MOTHER WITH VIOLENT PARTNER ASKS FOR TIME WITH THE CHILDREN WITHOUT PAYING FOR PROFESSIONAL SUPERVISION
Canfeld & Falkins [2020] FCCA 2570 (9 September 2020)
This case involves a mother with a violent partner, where the mother asks for time with children without paying for professional supervisor due to the fact that hiring a professional supervisor is deemed not sustainable.
Facts:
The mother has a violent and dysfunctional relationship with Mr. E. It is clear that the children have been exposed to family violence from this person. It is clear that the Mother has been subjected to family violence by him. The strong impression from the evidence is that the Mother continues some form of relationship with him. She is thereby exposing herself to physical and emotional risks. She seems to struggle with disengaging from him.
The proposals were for the Mother to spend time with the children on a fortnightly basis supervised by Mr. L initially Sundays 9:00am to 5:00pm and progressing to alternate 9:00am Saturday to 5:00pm Sunday. However, the mother insists that continuing to pay for private professional supervision is not sustainable.
The father, on the other hand, proposes for no time but, in that alternative, for supervised time for the Mother at F Family Services Suburb G or a private service such as H Family Services or alternatives.
Issue:
Should the court allow a supervision by a non-professional person when the mother spends time with her children?
Held:
The Court is satisfied that in fact Mr. L, a non-professional supervisor, can provide this level of protection subject to the following: firstly, the terms of an undertaking that specifically include close scrutiny of what the Mother says to the children. That Mr. L gets a copy of these Reasons for Judgment; and, thirdly, the length of the supervised time that the Mother must have realistically reflect the level of vigilance that is needed. In this fashion, therefore, the Court is satisfied that supervision by Mr. L can deal with the issue of the Mother’s violent relationship with Mr. E.
Practical issues that cannot be ignored. The Court accepts the Mother’s case that continuing to pay for private professional supervision is not sustainable. The Court appreciates that private non-professional supervision such as Mr. L means that there is no professional objective person and no written report. The Court accepts that Mr. L’s evidence is untested and that the Father has concerns about him, but the Court must balance all of these factors in coming to a decision which it believes to be in the best interests of the children and which ensures that a meaningful relationship with their mother is achieved whilst adequately protecting them from harm. It is ultimately a balancing exercise and one which the Court believes can be achieved by using Mr. L.
Conclusion: The children shall spend time with the Mother, such time to be supervised by Mr. L