Cannon & Acres 2014 FamCA 104

Parents of a child aged 12 years had engaged in dispute about access for 7 years.  The child then expressed a strong view to several professionals that she no longer wanted contact with her father (child’s wishes).

The father had filed allegations of contraventions by the mother that had been dismissed in court.  A family consultant reported that the father did not accept that the child could generate her own views, and saw the child’s statements as reflecting opinions of the mother (coached).  The family consultant considered that the child did express her own views.

The father had filed for a specific order to restrain the mother from taking the child to one assessing psychologist and proposed another psychologist.

The child objected to spending more time with the father, reporting that the father lied, yelled, got angry, and upset the mother by taking matters back to court (reluctant to contact).

The judge described the father as being obsessive in pursuing his demands for increased time with the child, and found that the father could not see how his behaviour impacted on the child (impact on child, personality rigid).  The judge ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility, and that the child spend no time with the father and that the father not communicate with the child (restrained from communicatingcommunication structured).  The judge agreed with an application by the mother that the father was a vexatious litigant and restrained the father from instituting further proceedings except with the consent of court (review).