FATHER WANTS TO SPEND TIME WITH HIS CHILDREN AFTER FOUR YEARS
Brady & Brady [2020] FCCA 3283 (3 December 2020)
This is a parenting proceeding involving three children where the father seeks supervised time progressing to unsupervised time eventually while the mother proposes no time at all.
Facts:
This parenting proceeding concerns X born 2003 (‘X’), Y born 2005 (‘Y’) and Z born 2007 (‘Z’) collectively (‘the children’). The applicant father Mr. Brady (‘the father’) seeks that the children be ordered to spend time with him while the mother is resistant to any time occurring. The mother says that this is a reflection of the children’s wishes, while the father says the children have been influenced by the mother. The father says that historically he has had a close and loving relationship with the children, Y and Z in particular.
The father’s relationship with the children has deteriorated since September 2016 and is now completely fractured. This is a result of the actions and behaviors of both parents. Their parenting relationship has been beset by such rancour and hostility that they have been unable to focus on their children’s emotional needs.
Issue: Should the children spend time with the father?
Law:
- Family Law Act 1975 S4, 60B, 60CA, 60CC
Analysis:
Although the court is satisfied that it would be in the best interests of Z and Y to have a meaningful relationship with their father, the reality is that, given the current circumstances, Court orders are unlikely to achieve the father’s desired outcome of facilitating a relationship.
The children’s attitude to spending time with their father has hardened. They refused to see him for the Family Report interviews and X at least is resistant to any form of family therapy.
The risk of psychological or emotional harm to the children is more complex. The evidence of the children returning from spending time with the father very unsettled and with stories of exposure to threats made by the father against the mother and Mr D and also of direct involvement in the parental conflict at changeovers.
The Court is required to protect the children from physical or psychological harm and from being exposed to family violence. The court is satisfied that the orders proposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyers (adopted by the mother) address that consideration and pursuant to s.60CC(2A), this latter consideration is to be given greater weight.
The children’s views have remained consistent, that is, they do not wish to pursue a relationship with the father at this stage. To force contact is likely to involve trauma and distress for the children on each occasion they are required to see him. To require their time to be supervised by a professional agency would make these adolescents the uncomfortable object of public attention and engender feelings of self-consciousness, anxiety, even shame.
The combination of these findings causes me to conclude that the children would be at risk of psychological harm if they were required to spend time with their father that cannot be ameliorated by supervision.
Conclusion: Application of the father is therefore denied.
