictions to illicit drugs and alcohol and related adverse behaviour. The Court accepts the Mother’s evidence in this regard. The Mother was a most impressive witness, including being honest to the Court in relation to her previous addictions and adverse behaviour. The Court finds that she is parenting the child most satisfactorily and is appropriately protective of him in relation to the Father. The Mother continues to seek treatment in relation to her addictions and obtains counselling through a psychologist for her mental health, together with ingesting regular anti-depressant medication. Having said this, the Mother probably remains vulnerable to relapse, and thereby her parenting capacity for the child is placed at risk, if she is subjected to significant stress and anxiety through, inter alia, the actions of the Father, including any continuation of his abusive behaviour towards the Mother and pressure exerted upon her to comply with his demands for time with the child.
Again, the Mother remains fearful of the Father; fearful for herself and the child. The Mother is fearful and apprehensive that the child will be placed at risk of harm if spending time with the Father, in particular unsupervised time. The Mother has continued to experience fearfulness of the Father in the context of continuing to facilitate supervised time, in circumstances where the Father has continued to abuse her, has not carried out a hair follicle test nor completed a men’s behaviour change program. The Court finds that such fear and apprehension is reasonably based, taking into account the Court’s findings and discussions above under this need to protect primary consideration. It is most important for the child that the Mother’s parenting capacity for him is not detrimentally affected.
The ICL’s proposed Orders 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, will minimise the risk of the Mother’s parenting capacity for the child being adversely compromised.
In the view of the Court, and referring to its discussions above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration, the above discussed risks of harm posed to the child can be minimised by the child spending supervised time with the Father as proposed by the ICL.Such risks of harm can be further appropriately minimised by firstly, the Court restraining the parties from communicating with each other, except for in relation to communication of proposed supervised visits between the child and the Father, which shall occur via SMS or email, and secondly, by restraining the Father from sending abusive or denigrating messages to the Mother or seeking additional visitation in any form.
The Court has a significant concern that the Father’s proposed Order that there be telephone communication between the child and himself carries the real risk that the Father will denigrate the Mother to the child or expose the child to his anger and volatility.
The Court has considered relevant case law applicable to the Court making an indefinite supervision Order. The Court has had regard to the decisions in Moose & Moose (2008) FLC 93–375, Champness & Hanson (2009) FLC 93–407; Gorman & Huffman and Anor [2016] FamCAFC 174, relating to the Court providing cogent reasons to support indefinite supervision Orders, the difficulties associated with long-term supervision, and the Court considering whether it should expressly provide, in its Orders, a review mechanism such as to enable the Father to approach the Court with an Application to seek Orders for unsupervised time.
The ICL submitted that the ICL’s proposed supervised time should not progress to unsupervised time until the Father has completed the men’s behaviour change program; can demonstrate what positive matters he has learnt from such program; can demonstrate that he has developed significant insight relating to the effects of his past family violence towards the Mother; and can demonstrate that he has adequately dealt with his anger issues. There is force to these submissions.
Clarifying, for supervised time to progress to unsupervised time, the Court would at least require the Father to be able to explain how his previous family violence including abusive behaviour would have impacted the Mother, have some empathy for the resulting adverse effect upon the Mother’s emotional state, be able to explain how he would act differently the next time he felt frustration that he was unable to manage, and be able to describe the steps that he would take to address any emotions he was having difficulty with so that he was better able to moderate his behaviour. Should the Father be able to present appropriate evidence in future parenting proceedings that he had addressed at least these matters, then he would likely overcome the “changed circumstances” test in Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90–725. However, there is force to the inferred submissions of the ICL that the nature of such evidence is probably presently incapable of being the subject of a discrete review mechanism contained within an Order of the Court.
The Court has given careful consideration as to whether the above discussed risks posed to the child in spending unsupervised time with the Father could be minimised by crafting parenting Orders with suitable restraints upon the Father. For example, the Court has considered whether the child spending some limited daytime time with the Father on a regular basis could be the subject of final Orders in this regard. Such final Orders, in the view of the Court, would at least require changeovers between the parties to be formally supervised so as to minimise the risk of conflict between them. They would require the Father to have previously conducted a hair follicle test. They would require, in the view of the Court, a restraint upon the parties text messaging or otherwise communicating with each other by reason of the significant risk that such messaging or communications would lead to the Father abusing the Mother or placing pressure upon her for additional time; however such a restraint, in the view of the Court, would merely exacerbate stress and anxiety in the Mother in not knowing what was occurring between the child and the Father during such unsupervised time, in circumstances where, again, the Mother remains fearful of the Father and apprehensive of the child’s safety if spending unsupervised time with him. However, ultimately, the Court is of the view that the child, even if spending limited daytime time with the Father, would remain at significant risk of being exposed to the Father’s anger and volatile behaviour, denigration of the Mother, and other risks discussed above under this need to protect primary consideration; the child would remain exposed to such risk in circumstances where the Father lacks insight into the effects of his previously perpetrated family violence upon the Mother, and has not adequately addressed such lack of insight and his anger management problem.
The evidence of the Family Report writer is consistent with the above views of the Court.
The Court gives significant weight to this need to protect primary consideration.
Section 60CC(3) - Additional Considerations
(a) Any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child maturity or level of understanding) that the Court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views
The child is too young to express a relevant view.
(b) The nature of the relationship of the child with each of the child’s parents; and other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child)
The Court refers to its discussion above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration.
(c) The extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken or failed to take the opportunity; to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and to spend time with the child; and to communicate with the child
The Mother has been making major long-term decisions for the child. The Father has sought to take such opportunities.
(ca) The extent to which each of the child’s parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent’s obligations to maintain the child
Both parties appear to have maintained the child whilst he was in each parties’ respective care.
(d) The likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from either of his or her parents; or any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living
The Court refers to its discussions above under the meaningful relationship and need to protect primary considerations.
(e) The practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with the parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis
Not applicable.
(f) 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
The Mother has such capacities.
The Father probably has such capacities, subject to the court’s discussions above in relation to him under the need to protect primary consideration.
(g) The maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child’s parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the Court thinks are relevant
The Court refers to its discussions above under the primary considerations.
(h) If the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child: the child’s right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture); and the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right
Not applicable.
(i) The attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child's parents
The Court refers to its discussions above, in particular under the primary considerations.
(j) Any family violence involving the child or a member of the child's family
The Court refers to its discussions above under the need to protect primary consideration.
(k) If a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child’s family – any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order, taking into account the following: the nature of the order; the circumstances in which the order was made; any findings made by the Court in, or in proceedings for, the order; any other relevant matter
The Court refers to its previous discussion of the evidence relating to domestic violence related Orders pertaining to the Father, and its discussions relating to the Father under the need to protect primary consideration.
(l) Whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child
The Court is of the view that the Court’s proposed Orders, as discussed above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration, would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child, as compared to the Father and Mother’s proposed Orders. In this context, the Court refers to its discussions above under the primary considerations.
m) Any other fact or circumstance that the Court thinks is relevant
Not applicable.
Parental Responsibility
It will be in the best interests of the child that the Mother have sole parental responsibility for him.
Should the Court make an Order, as proposed by the Father, that the Mother have sole parental responsibility but only in respect of education and medical treatment for the child, the parties would effectively be required to reach agreement, in a timely fashion, relating to major long-term decisions otherwise to be made for the child relating to his care welfare and development (again, apart from education and medical treatment for the child). Should the Court make such order proposed by the Father, there is a significant risk that the parties will experience conflict in endeavouring to reach such agreement, and to which the child would be exposed to his detriment.
Further, it is likely that such conflict will lead to the Mother experiencing significant stress and anxiety and thereby a reduction in her parenting capacity for the child. The parties’ ability to communicate with each other in a productive fashion in relation to the child is very limited. The parties do not regularly communicate face to face or even verbally over the telephone. The Mother prefers not to communicate regularly with the Father because she apprehends, not unreasonably, that the Father will abuse her as he has done historically; in this context, the Court also refers to its discussions as to family violence and related adverse behaviour by the Father towards the Mother under the above need to protect primary consideration.
Evaluating the above discussed considerations under section 60CC of the Act, it will be in the best interests of the child that the Court make the following Orders:
1.All previous parenting Orders between the parties be discharged.
2.The Mother have sole parental responsibility in respect to the child X, born in 2018.
3.The child shall live with the Mother.
4.The parties do all things necessary and sign all documents required to complete any and all intake procedures at Suburb A Children’s Contact service in order to enable the child to spend supervised time with the Father once each month.
5.The child spend time with the Father supervised by Suburb A Children’s Contact Service for a period of up to of three (3) hours from 2:00pm to 5:00pm on the first Friday of the month or on such other as advised by the contact service.
6.The Father shall pay all costs of supervised time noting that the Father is presently not paying child support.
7.The Father be permitted and authorised to forward to the child any presents, cards, photographs or letters in respect of any special occasions such as the child’s birthday, Christmas or any other occasions of special significance to the child.
8.Within 21 days of the making of these Orders the Mother shall provide the Father with a postal address to forward such presents, cards, photographs or letters.
9.Without admission both parties be restrained from:
(a)Exposing the child to violence, including physical or verbal threats or intimidation, whether such threats or intimidation or violence be directed at the child, the Mother, the Father, or any other member of either party’s household;
(b)Physically disciplining the child;
(c)Denigrating the other or members of the other party’s family in the presence or hearing of the child and each party shall do all acts and things reasonably necessary to prevent any other person doing so;
(d)Discussing these proceedings or any issues arising out of these proceedings with the child or permitting any third party to do so;
(e)Making critical or derogatory remarks on social media, such as Facebook or Twitter in relation to the other parent or referring in any way to the proceedings;
(f)Being under the influence of alcohol in the presence of the child or whilst the child is in his or her care to a point of a blood alcohol level of in excess of 0.05;
(g)Using, ingesting or administering to himself or herself any illicit or non-prescribed drugs (other than over the counter medication);
(h)Bringing the child into contact with any person under the influence of illicit drugs or alcohol in excess.
10.The Father is to forthwith enrol in and complete (in the event that he has not already done so) a men’s behaviour change programme facilitated by G Counsellors in person.
11.The Mother continues to ensure that the child attend day care for a minimum of two (2) days per week and that she further follow all reasonable recommendations of the day care provider in respect to the child’s attendance at day care.
12.The Mother shall provide a copy of these Orders to the child’s day care provider and school upon the child commencing schooling.
13.The Mother shall continue to engage with her Department of Communities and Justice case worker, the Mother’s domestic violence case worker and her counsellor/therapist as recommended by each of them.
14.The parties are restrained from communicating with each other, except for in relation to communication of proposed supervised visits between the child and the Father, which communication shall occur via SMS or email.
15.The Father is restrained from sending abusive or denigrating messages to the Mother or from seeking additional time with the child, whether supervised or unsupervised time.
16.In the event of any inconsistencies between these Orders and a family violence order in place between the parties these Orders shall apply.
17.Pursuant to sections 65(D) 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 the parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these Orders.

I certify that the preceding two hundred and seventy-three (273) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Newbrun.
Associate:
Dated: 8 September 2022

File number(s):	PAC 2429 of 2019
Judgment of:	JUDGE NEWBRUN
Date of judgment:	8 September 2022
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – Parenting - final parenting hearing - competing parenting proposals - best interests of child - final parenting Orders made
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA
Cases cited:	Champness & Hanson (2009) FLC 93–407 Gorman & Huffman and Anor [2016] FamCAFC 174 Moose & Moose (2008) FLC 93–375 Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90–725
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	273
Date of hearing:	10–12 August 2022
Place:	Parramatta
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Mr Ndou, Lovemore Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms Gibbons
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Takchi & Associates
Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer:	Ms Stolier
Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer:	Brian Samuel & Associates

PAC 2429 of 2019
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MS WOODS Applicant
AND:	MR HENDRY Respondent
AND:	INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

order made by:	JUDGE NEWBRUN
DATE OF ORDER:	8 September 2022