Wylder & Wylder
[2022] FedCFamC2F 1366
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
Wylder & Wylder [2022] FedCFamC2F 1366
File number(s): BRC 1395 of 2021 Judgment of: JUDGE VASTA Date of judgment: 9 November 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Parenting –allegation that mother was harming child – whether such allegation made mother an unacceptable risk – poor mental health of the father – father showed animosity towards the court process – father assessed as a high risk – whether father is unacceptable risk – no time or contact ordered Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60CG, 61DA, 64B, 65D, 65DAB Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 308 Date of last submission/s: 13 October 2022 Date of hearing: 22 and 23 August 2022, 13 October 2022 Place: Brisbane Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Foley Solicitor for the Applicant: Get Real Legals Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Duplock Solicitor for the Respondent: O’Sullivans Law Firm Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr Todman Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Queensland Legal Practice ORDERS
BRC 1395 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MS WYLDER
Applicant
AND: MR WYLDER
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
order made by:
JUDGE VASTA
DATE OF ORDER:
8 NOVEMBER 2022
THE COURT ORDERS:
1.That all existing parenting orders pertaining to the child X born 2015 (“the child”) are discharged.
2.That the Mother have sole parental responsibility for the child.
3.That the child live with the Mother.
4.That the Mother be permitted to relocate with the child.
5.That the Father have no time and no communication with the Child.
6.After the expiry of the appeal period, the Independent Children’s Lawyer is discharged.
NOTATION:
A.That pursuant to section 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act1975 the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in “Parenting orders – obligations, consequences and who can help” 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 Wylder & Wylder has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE VASTA
Introduction
This is an application for parenting orders. The mother, Ms Wylder, was born in 1995 in the Country B. The father, Mr Wylder, was born in 1977 in Australia. The parents were married in the Country B in 2013. The parents came to Australia in 2015 when the mother was approximately six months pregnant. X was born in 2015.
These proceedings revolve around what is in the best interests of X
The father filed proceedings in September 2019 in the file BRC11666/2019. Final orders were made which dismissed all present applications in that matter on 18 May 2020. Notwithstanding that, this file was still the proper file in which any “reigniting” of the application should have been filed. However, the father filed an application for consent orders in a new file (BRC1395/2021) on 4 February 2021. The present application was filed by the mother on 26 July 2021 in that file.
Life in the Country B
The father deposed to having met the mother on a website in 2013 and suggests that the mother was involved in the sex industry at that time. The father deposed that he travelled to the Country B in 2013 where he physically met the mother for the first time. He said that he stayed in a hotel at that time.
The father said that he stayed in the Country B for a few weeks before returning to Australia. He said that about two weeks after his return, he was contacted by the mother who told him that she was pregnant. He said that the mother told him that she was going to abort the child. The mother denies this claim totally.
The father said that he then travelled back to the Country B in 2013 and the mother was no longer pregnant so he believed that she did, in fact, abort the child. The father said that he again stayed in the same hotel until the maternal grandmother invited him to stay in their home.
The father said that, upon their marriage in 2013, the mother was very pleased, as was her family, to be married to a non-Country B citizen. The father said that he lived with the family of the mother for a short while and then bought a property and established his own business in the Country B. The father said that he and the mother had established a life in the Country B together. He said that they went on a holiday to Country C in 2015 and when they returned, they discovered that the mother was now pregnant. The mother has given evidence that this was her one and only pregnancy and that she had never been pregnant before.
The father said that because they did not want to raise their child in the Country B, they decided to move back to Australia and did so around 2015.
The mother has given a different story of their life in the Country B and has detailed the father’s abuse of alcohol and drugs as well as his commission of family violence.
In any event, as I have already detailed, X was born in 2015 in Australia.
December 2015 to September 2019
There is much conflict in the evidence as to what happened during this period. The father claims that the parents lived together but started growing apart. He claims that he was the primary caregiver for X because the mother was constantly working or going out and partying. The mother claims that she was constantly subjected to family violence and that she had left the father on occasions until he “brow beat” her into returning to the marriage.
Whilst it is not necessary to make any findings on specific incidents that may have occurred during this time period, it is sufficiently clear that the parties had separated by the time the father initiated the first proceedings in this Court.
Proceedings BRC11666/2019
These proceedings had a first court date of 26 November 2019. On that date, Judge Purdon-Sully ordered, by consent, that the child live with the mother but have two overnight visits with the father a week. Her Honour appointed an Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) and made an order for a Child Inclusive Conference (“CIC”).
The CIC took place on 14 January 2020 (and I will say more about this aspect later in these Reasons). After the family consultant provided her memorandum orally, Her Honour made orders that the father spend supervised time with the child at a contact centre as well as having one telephone call each week.
On 30 January 2020, Her Honour ordered that the parents register with the Suburb D Children’s Contact Centre and complete the intake. Her Honour ordered that the father have CDT testing as well as drug testing as requested by the ICL. Her Honour also ordered that the parties attend family report interviews at a date and time to be provided by the ICL. Her Honour then adjourned the proceedings until 30 April 2020.
On 30 April 2020, the parents did not attend but the ICL did attend. Her Honour noted the following:
The parties have sent through a purported agreement in relation to the parenting arrangements for the child and yet failed to participate in the hearing on 30 April 2020 and seek the making of orders in those terms. The child is separately represented. The Independent Children’s Lawyer has responsibilities in relation to the child and is entitled to be heard in relation to the proposed arrangements before the Court considers what orders, if any, should be made. The parents are also entitled to be heard. Both parties are required to participate by telephone at the next court date and inform the Court what outcome they seek. The parties are advised to obtain legal advice from a community-based legal service.
I will say something more about this later in the Reasons. Her Honour adjourned the matter until 18 May 2020.
On 18 May 2020, the parties, once again, did not appear but the ICL did appear. On that date, the Court noted that the parties had refused to engage in the Court process and refused to engage in the family report process. The Court noted that the father had informed the Court that, irrespective of what the Court ordered, the parties would make their own arrangements.
The Court noted that the father had refused to engage in drug testing on two occasions. The Court noted that the father was belligerent and rude to the ICL. The Court noted the ICL was concerned that the mother may be under some form of duress. The Court noted that the ICL informed the Court that she would make a notification to the Department of Child Safety.
On that basis, the Court dismissed all outstanding applications.
Ramifications
This meant that there were no orders that governed what relationship X was to have with her parents. Objectively, this situation was of great concern given that Her Honour had decided that it was in the best interests of the child for her to only have supervised time with the father.
Father’s version of the end of the previous proceedings and institution of new ones
The father alleges that the mother realised that it would not be good for X if she were not spending regular time with her father and this is why the parents made their own arrangements. Even though the father had told the Court that he and the mother would be making “their own arrangements”, in his trial affidavit, the father complains as to the mother’s behaviour and her failure to comply with their “arrangement”. This is notwithstanding that he would appear to be the instigator of the decision to withdraw from the Court proceedings that he, himself, had instigated in September 2019. The father alleges that the mother was living a “party lifestyle” and giving him the child so that she could continue her hedonistic way.
The father deposed to coming to a private arrangement, in the form of a draft consent order, which effectively split the child’s time between both parents. He deposed that the child started making allegations about the mother around this time (July 2020). The father began to make, and post, videos around this time. The father claims that he and the mother had come to the “consent” position but that the mother kept “breaching” their agreement.
The father deposed to having drafted final consent orders in October 2020, which the mother refused to sign. The father deposed that the child continually made complaints about the mother yet the “final consent orders” he had drafted, allowed for an almost equal time arrangement. He said that the mother kept avoiding her “obligation” to sign these orders but finally did so on 2 February 2021. As previously noted, the father filed an application for consent orders under a new file on 4 February 2021. The Registry did not accept these orders but requested further information and changes. When this was not forthcoming, the application was finally dismissed by a Registrar on 7 June 2021.
The father deposed that X began spending time with the parents in accordance with these “consent orders”. The father deposed that around June 2021, the child started to become fearful of her mother due to physical violence she was experiencing at her house. The father said that there was an incident that occurred around 4 July 2021 which caused him to decide that X should remain living with him and not be returned to the mother.
Mother’s version of the end of the previous proceedings and institution of new ones
The mother deposed to the father ignoring the orders of the Court made in January 2020. She said that the father told her that he could do what he wanted and could not be stopped from seeing his daughter. She said that she knew that the father was making multiple reports of child abuse to the police and to child safety. She said that the father told her that if she let him see X, he would stop filing these claims and reports. She said, for this reason, she agreed to allow the father to see X without supervision.
The mother said that she did not agree with statements that the father had made to the Court in April/May 2020 (about a consensual arrangement) but, because the father was threatening to take the child if she did not indicate to the Court that she agreed, she did not demur to what the father had said. She said that the father had told her to ignore all communication from the Court and he pressured her into withdrawing the Domestic Violence application. She felt that if she didn’t do what he had said, his behaviour would escalate.
If this is accepted, the statements made by the ICL to the Court on 18 May 2020 were totally justified.
The mother deposed that the child was withheld in July 2020 because of an issue involving Centrelink payments. She said that she received a number of text messages during this time. I will speak more about these text messages later in these Reasons.
The mother detailed many of the threats that were made to bully her into signing the “consent orders” which she eventually signed in February 2021.
July 2021
The mother said that on 11 July 2021, the father telephoned her, threatened her and told her that she wouldn’t get the child back. The mother said that this resulted in the police filing a domestic violence application against the father that day. A temporary police order (police protection notice) was made on 11 July 2021 and the Court granted a final order on 14 July 2021. This did not result in the child going back to her mother.
Police attempted to serve this order on the father. In an email later sent to the police, the father said the following:
On 11 July 2021, three police officers came to my house to serve a protection order. The front gate was closed. There is a big “no entry” sign on my gate. Which means “no entry”. Now unless I have “committed a crime” police are not allowed to enter my private residence. The police illegally entered my private residence. Yes, I told the police officers to fuck off. As I had not committed a crime and I was within my legal right to tell them to leave. The three police officers loitered in my front yard and would not leave. Continually harassing myself and my child. Banging on my door, yelling out so my neighbours could hear. My daughter is five years old and was begging me not to let them in. She was crying her eyes out in the bath. She is massively scared of police officers and they would not leave. The officers stayed and I opened the window three times telling them to leave. Finally they put paperwork under my door and left. If the police officers had tried to force illegal entry into my private home that night, while my daughter was in great fear, as no domestic violence was taking place in my residence and there was no reason for illegal entry, physical action would have been taken by myself. I would treat this as a home invasion and do whatever is in my power to stop these perpetrators seeing them as criminals with intent to kill and weaponised. I advised the police officers to leave me alone. I do not play games and I am feeling very threatened inside my own home currently by police and their tyrant behaviour.
On 22 July 2021, the father had a conversation with the principal at the child’s school. He told the principal that he was progressing with enrolment in a private school. He said that X is frightened of her mother. He said that he would be talking with a private school the next day about enrolment. The father asked whether if he disclosed to the principal the name of the new school where he intended to send the child, whether the principal would inform the mother. The principal said that, due to privacy policies, conversations with one parent are not shared with another. The father then said that if he hadn’t secured a local private school, he intended to change their names and leave the State.
When the father refused to return the child, the mother, acting for herself, filed an application for a recovery order on 26 July 2021. On 28 July 2021, Her Honour Judge Purdon Sully issued the recovery order. That order was executed on 13 August 2021.
The order was executed by Federal Police at the new school at which the father had enrolled X. The police left messages for the father to inform him that the order had been executed and for him to contact the Federal Police. State Police executed a search warrant at the premises of the father on the same day.
Police found two metal knuckle dusters hanging on the back of the front door as well as a bladed Chinese throwing iron, or star, hanging from the back of the rear door. Police also found a home-made firearm secreted behind the front door and a telescopic pattern hanging on the back of the rear door. The father was charged with offences against the Weapons Act for his possession of those items.
The Present Proceedings
The issues in the present proceedings are well-defined. The father’s argument is that the mother has been physically abusing and torturing X for many years. The father argues that he has attempted to bring these matters to the attention of the authorities, especially the police and child safety, but has been ignored or disbelieved.
The father submits that he is the parent who has always protected X and has never been a danger to her. He has said to the Court that there is no reason why the child should not be in his care solely so that he can protect her from the mother.
Through his Counsel however, the father has realistically submitted that there may be objective factors which would lead a Court to be concerned about the child spending time with the father. If the Court did have those concerns, the father submits that they could be ameliorated by supervised time which would graduate to unsupervised time. The father submits that at the very least, he should be allowed to see the child in a supervised setting, even if that were to occur until she reached the age of 18 years.
The mother argues that the father is an unacceptable risk to X such that he should not spend any time with the child.
A great deal of evidence has been put before the Court by both parties, as well as the ICL, to allow the Court to make orders that are in the best interests of X.
Physical abuse of the child by the mother
In 2019, the father reported to authorities that the child was being hurt by the mother. He said that the child had told him that the mother had pinched her and had dug her fingernails into her skin. The father reported that he had seen bruising on the child which was consistent with this mechanism.
The father raised these concerns during the first proceedings. As I have already noted, Her Honour Judge Purdon Sully ordered a CIC. The CIC occurred on 14 January 2020 and later that day, the family consultant gave her report as oral testimony before Her Honour.
The family consultant spoke of the father’s concerns. They were that the mother was using excessive physical discipline on the child. The father explained that the mother had been brought up in the Country B and that this technique was tolerated in the Country B but is unacceptable in Australia. In particular, his concerns were that the mother would slap the child across the face, push her, bite her, flick her mouth with a finger to the face and dig her fingernails into the child’s wrist, ankle, arm and leg, in the context of disciplining the child.
When the family consultant interviewed the child, who was four years of age, she noted that the child was making comments that were unable to be understood by the family consultant. The family consultant reported that the child said “mummy doesn’t want me to come home; she wants me to come home; she doesn’t want me to come home”.
The family consultant reported that the child said that her mother didn’t care about her and that only her father cared about her. The child said that she didn’t see her mother anymore because “Mum hurts me, and she digs her fingernails into me. She slaps me across the face she pinches me”. The family consultant said that the child pointed to a wrist and said “Mum dug her fingers in, because she thought I was being a naughty girl”.
However, when the family consultant did “an observation” between the mother and the child, she noted that the child hugged the mother, embracing her legs right around her and also putting her arms right around her. She said that the mother carried her like that from the childcare room to the observation room and that was how they sat the whole time. The family consultant reported that the mother sat with the child embraced around her, hugging her. The family consultant said that the child did not appear to be distressed or fearful of the mother and that no stress indicators were observed.
The family consultant noted that the child said to her mother that “Daddy wouldn’t bring me back to the house”. The family consultant noted that the child told her mother that she missed her and that she also missed her dad. The family consultant said that, when it was time to wrap up the session so that the mother could come back to the Court, the child clung to the mother wouldn’t let her go and began crying. The family consultant said that it took some convincing by the mother and the family consultant and a childcare worker to convince the child to separate from her mother.
I have mentioned this in some detail because it has been an issue that has somewhat fixated the father.
Videos taken by the Father
After this time, the father took a number of videos of the child where he displayed to the video camera marks on the child’s arms. There are three such videos and I have watched these videos a number of times.
The first video titled “Child’s admission - mother grabs throat and hurts child” displays the father talking directly into the video. It is quite instructive. The father begins the video by telling the camera what the child had just told him, rather than have the child tell the camera what it is that she had just told the father. The father says to the camera “So what did she do to you, X; she grabbed you by the throat” and the child agrees. The video has the father putting words into the child’s mouth throughout. The child does not always agree with the father.
At one point, the father asks the child “Why did she grab you around the throat?” When the child does not answer, the father continued by saying “Was that because you dropped the plate?” The child responded “No, it was because I punched her”. At another point, the father asked “Did mummy hurt you?” The child responded “No she didn’t hurt me; she just grabbed me by the throat”. The father then said “She did hurt you”.
The father then tells X that “Police and Child Safety don’t believe me and now you’re frightened that you have to go home. So now you have to fight. You have to scream”. The father then says “I am not going to coach you” but then proceeds to do just that. The father then criticises “the judge” to the child. The child said “I wish mummy was more nice and you can be together”. The father responded “I don’t want any more; she’s been with too many men”.
The second video titled “Child’s admissions - child asked to come to father’s house and mother inflicts pain on child” displays the father talking while the camera pans on to the lower leg of the child and a mark where the leg meets the foot. The father narrates “so when did she do it?” The child responds “she did it because she didn’t want me”. The father then says “so you wanted to come to daddy’s house and she got angry and she dug her fingernails into you. Is that right?”
The third video titled “Domestic violence towards our child” displays the child with the father showing marks on the child’s body. The child is sitting on the bed and the father has a camera pointed to her. His first words to her are “that one wasn’t mummy; this one was mummy”. He then grabs the child’s arm to lift it to show the camera a mark on the arm. The child struggles and is trying to move her arm back. The father says “that’s a fingernail; your mummy is famous for doing that”. As the child continues to struggle, the father tells her firmly to “stop please”.
The father then shows the marks to the camera pointing out “this is one and this is the matching one” as he moves the child’s arm. She is still trying to move and he tells her “That’s a fingernail; that’s what Mummy does to you”. The child is trying to talk to the father but he ignores what she is saying and talks over her, trying to show marks and commenting on what they are. At one stage the child asks whether this was “one” on her foot. She keeps trying to get “daddy” to answer her but he continues to talk over her. She continues to ask “do you think this is one too” as she points to her foot. He finally answers her query by saying “I think mummy is a dick sometimes”.
The father, around 7 November 2021, also uploaded a video to social media where he has a transcript of the evidence of the family consultant. The father points to the transcript of the family consultant explaining what the child had said about the mother harming her. The father explains that this is a “confession” as to what the mother does but complains that the Court has done nothing about this.
The Police Interview with X on 5 February 2021
On 5 February 2021, the police, with a representative from Child Safety, interviewed X at school. The interview is recorded and I have listened very intently to what the child has said. X said to police that her mother and father have been having fights and that they don’t like each other. She said that they “share me” by which she means that she has “seven times with mum and then seven times with dad”. She told police that her mother brought her to school that day and will pick up but she will go to her father’s residence later that day.
She told the police that she feels good about going to her father’s place. She spoke about going to a bird park and she explained that she had an aviary at her father’s house.
She then told police that “sometimes mummy hurts me - sometimes I get bruises”. It would seem that X then showed the police bruises on her leg. She explained to police that they were from “mummy kicking my leg”. She explained to police:
I was in the TV room playing with the ball. I accidentally knocked over a picture but it didn’t break. Mummy then kicked my leg. Mummy said she doesn’t like the doing that. I was in trouble. I just cried and walked to my bedroom.
Interestingly, when police asked X “why did (mummy) kick your leg”, the child answered “well, my daddy says it is for fun though”. This does give an indication that there has been some form of discussion between the father and the child as to the mother’s motivation for what it is that she has been doing to the child. This is consistent with the statements that the father has made to the child in the videos.
X said that “mummy slaps me on the face sometimes”. She gave an example of being at a shopping centre. When she was hiding from her mother in a tunnel in the playground, X said that her mother thought that she was being naughty but she actually wasn’t. She said that she came out from where she was hiding but her mother found her anyway. She said that her mother slapped her on her “bum” and face. She said “I cried so much and I vomited”.
She told police that she sometimes worried about her mother dying. She said that her father had told her that Country B girls eat too much meat and they die. He said that she has to eat vegetables.
She told police that if she is naughty at her father’s house, nothing happens. She said her father asked her what she does at her mother’s house.
She also told police that her mother had bit her on the hand but that she was playing with her when she did this.
The police told X that they would tell her mother not to hit her anymore.
This is exactly what occurred. After the disclosures by X, both the police and representatives from child safety spoke to the mother about the appropriateness of the discipline that she was inflicting upon the child. Both the police and the Department of Child Safety were of the view that the mother understood what it was that they were telling her and that this information was sufficient to ensure the safety of X.
Follow-up by Child Safety
The Department of Child Safety have an extensive file in relation to this matter. This is because there have been numerous notifications made over the years, it would seem by the father, which have led to a number of investigations. Specifically after the interview with police, the child safety notes are to the effect that:
…whilst this information is concerning, there is insufficient information to indicate that the child has been harmed or placed at risk of harm to a level which would cause a detrimental physical, emotional or psychological impact; or that there is no parent willing and able to meet her care and protective needs adequately. The child attends school and is therefore highly visible within that community.
Another notification was received by the Department on 16 March 2021. The notifier told the Department that the child had bruises and that the child regularly had bruises. The notifier said that the mother has previously slapped the child across the face and that she takes her frustrations out on her child.
The Departmental notations from this information include that:
Consideration needs to be given to the father continuing to perpetrate this FDV through reporting to CS and other government departments, including education, and controlling the narrative in relation to information reported on the mother.
At another part, the notations include that:
The information does not indicate a level of significant and demonstrable harm to the subject child and the notifier was unable to provide any information which warrants further investigation by the Department in relation to harm or risk of harm to the subject child. In further consideration of the history, it is noted that the child has been interviewed by police, most recently on 5 February 2021 and there have been several investigations by CS over the period 2017 to 2019, all of which were unsubstantiated.
Another notification was received by the Department in April 2021. On this occasion, the Department noted:
While the information appears to indicate some low-level neglect worries, there was no information to indicate that the child’s basic necessities of life are unmet by the parent to such an extent that the child’s self and development is affected, causing harm, or an unacceptable risk of significant harm. History indicates there are numerous reports alleging harm to the child in the mother’s care… Should further worries of same/similar nature continue to present, further investigation may be required at that time around cumulative harm to the child.
Notations in the departmental file from July 2021 reveal that checks were made in March 2021 with the school. The school noted that no bruises had been observed and that X:
…had made no indications/disclosures about feeling unsafe of either parent. X does not talk much about her family but appears to have appropriate interactions with both parents at school. She is well behaved and there have been no observed changes in behaviour or emotional state.
The departmental records also note that there had been:
…no independent party to come forward in support of the notifier’s allegations, including the several reports provided by the GP around alleged (minor) bruises which also note that the child appeared happy and alert, not distressed and well nourished, suggesting in fact that there is a good standard of care being provided to the child and that she presents as a happy and energetic child.
Dr E
The father deposed that he had been concerned for the child and had taken the child to see a GP, Dr E, at F Medical Centre. The father annexed three notations from the doctor. These notes are extremely difficult to read.
The first appears to be dated 25 January 2021 and seems to say that the child presented with a history of biting by the mother on palm of left hand; 1 cm marks on the left lower medial thigh and right lower medial thigh allegedly caused by mother. The doctor appears to advise the father to report the matter to Child Safety.
The second notation appears to be dated 8 March 2021 and notes that the grandmother brought the child to see the doctor. The notes state that the child:
…had been in the care of the mother and that there was a haematoma over the lower patella and a 2 cm mark over the mid and lower right tibia. It noted a haematoma of 2 cm on the left thigh and ½ cm mark on the left medial aspect (indecipherable). These were allegedly caused by a “pinch” by mother.
The doctor advised a report to Child Safety and noted that the child was happy and alert and no treatment was required.
The last notation appears to be in late March 2021. It notes four fresh subcutaneous haematomas allegedly caused by “a fighting game with mother”. The doctor noted that the child was in good spirits. He also treated her for an asthma related complaint.
The father claims that these medical notes show that the mother was still mistreating the child after she had been spoken to by the police and Child Safety. It is of note that, notwithstanding that there is a duty for a medical professional to report matters that they believe may illustrate danger or neglect to a child, Dr E did not make any reports himself.
Child Safety notes following the Execution of the Recovery Order
The notations of the Department following the execution of the recovery order on 13 August 2021 are instructive. Once the recovery order was executed, the Court given ordered that the father spend no time with the child. This means that the father has not seen, or in any way communicated with, the child since the morning of 13 August 2021.
The notations acknowledged that X was returned to the care of the mother after a recovery order was executed on 13 August 2021 and that the child was recovered from school. The notes state that the child appeared happy to be reunited with her mother by way of becoming “clingy and constantly hugging her”. It seems that the father contacted Child Safety at 7:33 PM on 13 August 2021 to notify them that the child had been taken by police and given to the mother who would, by now, be hurting the child.
Three days later, on 16 August 2021, a notification was made telling the Department that the father had been acting protectively towards X. The notification relayed that the father had put the daughter into a private school and that she was taken out of her previous school because one of the teachers there was being investigated for rape. I will talk of this aspect later in these Reasons.
The notifier (who is not identified but, given the history, would seem to be the father) also said that the mother regularly physically abuses the child and constantly slaps, hits, pinches, punches and kicks the child. The notifier reported that the father enrolled the child in martial arts in order for her to learn how to defend herself. The notifier said that they believed that the mother was capable of killing the child and that no authorities were doing anything to protect the child.
The notifier reported that the abuse had left the child with injuries such as bruises. The notifier said that there is evidence that indicates the child has been “beaten within an inch of her life”. The notifier reported that the mother’s family were very well-known in the Country B as they were heavily involved with the militia and have killed and decapitated people. The notifier said that the mother believes that this behaviour is normal and acceptable and demonstrates this towards the child.
The notifier reported that the mother feeds the child chicken and rice three times a day and seven days a week. The notifier also reported that the mother has had four boyfriends in the past year and that the child constantly has to get used to new people which is causing further instability for the child.
Another three days later, on 19 August 2021, another notification was made which stated that there were concerns that the child was being hit in the head by her mother and that the mother has been physically abusive. The notifier could not say how the physical injuries were happening or when those events had taken place. When the Department asked the notifier to give more detail, the notifier simply stated that “nobody cares” and that “it will take the child dying for someone to listen”.
On 27 August 2021, another notification was made to the Department where the notifier said that they were aware that the child was making no disclosures about the mother hurting her. The notifier was of the view that the mother threatens the child (so that no complaint is made). The notifier raised additional concerns about emotional harm.
Interview with X on 27 August 2021
As will be explained later in these Reasons, X was not interviewed when the recovery order was executed because she was quite emotional. Police and the Department decided to interview her two weeks later.
During this interview, X recounted what happened on the day of the execution of the recovery order. She described that after seeing her mother at her school, they went to the Location G. She said she started crying there because she did not want to go back to her mother’s house. She said that she wanted “seven, seven” (meaning seven nights with mum and then seven nights with dad).
Police asked her why she didn’t want to go back with her mother and she said because she didn’t know if it was the seventh day or if she was to stay with dad for one year. She could not identify any other reasons that she didn’t want to go back to her mother’s.
She was asked as to what would happen if her mother got angry. She replied “three or two smacks but not hard”. She said she has smacked on the hand but it didn’t hurt. She said that one time she had been smacked in her leg. She said that her mother smacked with her (open palm) hand.
X then said “I don’t even know the last time she smacked me”. She was asked, other than smacking, what else her mother did when she (X) was naughty. The child replied “nothing else”.
X was then asked what her father would do when she was naughty. The child replied “he does absolutely nothing but when I’m really naughty he smacks me on the head”. The child indicated that her father would smack her on both sides of the head with an open palm. She said “feels like it doesn’t really hurt but it hurts a little”.
She was asked whether there was anything else that her father did when she was really naughty and she replied that “one time he held my wrists hard” indicating that he held one wrist in either hand.
The police asked X what she liked about being with her mother. She gave an answer to that question and then spontaneously said “my dad tells me that my mum is a slut, which makes me think of slugs”.
The child was asked specifically as to whether she is pinched by the mother and she said “no”.
Aftermath
The mother was again spoken to by police and officers from Child Safety. The mother acknowledged that there had been times when she had struggled to co-parent with the father which had resulted in her smacking the child. She said that it was important to her that she instilled the value of respect into the child as this was a vital quality, both personally and culturally. She said that she felt that the father had impacted on her ability to parent the child as a result of him undermining her decisions.
The mother said that, at times when she had taught the child something respectful, the father would frequently tell the child that the child doesn’t need to listen to her mother because she “is from the Third World and can’t speak English”. The mother acknowledged that this made it difficult for her to provide a consistent message.
The mother also acknowledged that smacking a child is not an appropriate form of discipline and advised that, since there had not been contact between the father and the child, parenting the child had become much more manageable. She said that the child is no longer confused about the expectations which had previously resulted in her displaying challenging behaviour. That challenging behaviour often led to the mother responding with physical domestic discipline.
The Department noted that the child has “a dry-skin condition which can present as small patches of dry skin, resembling a graze”. The Department noted that the mother administers cortisone cream to the skin of the child. The Department further noted that “X is an active child who is frequently riding her bike and swimming and thus is likely to incur bruises from minor injuries”.
After the interview on 27 August 2021, officers informed the father of the contents of what X had said during that interview. The officers reported that the father “was unhappy with the result that the child did not disclose the full extent of what he believes is happening when the child is in the care of the mother”. The father told the officers that the mother had obviously threatened and reprogrammed the child and forced her to give robotic answers. I do note that he gave a similar explanation to this Court as to why the child had not said anything that would accord with what the father “knows” the mother was actually doing.
Another notification was made on 18 September 2021. Again, the notifier told the Department that they were worried about the child in the care of the mother because the mother uses physical discipline that is excessive and causes bruising. The notifier said that they were worried for the child being in the sole care of the mother through the school holidays.
Discussion of harm to X caused by the mother
In looking at this aspect, there is no doubt at all that the mother had unjustifiably harmed X. She had done so by hitting the child with an open hand, kicking the child, pinching the child and putting her fingernails into parts of the body of the child.
However, I cannot find that this was more than excessive domestic discipline. The cultural differences, as to what is accepted in Australia and what is accepted in the Country B regarding domestic discipline, are to the fore in this case. The mother was not harming the child in a gratuitous or sadistic manner. The mother was not harming the child for her own enjoyment. The mother was not harming the child so as to maintain a power relationship based on fear.
The fact that Dr E did not report, to Child Safety or any other authority, what he saw when X presented to him at the F Medical Centre, speaks volumes.
On my assessment of the interview with police, and even the videos made by the father, it is clear to me that the child understood that the force applied to her by the mother was only for the purposes of discipline. On my view of the evidence, the child had no fear of the mother and no trepidation as to being in the presence of the mother. This was illustrated perfectly by the fact that, after the child made disclosures to the family consultant in January 2020, she greeted her mother with a very loving and affectionate hug and would not let the mother go.
The descriptions of what was happening between the mother and the child escalated dramatically. The father originally described what was occurring as “excessive punishment” but then expanded that to “systematic abuse” and “periodic beatings”. At one stage during his evidence before me, the father referred to the child receiving “bashings” from the mother. The father has attempted to portray the mother as a tormenter of X. One would be forgiven if, after listening to the father, one might think that the mother would lock the child in a dungeon, manacled to the wall while she decided what instrument of torture she would visit upon the child - the Cat o’ Nine Tails, the Rack or the Iron Maiden.
Yet, the evidence to corroborate these allegations was non-existent. There were marks on the child (which were video recorded by the father) but the child was not particularly bothered by them and, in one instance, was more interested in a mark on her foot which could not have been caused by the mother. The father, in effect, has told the Court that he “knows” what is happening in the mother’s house and that his instinctive knowledge trumps all need for evidence.
When asked as to why the child told the police in the second interview (conducted two weeks after the recovery order had been executed) that she couldn’t even remember the last time that the mother hit her, the father explained that the mother had coached and cowed the child to such an extent that the child was too scared to tell police what was actually happening. Yet, in the same interview, the child told police that she wanted to have “seven times with mum and seven times with dad”. The “coaching” explanation is ludicrous.
The manner in which the video recordings were made clearly illustrate the father putting words in the child’s mouth. As I explained to the father during the course of the trial, he did not ask a non-leading question and allow the child to tell her story. As I explained to the father during the trial, the manner in which the police asked the child questions was such that it elicited a truthful account. The manner in which the father conducted himself did not allow the child to deviate from the story which the father wanted to be told on camera. For that reason, whatever the child said during the course of those video recordings, has no value as a reliable indicator of what has occurred.
But more importantly, there is evidence from the schools attended by X. After the police interview in February 2021 and the subsequent conversation between the mother and police and Child safety officers, the school was very vigilant for signs of any harm to the child. The records of that school show that there were no such indications.
The father does not trust those records because, he says, that school employed a rapist and did nothing about it. I will say more about this issue later in these reasons, suffice to say that this is another example of how the father uses (or misuses) a purported “fact” to justify his actions.
However, her current school (of which the father receives no information) has also continued to monitor X. The records of that school show that there have been no indications of any harm to the child.
The records of Child Safety, especially since the execution of the recovery order, also show that there have been no indications, in any of their contacts with the child, of any untoward or improper disciplining of the child.
It seems to me that the only proper inferences that can be made are that the mother did discipline the child inappropriately and excessively. The harm perpetrated upon the child was not gratuitous or because the mother had a nonchalant attitude as to proper disciplining techniques. In February 2021, she was told in no uncertain terms, by both the police and Child Safety officers, that this form of discipline was not acceptable in Australia. The mother listened to what she was told and adjusted her disciplinary techniques accordingly.
Because of these findings, I am not of the view that X needs to be removed from the mother for her own safety.
The health (particularly mental health) of the Father
The father has been diagnosed with a medical condition. This is a rare inherited disorder that causes a build up of toxins in the body. There is a change in the gene that usually creates the enzyme that is needed to break down the chemical. If this is not treated, there can be catastrophic effects. The father is in control of this condition and keeps to a very strict diet that allows his medical condition to remain under control.
The material that has been obtained by the ICL under subpoena provides a picture of the struggles the father has had with his mental health.
In 2011, the father (then aged 34) contacted the acute care team at the Mental Health Unit (“MHU”) at the Region H Hospital. He informed the MHU that he had experienced chronic anxiety since he was 17 years old. He said that he had been prescribed numerous antidepressants to manage his systems but he had been self-medicating using Xanax. He said that he was buying Xanax off the streets and having 4 to 5 tablets per day.
Later that year, the paternal grandmother spoke to the MHU about the father. This caused a clinician to speak to the father. The father told the clinician that he had been the victim of workplace bullying and had been looking for alternative employment for the past 12 months. He said that he wrote to one of his supervisors in regard to the bullying but his emails were read out to the perpetrators of the bullying. He said that he had been threatened by co-workers and had chosen to take sick leave. He told the clinician that he wished to commence on an antidepressant and that he acquires Xanax illegally. It was noted that he was disinterested in drug and alcohol follow-up. Instructively, he told the clinician that his mother had anxiety issues and that his father was “an alcoholic child basher and wife basher who stabbed my mother with a knife”.
The father presented at the MHU in 2015 following his return (with the mother) from the Country B. In 2015, he attended with his mother requesting assistance with his mental health. He told the unit that “for the past 12 months he has been having homicidal thoughts in relation to his wife (the mother)”.
He told the units that whilst he was residing in the Country B, he was in several aggressive incidents. On one occasion he said that he was beaten up and had to be hospitalised. He said that he was exposed to violence that was acceptable within the Country B culture however he found the violence “shocking”. He said that his relationship with the mother was characterised by domestic violence where he mother would often lose her temper and hit him. He said that he had ceased using Xanax two years ago.
He reiterated that, over the past 12 months, he had been having daily thoughts about killing the mother. He stated that he was terrified that he was going to act on those thoughts and that he had been obsessed with these thoughts. He said that he had thoughts about strangling her, drowning her, pushing her into a volcano and that, no matter what he tried, he could not stop those thoughts. He said he was using alcohol to try to stop these thoughts but it wasn’t really working. He said that he was terrified of his thoughts and he did not want to act on them and wanted to remain with his wife.
The father was admitted to hospital for a few weeks and gradually was given leave from the hospital until he was discharged. In 2015, the father was discharged. The discharge summary notes the intrusive thoughts and imagery of killing the mother that the father reported. Upon discharge the father said that he no longer feared that he would act on thoughts of harm to his wife and that he had no further suicidal ideation.
In a follow-up appointment seven days after discharge, the father noted that the thoughts were still vivid and he described an image of dragging the dead body of the mother through a cave a fair way out from Brisbane, noting that this was a place near where his “auntie” lived. The father said that mindfulness techniques and taking his medications and vitamins had been effective and he denied any intention to act on these thoughts.
In 2015, the father had another follow-up appointment and reported that he was “not too bad” and “dealing with it”. He said that he was continuing to avoid weapons and that his mother and wife would hide weapons in places around the house that he was not aware of. He said that he still felt “wired” and “on edge still” and reported experiencing intrusive thoughts about killing his wife every day though he said that they had been “less intense”.
The MHU notes disclose that the father wanted to make an application for a disability pension but that the MHU would not support that proposal. According to the notes, the father threatened that he would submit a complaint against the treating psychiatrist for “maltreatment”. This related to the psychiatrist “forcing” him to tell the mother about his thoughts of harm against her. The father stated that this caused harm to their unborn baby. The psychiatrist advised that the treating team had ethical responsibilities to disclose risk of harm to others such as his wife (the mother).
The father had said that he and some other patients were discussing stalking the treating psychiatrist, and his family, with intent to harm them. He told the MHU that he would have gone through with this if his wife (the mother) had miscarried. He said he no longer intends on doing this as the baby (X) is still alive. The father said that these thoughts of harm to the treating psychiatrist are “meditated” and that they were not like the intrusive and unpleasant thoughts he has of his wife (the mother).
In 2015, a meeting was scheduled between the treating team and the father. The meeting was to provide clarity to the father about the role of the mental health service. The meeting was supposed to assist the father to review and identify relevant recovery goals and identify what the team could do to assist him to work towards those goals. The meeting was to provide clear limits around the behaviours of the father and to provide clear expectations as to his appropriate behaviour and to reinforce that threats/intimidation/violence was not going to be tolerated.
When that meeting actually occurred, the team leader began to raise these issues with the father. He expressed his displeasure with the services that he had received and he declined to have any ongoing interaction with the mental health service. The father became very angry during the meeting, mainly because the team was not supporting his application for a disability pension. This anger meant that the team was not able to discuss most of what had been planned to be discussed and the meeting had to be ended. His file was then closed.
While these matters are disturbing, they are dated. However, what is extremely concerning is that the father now claims that he has no memory of any of those incidents. His excuse for not having any memory is that he was in a “mind altered state” because of all the medications that he was on and that those medications destroyed his memory. He said that he had no memory of ever having these thoughts about the mother.
In cross examination, the father said that any, and every, anti-social action of his, had only occurred because he was on “mind altering medication”. He said that he had taken himself off all such medication since January 2022.
There were also notations regarding the private psychologist that the father was seeing. The father learned that the psychologists played in a band. The father researched this on the internet and intended to go and watch his psychologist play in his band at an RSL club. The father was advised that this was “inappropriate”. The father told the MHU that he was aware that such action was not appropriate but he intended to attend in any event. The notation was that the MHU was going to inform the psychologist about this matter.
Notwithstanding the dated nature of this information, I have recounted it in some detail because the notion that the father cannot remember any of these incidents is concerning but, if it is that the father simply does not want to remember these incidents, then that is extremely disturbing. Even though the information is dated, similar patterns to the present matter were clearly evident.
Domestic Violence
The father has continually claimed that he was the victim of violence from the mother, especially when they were in the Country B. Conversely the mother has continually claimed that she was the victim of violence from the father, both in the Country B and especially when they returned to live in Australia. There is very little in the way of contemporaneous recordings to corroborate these claims.
However, it is not the spectre of physical violence that concerns this Court; rather, it is the spectre of coercive control. Whilst it had been documented that the parents had separated on occasions, the mother said that the father spoke to her in such a way that she felt compelled to return to the relationship. The father denies any such conduct.
What has been of concern is the documented history of the litigation. It is incongruous that the mother would: make the complaints that she made during the previous filing in this Court (BRC 11666/2019); have a Court make an order that mandated supervised visits between the father and the child; and, then choose to ignore that and, instead, come to a compromise solution with the father that gave him unsupervised equal time with the child.
There seems to be no other rational explanation for this other than the father implementing coercive control over the mother to the extent that she felt that she had no other choice but to comply with the father’s demands. The judicious use of covertly recorded conversations with one parent by the other parent and then referring to selective excerpts is a feature that is often found in cases of coercive control.
In this case, the father did give to the Court such selective recordings. The father pointed to one particular recording where the mother made an “admission” that the father was the favoured parent by the child. In another recording, the mother “admitted” that the father treated her like a queen. In another recording, the mother is said to convey that she arranged custody arrangements for her financial benefit. In a further recording, the mother has “conceded” that she was “not going back to court again”. And in a final recording, the mother “admitted” that the father would never hurt his daughter.
These recordings were used by the father to intimidate the mother into not pursuing any parenting matter because these recordings would be used against her, as if they were repudiations of her stance. Of course, they have little evidentiary value as they are excerpts from a larger conversation upon which the Court has no information, and therefore, no context.
The behaviour in making constant notifications to the Department of Child Safety can also be seen as a manifestation of the coercive control. Further, posting the videos to social media can also be seen as a manifestation of coercive control. One such video records a “Tik Tok” dance that the mother had uploaded to social media. The father recorded himself watching the video where the father made derogatory comments suggesting that the manner of solo dancing in the video was not befitting that of a woman who had a boyfriend, let alone a woman who was a mother.
It is also instructive that the paternal grandmother (that is, the mother of the father) applied for a domestic violence order against the father on 10 September 2019. In that application, the paternal grandmother wrote that the father “has had anger issues since he was 16 years old”. She also wrote that “he has threatened me many times - swear words - degradation, year after year after year”.
The paternal grandmother also wrote:
His mental health deteriorated over the years. In 2014, he returned to Australia from the [Country B] where he was homicidal and suicidal for 18 months. He was in [Suburb J] psychiatric hospital for nearly a month. On 22 August 2019, he told me twice - seriously and threatening - he would kill me if I reported them to DOCS again, today I am! He visited for four hours and was extremely angry the whole time. He will kill.
Also in that same application, the paternal grandmother wrote that the father:
Kicked my three year old granddaughter on 17 September 2019. She, [X], has seen her dad, my son, verbally abuse and offer to fight too many people in her life. He does get overly angry instantly! He boasts to me year after year of the dangerous things he has done in instigating physical fights. People back down from him as I think he is crazy. He needs to go to [Suburb J] psychiatric immediately.
The paternal grandmother also wrote:
He can be a loving dad to [X] though his anger flicks to extreme too quickly. She is at risk of being frightened or hurt by other people’s reactions to his anger. He will kill!
Instructively, the paternal grandmother wrote:
Late last year, [the father] befriended and developed a very close relationship with his dad [paternal grandfather]. Me and my 2 children left his dad when [the father] was [young]. [I had a] domestic violence order. Since then, [the father] has hated me and his sister immensely, he believes his dad was innocent. Their dad never paid maintenance or even sent one card - ever”.
She then wrote “[the father] has abused and degraded me for way too many years. He manipulates, lies, isolates people for his gain. He is an abuser. He has not hit me, though he may kill me as his dad wanted to do!”
In my view, there is ample evidence to satisfy the Court that the father has engaged in family violence by his coercive actions towards the mother. This is relevant for purposes I will explain later in these Reasons.
Relevant Text Messages of the Period
By 20 June 2020, the orders made by this Court in file BRC 11666/2019 were being ignored and the “agreement” between the parties saw X spending equal time with each parent, despite what the Court had earlier ordered. On 20 June 2020, the father sent the following text to the mother:-
…if you really care about our daughter. You should think about going back to work full-time and let me take over. You know I am a good dad. I have all the time in the world for a beautiful daughter. I would devote my entire life to making sure she has everything in life. I looked after you. I bought [sic] you here. I did everything for you. I will do the same for her. You know my heart.
The mother refused to do so. The father began making the videos (of which I have earlier spoken) after this text message had been sent.
By July 2021, the father had filed an application for consent orders in the Court under a new file number (which is the file number of this present application) and that application had been refused by the Court. Nevertheless, the informal “arrangement” still saw the child spending equal time with each parent.
Also by this time, the mother had a new boyfriend; a person named Mr K. Mr K did not live with the mother but spent a lot of time with the mother. The father did not like Mr K and would refer to him as an old man or a paedophile. Also by this time, the police and Child Safety had finalised their investigation into the claims that the mother had harmed the child. As has been documented, the father did not accept that outcome and was still making notifications to the Department about the mother.
On 2 July 2021, the father sent the following text to the mother:-
Your daughter is growing up too despise you [Ms Wylder]. She is fucking scared shitless of you. It's all your own fault. You [Ms Wylder] are a verv bad mother. You don’t even deserve a child. You don’t even know how to care for this one. You are nothing but a problem in her life. You cause nothing but heartache, pain and suffering to our daughter. You spend no money on her at all. You only ever so free shit. You've fucked up her karate, swimming, her good school [L School], you constantly hurt her physically and abuse her you feed her shit food. You always change her custody to what suits your and [Mr K]s life, not what's best for our daughter. You ruined our marriage with your greed for money, which has had a huge negative impact on our daughters mind and her life. It's all on you. She knows you lied and you still lie to the cops about hurting her and about the night we broke up. You and ya mother told the cops I had a knife. That was a fucking lie. That's why they were so rough. It's all your fault. [X] can read now. So when you lie about who gets her payments or what was said or done by [Ms M] or you In court documents. I iust let her read the court documents. Your, [Mr K]'s and [Ms M’s] lies are being exposed one by one by me. Your here for the Centrelink money and that's all your here for. Your 3 fake DVO's are proof of who you are and what you thought of me. You only got a DVO against me so you could get her parenting payments. Once you got the payments transferred into your name, you dropped the·dvo against me. This was all your master plan. At.the start of 2020 I had [X] 80 percent of the time and you just took all the money from centrelink. That worked well for you. Until I couldn't financially afford it anymore. Then I approached Centrelink told them and only then you demanded your 51 percent custody. So you wouldn’t lose the payments. Your all about the money. You don't love [X]. You want her parenting payment. So you can send it too the [Country B]
Soon after this, the father sent another text message. This message was sent around the time that the father refused to return X which necessitated the mother seeking a recovery order from the Court. This particular text message read:-
[X] is just a problem for you now. I can clearly see that you don’t want [X]. You and ya pedofile need space, take it. Go away with ya pedofile, go live ya life, and give me [X] full-time. I will take her. I will tell her your dead. You hurt her non-stop. You don’t want her annoying you. Your pedofile doesn’t want [X] in your relationship. Give her to me. Just disappear…Forget about [X] …You hurt her, your fucking up her life, just go [Ms Wylder]. Disappear with ya pedo. [X] will be better off without you in her life.
As can be seen, the father is clearly telling the mother that he will tell X that the mother is dead. When the recovery order was executed, X was extremely emotional when reunited with her mother. The mother told the Court that the child had told her, that the father had told the child that her mother was dead and this was the reason for her reaction when reunited with the mother. The father denied ever telling the child that the mother was dead.
However, in the notations made by Child Safety that day was this observation:-
She [X] was not interviewed today as a result of only just having returned home. She had been told by her father that her mother was dead, so was still confused about how her mother was still here.
It is obvious that the father made good his threat by refusing to return the child to the mother and informing her that the mother was dead.
Other text messages
The father has testified that he has been respectful towards the mother and has always behaved appropriately. The text messages and social media posts of the father tell a completely different story. There are text messages that have been produced to the Court in which the father is extremely denigrating of the mother.
In one text message, the father wrote:-
[X]- knows you put [Mr K] before her. [X] knows that your family getting their monthly money is more important to you than she is. [X]’s an Aussie. She isn’t a dumb [Country B] whore. She’s half me. She’s smart as fuck…
In another text the father wrote:-
[Ms Wylder]. You open ya legs for dirty old men and their money and so do all your friends. So don’t preach to me about life, your a two bit whore. I didn’t marry you for ya brains love. Neither does [Mr K]. I found you in the trash bin. I made you who you are today. Remember that. you and your entire family will be in debt to me for the rest of your miserable lives.
In another text the father wrote:-
You could just use [Mr K] or [Mr N], like you used me to get inside this country. Your a parasite [Ms Wylder]. You spat out a kid to hitch a ride to the first world Now your gonna spit out a kid to get ya hooks into a rich guy. I wouldn’t be proud of opening ya legs for money [Ms Wylder]. Everyone with half a brain can see what you are. You lie and lie some more. The only crowd you will ever get into is ya pedofile crowd. All the dirty old Pedo men with their young wives. All of you ashamed to be seen in public because of ya age differences. So you all hang out together at a house. Yes [Ms Wylder] people are staring at you all. Because it's fucken sick and not normal. I look forward to the day [Mr K] uses you up and spits you out. Just like the ex wife and two children he just abandoned. Those two houses would be sold by now if he stopped paying the mortgages. Keep that in ya memory. Good riddens to bad things. I hope you step under a bus.
In another text, the father made a chilling threat against the boyfriend of the mother, Mr K. The text message was a photograph of a large calibre bullet. There is a pair of sunglasses photograph next to the bullet so that the size of the bullet can be appreciated. The bullet has the word MR K written on it. The father sent a text accompanying the photo saying “This one is for Mr K…” He followed up with another text which said “See I even wrote his name on it”.
In evidence before me, the father denied that this was a threat. He said that he was with X who asked him “how do you spell Mr K?” The father said that he did not have any paper handy but he was able to find a decommissioned bullet and he wrote the name on the bullet. When asked about the contents of the text message that accompanied the photo of the bullet, the father said that “I can’t remember what I was thinking when I sent the text”.
His answers and demeanour were extremely evasive and he knew how ridiculous this explanation was, but he still gave it with a wry smile to Mr Foley who was cross-examining.
Social media posts
The father posted a number of photos and personal thoughts to his Facebook page and other social media.
The father posted a photograph of himself with X and had a caption reading “Family Court, Robbing Children of their Fathers since Jan 5, 1976”. He posted a photograph of the mother with a caption above her head reading “The Academy Award for Best Actress inside the Family Court goes to” and underneath the photograph of her face, the word “Ms Wylder” is written. The father has posted photographs of X with captions such as “Truth Suppressed” or “Suppressed”.
The father has posted photographs of X with captions such as “MISSING CHILD stolen by the Australian Court System”. The father has also posted “memes” with such messages as “I DON’T WANT TO GO TO MUMMIES. MY MUMMY HURTS ME. Then the abuser is given full custody”.
Another meme suggested a quote “I’ll kill for my daughter I’ll die for my daughter I am my daughter’s keeper”. After these posts are photographs of the father posing with a very large weapon. I accept that this large weapon is a gel blaster and that it is harmless. However, it has a very realistic and fearsome appearance and the message that the photograph conveys is extremely clear.
The father was asked about these posts in his cross examination. It was put to him that it was irresponsible to post such messages to a forum where it was open for the world to see. The father said that he did not realise that there could be deleterious consequences to these posts.
But the most chilling use of social media by the father were two videos that he made and posted to the Tik Tok platform.
The first video was posted on 18 May 2022. The father is looking straight at the camera and says the following:-
The trial is coming, I hope you’ve got an extremely good fucking memory because you’re gonna have to remember all your lies and I know you’re gonna watch this video. I hope you’re ready because it’s easy to recall from here (pointing to his head) but it’s not easy to just remember what you’ve just written on a piece of paper which is fucking garbage or bullshit and lies. This is where you are gonna come unstuck and I’m gonna expose you for exactly what you are.
The second video was posted in July 2022. The father is again looking straight at the camera and says the following:-
If anybody knows me, it’s you. You know me. Am I the sort of person that just gives up and walks away from anything? No. No I’m not, you know that. I’m here for the long run, I’m here to stay. And I’m not going nowhere. I’m going to keep going. I’m never gonna stop. Not until things are right. You know that.
It must be remembered that when this matter was being case managed by another Judge, an order was made, on 1 February 2022, in these terms:-
That the parents are restrained, and an injunction to issue restraining the parents from making any posts on social media in relation to the child, the other parent or these proceedings.
While most posts of concern relate to X and the mother, there was another post that is somewhat disturbing.
Ms O is the Member of Parliament representing the State seat of Suburb P. She has a Facebook page for her electoral office where she posts information about community events in her electorate. In 2019, she posted information about a Free Community BBQ with a QPS Crime Prevention Stall to be held at Q Street, Suburb R in 2019.
The father posted a comment on this Facebook page. It read:
Here we go. [Ms O] [sic] here’s an idea. Give me permission to go on a seven night killing spree at mountains to mangroves and kids space parklands. I will get every person that walks the path from 10 PM to 4 AM. Just a seven day shift and I promise there will be no more rapes, bashings or robberies in the local area ever again. Deal?
The father was spoken to by police and he told police that he had “no intention of taking matters into his own hands”. Soon after the police attended, police identified that the father changed his Facebook profile picture to “Fuck The Police” and “Fuck The System”.
The Father’s attitude towards the Family Law System
When the father was giving evidence, he said, in a non-responsive answer to a question, that the Family Court took his father away from him for 37 years. He later launched a tirade against the Court along the same lines as some of his social media posts. He said that he had not had a relationship with his father because of the Court.
He claimed that he reunited with his father after 37 years and was told by his father that the pressure from the Court made him simply “give up”. He said that the Court was making a new, or second, stolen generation by denying children relationships with their fathers. He said that he knows personally that his life had been ruined because he had been denied a relationship with his father by the Family Court. He said that he will not stop to ensure that the Family Court does not do the same thing to X that has happened to him.
The problem with such simplistic reasoning is that the father seeks to apportion total blame to the Court. There was no evidence given by the father that he actually researched what reports and what evidence were available at the time that any Court order was made as regards to him as a child.
The evidence of the paternal grandmother (from her domestic violence application) sheds great light upon the paternal grandfather. The grandmother said that the father was three years of age, and the paternal aunt was six, when the grandmother and the two children left and had to hide in City S. She said they returned to Brisbane and they were harassed by the paternal grandfather.
She said that the paternal grandfather would drive past and give the children rude hand signals and swear at them. She said that the father has since tried to convince the paternal aunt (the sister of the father) that the paternal grandfather was not to blame and that the paternal grandmother was, in fact, the alcoholic and abusive parent. The paternal grandmother said that the father told her that he now understands why fathers kill their children when the wife threatens to leave.
I note that in the father’s hospital admission during 2011, he told the clinician that his father was “an alcoholic child basher and wife basher who stabbed my mother with a knife”.
The Father’s belief about a teacher being a rapist
The mother and father had enrolled X at T School. The child had been attending at that school at the time she was interviewed by police. The school was aware that there was a co-parenting arrangement with regard to X.
On 9 June 2021, the school records show that the deputy principal observed the father wandering near the prep toilets and asked why he was on site. The father replied that he had been asked to stay to volunteer in his daughter’s prep class and he was looking for the tuckshop. The class teacher reported that the father had been asked to finish volunteering and head home but that the father had refused. The teacher reported to the principal that the father had asked if he could take students outside to work one-on-one and he was told that he must remain in the classroom. The principal then asked the father to finish up for the day and told him that volunteers are not to remain on site over breaks. She told the father that volunteers were asked to volunteer and then leave the classroom when the time was complete. After this the father left the school.
The next day, 10 June 2021, the father called the school and asked to speak to the principal. The father told the principal that he was concerned about the teacher who took his daughter’s class last week. He asked if the teacher’s name was Mr U and the principal stated that this was not the name of any staff member at the school. The father said that he thought his daughter told him that Mr U had taken the class last week.
The principal told the father that a person by the name of Mr V, also known as Mr V, took the class and he was a regular staff member rather than a relief teacher. The principal noted that the father seemed surprised that Mr V was a regular staff member and again asked if he was called Mr U. The principal again stated that the teacher was Mr V and not Mr U. The father then said that Mr V looks like a Mr U.
The father then told the principal that Mr U is a person who had raped women in the Suburb J area and mentioned that the rapist was identified by his friend as Mr U but that his friend did not go to the police. The principal again stated that the staff member was not Mr U and if the staff member looked similar then it was sad for his friend but it was information best dealt with by the police.
The father then asked if Mr V lived in Suburb J or previously in the Northern Territory. The principal said that this was a teacher’s private information and was not for sharing. The father then said that he recognised Mr U from photos and he was in the Northern Territory. The principal reiterated that Mr V had been a staff member at the school and for Education Queensland for a number of years. The father again stated that Mr V looks like Mr U and that they ride a similar motorbike. The principal again reiterated that their staff member was not Mr U and perhaps he looked similar but it is not this person.
The father then stated that this was “a relief”. The principal then ended the call.
The father however did not leave it there. He emailed the school on 14 June 2021 reiterating his claims that Mr V was Mr U and that Mr U was a rapist. The father sent another email on 16 June 2021 reiterating the same claims. On 17 June 2021, the principal replied, explaining again that Mr V was not Mr U. The principal said that this was a matter for the police. The father sent another email later that day.
There were another three emails sent by the father about the teacher. This prompted the principal to email the police so that the father could follow-up his concerns directly with QPS. The father replied via email stating “Be assured that I won’t back down and I will pass my pics everywhere around your school?? Cops don’t bother me”.
She said his risk of suicide or murder suicide (including risk of kidnapping of the child) was assessed as high, given the risk factors that had been identified. Dr AE noted that the father has sessional traits and a past history of vigilante behaviour. This, coupled with significant pathological personality traits, has placed the father at a significant risk to others. His risk of violence was assessed as “high” across all domains.
Dr AE noted that, in his interview, the father also pointed to his daughter as his only protective factor and, reportedly, his sole purpose for living. He said that he had been solely dedicated to obtaining sole custody of the child. His justification for this was his obsessive belief that his daughter was being physically abused by the mother and may be at risk of being sexually abused by the boyfriends of the mother.
Dr AE said that the father’s risks towards others were even higher than his risk of suicide or murder/suicide once he perceived that his needs will not be met. This is of concern if it is that the Court does not grant the father “full custody” of his child. His personality construct and his tendency for retaliatory violence and vigilante behaviour, would indicate that the father would externalise and blame others should he perceive the outcomes of the Court proceedings have been unfair and not in his favour. Dr AE said that the father is likely to experience this as a narcissistic insult.
Dr AE assessed the father’s risk to the child as significant in terms of emotional abuse, enmeshment, coercion, emotional instability and incongruency. This would negatively impact on his parenting skills and boundary setting. The father’s diagnosed mental health conditions would negatively impact on his sole and co-parenting abilities. Dr AE said it is highly likely that this will result in significant psychological and emotional harm to the child.
Other than murder/suicide, the risk of physical harm towards the child was regarded as low. Dr AE said that the father’s risk profile is such that there would be undue risk related to him manipulating his relationships, including the relationship with his own mother and siblings to gain unlawful access to the child. The father’s risk of kidnapping and absconding with the child was assessed as high.
As far as the capacity to parent is concerned, Dr AE said that the father would continue to have a turbulent pathological personality construct that would continue to impact negatively on his capacity to parent. All his mental health diagnoses would negatively affect his ability to care for the child, to make decisions in the best interests of the child and to cooperatively parent with the parties involved.
Dr AE noted that the father was not currently accessing any mental health intervention or treatment. She opined that professional supervision arrangements and comprehensive mental health intervention could mitigate some of his risks; however she was of the opinion that the prognosis remains poor, given the lack of insight. She also said that “this would potentially be negatively affected by engaging in appropriate mental health intervention”. She said that any life or psychosocial stressor could potentially cause a relapse with an exacerbation of symptoms.
Dr AE said that the “gold standard” of treatment for personality disorders is psychotherapy, specifically dialectic behaviour therapy-based intervention. She said that this is effective if the patient is motivated to change.
Dr AE was of the view that, given the significant risks identified in the father’s assessment, he should not have any contact with the child, nor should he have any knowledge in regards to her whereabouts.
Dr AE recommended that X have no contact with the father until she has matured in her cognitive and emotional development and is deemed competent to make decisions around the contact with her father and to manage a complex relationship such contact might require. Dr AE said that if X had contact with any of the other family members of the father, this would increase the risk of the father accessing the child through manipulation, coercion and possible duress of those other family members.
The Risk Assessment
A formal risk assessment was undertaken by Dr AE and Ms AF, who is a psychologist. The risk assessment report is compartmentalised into three sections: historical, clinical and risk management scale.
With respect to the historical scale, the factors looked at were:
·problems with violence,
·problems with antisocial behaviour,
·problems with relationships,
·problems with employment,
·problems with substance use,
·major mental disorder,
·personality disorder,
·traumatic experiences,
·violent attitudes, and
·treatment or supervision response.
In relation to all 10 factors, the classification of the father was “Y” which reflects that the factor is definitely present.
With respect to the clinical scale, the factors looked at were:
·lack of insight,
·violent ideation or intent,
·symptoms of major mental disorder,
·instability, and
·treatment or supervision response.
In relation to all five factors, the classification of the father was “Y” which reflects that the factor is definitely present.
With respect to the risk management scale, the factors looked at were:
·professional services and plans,
·living situation,
·personal support,
·treatment or supervision response, and
·stress or coping.
In relation to all five factors, the classification of the father was “Y” which reflects that the factor is definitely present.
In summary, with regard to the risks of
·future violence,
·serious physical harm, and
·imminent violence
the father’s rating for all three measures was “high”.
Evidence of Dr AE
Dr AE gave evidence before me during the trial. She reiterated that the child is the only protective factor for the father. He has no other protective factors. At this point, the fact that the father is clinging to the hope that the present litigation will mean that he will have sole custody of the child, is a protective factor. However, if the result of this litigation is that the child is not with him for 100% of the time, there is a very real risk.
Dr AE said that the father rated very high on the psychopathy scale. She said that the “normal score” would be a score of between 2 and 5 out of 40. The father scored 35 out of 40.
Dr AE said that the father lacks insight into his condition. She said that the father sees himself as the saviour of the mother and the “best father ever”. She said that the father cannot accept that he may have flaws or that his beliefs may be wrong.
Dr AE was asked about dialectic behaviour therapy and how it may mitigate the risks. Dr AE said that if the father were truly motivated to change his behaviour and to get the best out of such therapy, that it would be, in her view, a 12-month minimum of intensive therapy before one could ascertain whether the therapy had been of any value.
Post –evidence Social Media Posts
The trial was not able to be completed in one sitting. The Court sat for 2 days and completed all of the evidence. Upon the completion of the evidence, the Court adjourned until 13 October 2022 for oral submissions to be made.
Notwithstanding the position of the trial, and also notwithstanding the order/injunction that had been made banning the parents from posting anything to do with these proceedings on social media, the father, nevertheless, felt it appropriate to post his comments on social media.
On 3 October 2022, the father joined a Facebook group titled “Fathers of Alienated Children Group”. His first post read as follows:
Hi everyone, my child is alienated. She is six years old. The Family Court of Australia is currently destroying her little life. The blood of the innocent is on their hands.
He then posted the following comment:-
I have never felt better in my entire life mentally and in the Family Court I have a psych report writter [sic] and an ICL telling the judge I am gonna murder suicide… The system is a joke.
Other persons commented on his post. One person commented about how he was made to attend counselling and that it was painful to think people might actually believe that he was hurting his son. The father replied to this comment saying
They want me to do a one year course, prevention of murder suicide. They say I will kill my ex-wife and child. They are a fucking joke… My ex-wife will kill our child. She already bruised her and cut her. But that’s all supported by the Family Court and ignored.
The father then posted:
I had 50/50 her bf kept trying to control my custody. Now I am on gag orders. I am not allowed to tell you that my ex-wife bashes my daughter and no one is doing anything about it.
When another person posted a comment asking the father whether he thought the report by the psychologist was intentionally false, the father replied:
They are not basing their report on today. They have backdated all information to 7 years ago and are using it today. Also the ICL is massively bias and surrounds herself with powerful bias feminists. A bias forensic psychiatrist. Not a treating one. And a bias family report writer [sic]. Also the bias ICL barrister who is suppose to representing the child. Tried to force me to apologise to my ex-wife at the trial!!! Massive bias!!!
The father also commented that “The forensic psychiatrist told the judge that I am the perfect candidate the murder-suicide. What a joke this Court is!!! How dare they speak about me like that”.
When the Court resumed on 13 October 2022, the ICL, quite properly, made me aware of these posts and wanted to tender them into evidence. I said that it would be necessary for the father to be given the opportunity to explain these posts before it is that I consider them. I made the comment that “it may be that the father was just letting off steam”.
When the father began his further cross examination, counsel for the ICL asked him why he posted this material. His immediate response was “I was just letting off steam”. This illustrated to me that the father had no insight into what he had done but cunningly parroted something that I had said, in the hope that I would somehow “see things his way”.
The father said that he was looking for support and that it was good to find people that have a common view and can give him advice. The father reiterated that he felt that Dr AE was biased.
The father gave evidence that he did not accept the report of Dr AE because “Dr AE said that I was not anxious. I have been anxious all of my life and she couldn’t even get that right”. He also commented that Dr AE had recommended the therapy but that “Dr AE was going to be the one to give the therapy and so she is just looking for a constant source of money for the next 12 months”.
Both those statements are quite false and I will speak of this later in these Reasons.
Application of the Act
The principles governing the Court’s determination in this matter are set out in the Family Law Act 1975 (hereafter “the Act”).
Section 65D of the Act subject to s 61DA (“the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility”) and s 65DAB (“parenting plans”) gives the Court the power to make a “parenting order”. A “parenting order” is defined by s 64B of the Act.
In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order s 60CA requires that I must have regard to the best interests of the children as my paramount consideration.
In determining what is in children’s best interests I must consider the matters set out in s 60CC(2) the “primary considerations” and s 60CC(3) the “additional considerations”.
There are two primary considerations. The first is the benefit to the children of having a meaningful relationship with both their parents and the second is the need to protect a child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
The Act indicates that these considerations are to be considered as having particular importance. They are described as “primary” and, as a note to s 60CC indicates, are consistent with the first two “objects” of Part VII, as stated in s 60B that the best interests of children are met by ensuring they have the benefit of both their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives to the maximum extent consistent with their best interests and protecting them from physical or psychological harm or from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.
There are 14 “additional considerations” set out in s 60CC(3) which I will refer to later in detail in these Reasons.
I must also consider the extent to which each parent has fulfilled his or her parental responsibilities and has facilitated the other in fulfilling his or her parental responsibilities. I must ensure that any order I make is consistent with any family violence order and does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence to the extent that doing so is consistent with the child’s best interest being treated as paramount (s 60CG).
I will also be guided by s 60B which sets out the objects of Part VII of the Act and the principles underlying it.
Application of law to the circumstances of the case
I must now consider the application of the legal principles in the circumstances of this case namely the background facts and the findings I have made during the course of these Reasons and how they apply in determining what parenting orders are most likely to promote the best interests of X.
Primary considerations – section 60B
Turning firstly to the application of the primary considerations namely;
(a)the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents
(b)the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
My conclusion as to these primary considerations are in summary:-
(a)It is important to X that she has a meaningful relationship with her mother, and
(b)There is a very great need to protect X from being exposed to the risk of family violence, harm or abuse.
My reasons for reaching those conclusions are as follows:
(a)There is simply too much conflict between the mother and the father for the child to have a meaningful relationship with both. The child would simply not be able to cope with the differences in parenting styles of the parents.
(b)There is a great deal of evidence that the child has been exposed to family violence and there is a totally unacceptable risk to the child in the presence of the father.
I treat these primary considerations and my findings as being central to the structure of the orders that I ultimately propose to make with respect to the best interests of X. Having made the finding above, s 60CC(2A) has great relevance here.
Additional considerations – section 60CC(3)
Going through the considerations seriatim, I find as follows:-
(a)In my view, X is too young to be able to form any firm and considered view about this subject. It may be that the mother has previously expressed the view that the father is the “favoured parent” but, from what the child has said, this has been based on a superficial premise as to the “fun times” in which the father has indulged the child.
(b)I have spoken a great deal about the relationship that the child has with her parents. The problem for X is that she has received totally inconsistent messages from her parents. If this were to continue, it would be extremely deleterious for the child.
(c)The fact is that X has been involved in a tug-of-war between her parents ever since their separation. The father, especially, has been involved in a game of one-upmanship in which he has tried to prove at all times that he is better than the mother. When his failings were put to him during cross examination, his immediate response was to attempt to contrast himself with the mother as if to say “if I’m bad, then the mother is worse”. Whilst it may be that on the surface it appears that the father has tried to take every opportunity to spend time, communicate and make decisions for the child, there is a superficiality to those endeavours.
(ca)A very disturbing aspect of this matter has been the battle between the parents over Centrelink payments. The number of times where the father has sent messages to the mother for the purpose of increasing his Centrelink payments is astonishing. As a result of the DV orders in place, it is not appropriate for the father to be contributing to child support.
(d)I have thought long and hard about this aspect because there will be consequences for the child if the child has no contact, or very little contact, with her father.
(e)There is no practical difficulty about spending time arrangements. The only question is the appropriateness of any arrangements.
(f)I have spent the majority of these reasons looking at the capacity of the parents to provide for the needs of X, especially her intellectual and emotional needs.
(g)I have taken into account these considerations especially that the child does have an Anglo/Country B ancestry.
(h)This circumstance does not apply
(i)I have spoken at great lengths about this aspect throughout the course of these reasons.
(j)There is a current DV order in place and I have taken that into account.
(k)I have taken all of these aspects into account.
(l)I am acutely aware that the father has said that he will continue to fight until it is that he achieves what he wants. Whilst it is always beneficial to make an order that would not lead to further proceedings, in this case the appropriate order is the one that keeps the child safe, even if that means there will be further litigation.
(m)I have detailed, in these Reasons, all matters that I consider relevant.
Parental responsibility
Under s 61DA(1), when making a parenting order, the Court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the children for their parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for them. The presumption does not apply however if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent has engaged in abuse of the children, or family violence.
In this case, having regard to the findings I have made (earlier in these Reasons), it is clear that the presumption does not apply. However, I need to consider whether it is in the best interests of X that the mother and father have equal shared parental responsibility.
Having regard to the relationship between the mother and the father, it is simply unrealistic to expect that there could be any form of proper communication between the mother and the father. The evidence points to the fact that the father would dominate the mother, as he has done in the past, and this would be deleterious to the child. An order for sole parental responsibility is the only option that is realistically available to this Court.
Having made that decision I am then required to consider what time the child should spend with both parents and whether it is in the child’s best interests that she actually does spend any time with either parent.
Conclusions
This has not been an easy trial and the evidence put before the Court has been quite confronting. However, it is the duty of this Court to give effect to what is in the best interests of this child based on the evidence presented in this case.
I have already spoken of why the past conduct of the mother does not lead me to the conclusion that X needs to be protected from the mother. I concur with the opinion of Dr AE that the mother should undertake a parenting program so that she may better be able to dispense appropriate discipline.
But this does not need to be the subject of an order. The evidence is clear that there is no present harm to the child and that there is no evidence that there has been excessive physical discipline to the child. The evidence is that the child is happy with the current regime and is happy living with the mother.
I cannot accept that the child’s attitude is one that has been brought about from some form of “brain washing” from the mother. The evidence shows that the father has been the person who has put words in the child’s mouth and that it is the father who has imposed his value judgements upon the child. The allegation that the child gave her answers (in her interview of 27 August 2021) because of “coaching” cannot be sustained, especially when the child had been with the father solely for a month and only with the mother for two weeks before the interview.
Unfortunately, it is clear that despite all of this evidence, it is impossible to convince the father that he should look at the matters objectively. No matter what this Court finds, the father will be immovable in his belief that the mother is perpetrating torture upon the child and that this Court has been hoodwinked or that this Court is corrupt.
This is because the father feels that he must be the person in control of the narrative. This has been quite evident during the course of this trial. He has always had to paint himself out to be the “hero”.
This “Messiah Complex” has been evident in the way that the father has spoken about his saving of the mother from the terrible life in the Country B, his need to rescue X from the clutches of an evil and vengeful mother, and his crusade to ensure that the streets of Suburb J are safe and that rapists are punished.
The fact that the father can justify his stance without any doubt as to the correctness of his views, is frightening. The father simply ignores any evidence that does not fit within his narrative.
When confronted with the evidence from his stay at the MHU in 2015, father simply says that he cannot recall any of that happening and gives the excuse that he was given “mind altering medication”. Therefore, if he does not remember it, then he does not have to take it into consideration and can simply ignore it.
But what occurred at the MHU, in 2015, cannot be ignored. The father had recurring thoughts of killing the mother. These thoughts were intrusive and, according to the father, only kept at bay by the regime of mindfulness and taking medication. The evidence before this Court is that the father has not taken medication since January 2022.
The excuse that the father just cannot remember is very concerning. If it is that the father truly cannot remember, then it is dangerous for the father to be given any responsibility, especially responsibility for the care of the child. He will simply not be able to remember what it is that he has to do because he won’t remember what has happened in the past. Whilst the father blames “mind altering medication”, there is no evidence that any of the drugs given to the father during his stay in the MHU have an amnesiac effect.
As I have previously mentioned, the true state of the evidence is that the father simply doesn’t want to remember and therefore will not let his mind turn to something that is “an inconvenient truth”. This is very much in keeping with what Dr AE has said. I have treated this factor as being as equal a risk as the factor that the father has had thoughts of killing the mother.
As earlier noted, the father has dismissed the report of Dr AE. He justified ignoring the report by telling the Court that Dr AE had said that the father was not anxious or depressed when it is known that the father had been anxious and depressed most of his life. The father said that “if Dr AE can’t get that aspect correct, how could I trust the rest of her report”.
I had to point out to the father that Dr AE did not make those findings, but rather it was his own answers to the questionnaire that illustrated that he was not anxious or depressed. Dr AE had said that it was clear that the father was anxious and depressed. Dr AE said that it was clear that the father had not completed the questionnaires honestly.
By mischaracterising the evidence of Dr AE, the father has attempted to reconstruct the narrative and create a “fact” that would then justify his actions.
The father acted in a similar fashion when saying that Dr AE would conduct the therapy that she recommended and thus make money from doing so. The clear evidence from Dr AE is that she is a forensic psychiatrist and is not involved in treatment. She would never be the person to undertake the therapy that she recommended. Again, by creating a “fact”, the father has been able to use that falsity as a basis for rejecting the report of Dr AE.
It is the creating of these falsities and attempting to turn them into facts that is the biggest risk for X. The father will attempt to draw the child into his world; a world where the mother is evil and cannot be trusted and a world where institutions such as the police and the Courts are malevolent and must be resisted. This was perfectly illustrated by the manner in which the father dealt with the child when making the videos. He ignored what the child was saying and imposed his own version of the facts and would not brook any variation to that. The child will never be truly free under the care of the father and she will not have the opportunity to grow and experience life because she will be made to conform to his world view.
And this is just part of the danger that the father represents. The evidence that the father planned to do harm to his treating psychiatrist because that psychiatrist would not support his application for a pension is concerning enough. But when this is added to the father’s manipulation of the mother to avoid having to endure supervised visits with the child, the reaction of the father to police attempting to serve him with the police protection order, the obsessive determination with which he wished to expose a “rapist” at the school, his Facebook comments to a Member of Parliament as to his capacity for violence and the nonchalance with which he violated a Court order and injunction about posting on social media, the jeopardy at which he places X cannot be overstated.
There are absolutely no safeguards that the Court could put in place that would allow the father to have any form of contact with X and yet keep the child safe.
It is never an easy task for a Court to make orders that prohibit contact between a parent and child, however there are those rare cases where such an order is the only order that can be made in the best interests of the child. This is one of those cases.
I will make the appropriate orders.
I certify that the preceding three hundred and eight (308) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Vasta. Associate:
Dated: 9 November 2022
0
0
0