FATHER CONVICTED OF CHILD ASSAULT AND MANUFACTURING DRUGS SEEKS SUPERVISED TIME WITH
Keaton & Shackley [2021] FCCA 105 (20 January 2021)
This is a parenting proceeding involving the father, that has been convicted of assaulting a child and the mother as well as for manufacturing drugs, seeking to spend supervised time with his child.
Facts:
The mother and father had a relationship from about 2012 until November 2014, and they have one child, X, who was born in 2014. The relationship ended following a serious assault on the mother by the father in November 2014. The father punched the mother several times to the face and she sustained two black eyes and bruising and swelling.
Also, the child’s older half-sibling, E (then aged 9), spent a week in hospital after consuming a hash brownie and being dosed with the father’s psychiatric medication while spending time with the father. She was tested and found to have Mirtazapine in her system, a drug consistent with a medication the father was taking for his mental health issues.
The hospital discovered the bruising and red marks on E’s bottom they called the police who went to the father’s house. He was arrested and charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
The father mow seeks for supervised time with X for three hours on three or four occasions each year, that he be able to send her letters, cards and gifts on her birthday and at Christmas, and that the mother sends him a photo of the child on the 15th of each month. The father’s case was that X had a well-established bond with him as a result of the time that he had spent with her over the years.
The mother opposed all of the things the father sought. She proposed that the child spend no time with and have no communication with the father. The mother’s solicitor submitted that there would be no benefit to X in seeing the father four times a year. She had not seen him for nearly two years. She would have to be reintroduced to him. Every visit would be stressful for the mother and the child, and if there was no benefit to the child, the order should not be made.
Issue: Should the court grant the supervised time of the father with X?
Law:
- The primary considerations are in S.60CC(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 and they are the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of her parents, and the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect, or family violence.
Analysis:
It is not possible for the court to make an order which will lead to X having a meaningful relationship with her father. If she sees him as the father proposes, it will not lead to a meaningful relationship, which is a relationship which is significant, important, and valuable to the child. A father seeing his child for a few hours on four occasions each year is not going to be a person who is significant valuable and important to the child.
The father also poses a significant risk of harm to children and adults as a result of his violent behaviour. He has a conviction for seriously assaulting the mother and a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm on E. He agreed with the police that he struck E too hard because he got angry, and she suffered bruises and welts. The father appears to have no concept of the need to keep drugs away from children, and that is another reason why he poses a significant risk of harm to children.
Conclusion: The Court orders that the child shall spend no time and have no communication with the father.