FATHER WITH CRIMINAL HISTORY WHO HAS NOT SEEN HIS CHILD FOR MORE THAN A YEAR SEEKS SUPERVISED TIME WITH HIS TWO-YEAR OLD CHILD
Galaway & Albion [2020] FCCA 2621 (17 September 2020)
This case involves a father, who has a criminal history and has been recently charged with assault who seeks supervised time with his two-year-old child, where the child lives with the mother and has not spent time with the father for more than 12 months.
Facts:
This is an application about a child, two years and three months old. The father seeks interim time orders whereby the child spends time with him at the Suburb B children's contact center for six visits, then a report is prepared of the observations of the child and father and the matter is then further considered.
The father's position is that while he has a history of illicit drug use, assault of the mother and, it appears from the police material, an incident of an assault on a woman on another occasion some years ago which resulted in an interim intervention order, he says that he has taken the steps to reform and change. He says that he no longer uses methamphetamine.
The mother is opposed to the child spending any time with the father. The mother takes the view that the child would not benefit from a relationship with the father, now or in the future, and she is opposed to the child spending any time at all with the father.
The family consultant observed that after a period of more than a year since the child had seen the father she would probably not recognise him. This raises a question about the efficacy of six supervised and observed visits and the point of such visits. One might question whether such time spending is likely to produce any useful information about the child's relationship with the father, or more particularly, the father's capacity as a parent.
Issue: Is the father entitled to supervised time with his daughter?
Law:
- The best interests of the child are paramount and in deciding on the best interests of a child the factors in subsection 60CC(2) of the Family Law Act are the primary considerations. The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence is to be given greater weight than the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents.
Analysis:
Re-introducing the child to the father in such a context after an absence of more than 12 months, or 18 months after waiting for a contact centre place, may not produce very much. On the other hand, the court is also satisfied that it is unlikely to be productive of any harm to the child, psychological or otherwise. The court is satisfied that the experienced staff of the children's contact centre are likely to identify at an early point if the child becomes upset or for some other reason the visit should not proceed. The court satisfied that a report following the child spending time with the father may provide some useful information about his parenting capacity.
On balance, the court considers that there are sufficient indications that the child may, if the father’s progress away from drugs and violence continues, benefit from a relationship with him. This is very much a work in progress and the assessment may change. Nevertheless, the court considers that there is sufficient justification for the father’s proposal to be adopted.
Conclusion: The father is entitled to supervised time with his child.