·   ·  664 posts
  •  ·  3859 friends

MOTHER SEEKS TIME WITH CHILD WITH THE SUPERVISION BY A PERSON ASSOCIATED WITH HER

Hambleton & Adema (No.3) [2020] FCCA 3007 (6 November 2020)

This case involves the mother, who is currently facing criminal charges and previously engaged in illicit substance abuse, seeking supervised time with her child by a person associated with her. The father of the child opposes to such application and seeks supervision by a professional.

Facts:

Ms Hambleton has a complicated psychiatric history, including a recent period of involuntary detention, pursuant to the provisions of the Mental Health Act in December 2019. She also has a history of illicit drug use, including amphetamines.  In addition, she is currently facing some serious criminal charges and is on bail.

In all these circumstances, she concedes that any time between her and X needs to be supervised. Her preference is that the supervision should be provided by a lay person associated with her. She proposes that either her mother, Ms C, sister Ms E or her partner, Mr F provide the necessary supervision, presumably at either her or her mother’s home.

Mr Adema opposes X spending any time with his mother, other than in the professionally supervised confines of a Commonwealth funded Children’s Contact Centre (“CCC”).  He proposes the CCC at Suburb D.

The chief drawback of the Suburb D Children’s Contact Centre is that, due to calls on its services, it will not be able to accommodate the family until February 2021, and when the service is available, it will only be able to offer supervision for a maximum amount of time of two hours per fortnight.

On the other hand, lay family supervision can offer flexible and less formal arrangements for supervision, allowing mother and child to interact more regularly and more comfortably in the environment of a family home. However, such a form of supervision is neither independent in nature nor guided by the strict protocols applicable to CCCs, which are designed to ensure the safety of all users concerned, particularly children, and to maintain the transparency and independence of their operations.

Issue: Should the court grant the order sought by the mother?

Law:

Analysis:

The court acknowledges all these difficulties exist in the current matter, the chief ones being the delay the parties will experience in being accepted into the Suburb D CCC and the extremely limited amount of time which will be available.

In addition, such supervision can only be a temporary measure. As time unfolds, it will not provide an adequate mechanism for X to maintain what must be regarded as one of the central relationships in his life that which he shares with his mother. However, the prospective nature of the risk arising in the case and the fact that Ms Hambleton is still engaged on the path to recovery justify professional supervision at this stage.

In the court’s assessment, the parties need a secure and certain mechanism to provide a bridge over which they can travel before consideration is given to a more organic and natural form of interaction occurring between X and his mother. The unusual but extreme behaviour displayed by Ms Hambleton, in the short to medium term dictates that a cautious approach should be adopted, notwithstanding the significant delay incumbent in such an approach.

The court commiserates with Ms Hambleton at the distress the delay will inevitably cause her. It would be a comparatively cost effective intervention, for the Commonwealth Government, but extremely beneficial in terms of the assistance to be derived by separated families, in this country, if consideration was given to funding more places at CCCs within Australia, of which it appears to the court there is a pressing need.

Conclusion: Court orders that mother spend time with the  X  on such occasion as the Director of the Suburb D Children’s Contact Centre or his/her nominee can accommodate the parties.

Comments (0)
Login or Join to comment.

FLAST

Close