The post Watson & Burton 2015 FamCA 549 appeared first on Complex Families.
]]>The mother alleged that the father had sexually abused one child and the child protection department removed two children from the mother’s care and stopped contact with the father for a period, deeming that the father presented an unacceptable risk of harm to the children. This assessment was later reviewed and reversed when it was found that the mother had made false allegations of sexual abuse by the father. The children were then placed in the care of the father. The mother commenced supervised contact with the children, and had limited contact for five years. The mother sought a variation in orders.
The mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer submitted that the mother had sought professional assistance from a treating psychologist and psychiatrist, and no longer represented an unacceptable risk of harm, submitting that she had conceded a past propensity to generate false complaints but this was no longer a feature at present.
The father argued that the mother continued to present a risk of psychological and/or emotional abuse to the children because of her propensity to make false allegations and to involve children in these allegations. The father submitted that the mother had a long history of this conduct, including during her second marriage. The father noted that no treatment report was submitted.
An assessment by a family consultant was quoted indicating that the mother presented as a genuine, caring woman who deeply loved and cared for her children and who desperately feared losing her role in their lives. The mother presented as a woman with poor insight into the impact of her own abuse as a child upon her own life or she chose not to recognise how her past had affected her thoughts and behaviours throughout her life as a mother and a partner and she had been unable to make personal changes in the areas needed.
The family consultant opined that an allocation of equal shared parental responsibility and equal division of time between the parents might overcome the reluctance of the father to facilitate a meaningful relationship between the mother and the children, as it would effect a balance in power between the parents. The judge described this view as hope triumphing over experience. The judge found that the consultant had not considered the effect of the mother’s allegations on the father. The judge noted that the family consultant had not spoken to the mother’s therapist whom the mother had seen monthly for 8 years.
The judge ordered that the children live with the father and spend time with the mother, and that the father have sole parental responsibility.
The post Watson & Burton 2015 FamCA 549 appeared first on Complex Families.
]]>The post Bowen & Williams 2015 FamCA 545 appeared first on Complex Families.
]]>The judge noted that the psychiatrist had never had a therapeutic relationship with the mother and was not her therapist.
The parties then agreed to the appointment of a single expert who prepared a report.
The judge ruled that a report of any expert apart from a single expert witness must be subject to an application for permission under division 15.5.3. The judge ruled there was no inconsistency between consenting to the appointment of a single expert, and still retaining the right to seek to tender a report that had been previously obtained.
The judge found that both experts agreed that the mother had experienced an episode of major depression. The single expert opined that, in the event that the mother was delayed from relocating for a further six to twelve months but thereafter could permanently relocate, the mother “would not suffer the deterioration associated with an order preventing her permanent relocation.”
The Court declined permission to enter into evidence the affidavit of the psychiatrist instructed by the mother’s solicitors.
The post Bowen & Williams 2015 FamCA 545 appeared first on Complex Families.
]]>The post Darrow & Darrow 2015 FamCA 597 appeared first on Complex Families.
]]>The judge ruled that the evidence offered by each person could be given by the father himself and did not require expert opinion. The judge described the people as supplementary witnesses. The judge did not admit their evidence.
The post Darrow & Darrow 2015 FamCA 597 appeared first on Complex Families.
]]>The post Jeffreys & Bosnic (No 2) 2015 FamCA 594 appeared first on Complex Families.
]]>A second witness wanted to submit information about abnormal behaviour observed by him some time ago about an issue that had not been raised before, where the relevance of the behaviour was unclear to the judge, and where the informant had not been interviewed by the family consultant.
The judge ruled the information inadmissible and the witnesses were not permitted to be called.
The post Jeffreys & Bosnic (No 2) 2015 FamCA 594 appeared first on Complex Families.
]]>The post Triggs & Triggs 2015 FamCA 538 appeared first on Complex Families.
]]>The judge found that both parents had fragile psychological health and the mother had been unable to resolve the child’s school attendance problems. The judge found that the child’s emotional needs were more likely to be met by living with the respondent mother and his siblings (sibling relationships). The judge found that forcing the child to recover his relationship with the applicant father may cause an even more permanent deterioration in their relation.
The judge ordered the child to live with the mother, and to spend time with the father only in accordance with the child’s expressed wishes.
The post Triggs & Triggs 2015 FamCA 538 appeared first on Complex Families.
]]>The post Gaile & Talton 2015 FamCA 580 appeared first on Complex Families.
]]>The judge ordered that the children live with the applicants and that the applicants have sole parenting responsibility for the children.
The post Gaile & Talton 2015 FamCA 580 appeared first on Complex Families.
]]>The post Gillard & Gillard 2015 FamCAFC 169 appeared first on Complex Families.
]]>The primary judge found that the mother had been subjected to pushing, yelling, swearing, demeaning, threatening, coercive and controlling behaviour as well as to repeated derogatory taunts by the father. This included the father telling the mother to get down on her knees and apologise. The judge found that this was family violence, and that the children had been exposed to family violence.
An expert provided evidence that, after separation, the father had continued relentless criticism of the mother to multiple professionals in whatever forum he could find, including in settings where the mother presented as a parent such as the school and swimming pool. The judge found that this represented ongoing emotional abuse. The expert reported that the father had demonstrated attitudes and behaviours typical of perpetrators of family violence including attitudes of entitlement, control, superiority, possessiveness, manipulativeness, making contradictory statements and behaviours, externalisation of responsibility, denial, minimisation and victim-blaming and confusion of love and abuse.
The expert reported an interaction between the father and child that continued for about 5 minutes during an observed handover session. The father spoke to the child in a tense and teary manner about leaving the child, and picked up the child. The child appeared tense but submitted to the father’s positioning of her as he lifted her and kissed her. The child appeared pensive and avoided eye contact with the father, and became more behaviourally disorganised, acting coyly. The interaction continued until the mother ended it by saying it was time to go. The expert described the interaction as showing clinginess by a parent. The expert concluded that the child was taking a parentified and pseudomature role in the relationship, with a focus on meeting the father’s needs.
School staff reported that the father was often sad-looking when he spent time with the child.
The appeal judge supported the finding by the primary judge that the father’s need for affirmation from the children was sufficiently intense to amount to emotional abuse, and that the father showed “emotionally manipulative and coercive patterns of relating”.
The appeal judge found that the strong criticisms made by the trial judge were warranted as the father’s abuse was insidious. The appeal judge found that the orders made by the primary judge were largely consistent with expert recommendations and were designed to maintain the children’s relationship with both parents and to minimise the risk of harm to the children. The appeal judge found that no error had been established and dismissed the father’s appeal.
The post Gillard & Gillard 2015 FamCAFC 169 appeared first on Complex Families.
]]>The post Gilmour & Lennon 2015 FamCAFC 166 appeared first on Complex Families.
]]>The parents had equal shared parental responsibility. The father had previously seen the child every fortnight and the mother proposed that this change to monthly contact reducing the father’s time with the child from 83 to 71 nights per year, and proposed that the child’s travel increase by two hours per trip. No evidence was presented about the child’s views.
Both parents were described as good, highly functioning, caring, and loving parents. The trial judge found that the proposed relocation ran a risk that the relationship between the child and her father might deteriorate, and the trial judge decided to avoid this risk by maintaining the current arrangement in the meantime.
The appeal judge found that best interests of children are values, not facts, and that this involves discretionary judgments.
The mother submitted that the child was now 12 years of age (age of child), had an established relationship with the father and that the reduction of time would have little effect on their relationship.
The appeal judge found that no error had been established and the mother’s appeal was dismissed.
The post Gilmour & Lennon 2015 FamCAFC 166 appeared first on Complex Families.
]]>The post Everett and Ors & Upton 2015 FamCA 704 appeared first on Complex Families.
]]>The judge refused to admit an affidavit and report by a psychologist. The father had, without the leave of the Court, provided copies of two reports of the single expert to the psychologist and had apparently invited the psychologist to provide a critique of reports by the single expert. The psychologist went further and made recommendations about the ultimate issue without having interviewed other parties (expert evidence unsatisfactory).
The judge ordered that the children attend protective behaviours counselling (therapy for child).
The post Everett and Ors & Upton 2015 FamCA 704 appeared first on Complex Families.
]]>The post Bandoni & Milic 2015 FamCA 693 appeared first on Complex Families.
]]>The father sought to discharge the current Court appointed single expert witness who provided two reports and had made some change of opinions between the reports after reviewing additional material. The judge found that while the conclusions of a single expert in an additional report may be adverse to the interests of the father in his relationship with the child, this does not amount to bias. The judge found that the opinions expressed by the expert were not outside of his area of expertise, and the single expert was not attempting to take on or to usurp the judge’s role as the trier of fact.
The judge noted that the single expert could be cross examined. The judge ruled that opinion evidence was not excluded simply because it goes to a fact in dispute as the Court is not bound by the opinion of the single expert. The judge found that the willingness of the expert to recognise the impact of further information was a positive indication of the open and impartial approach brought to the task.
The father’s application was dismissed.
The post Bandoni & Milic 2015 FamCA 693 appeared first on Complex Families.
]]>