MOTHER WANTS THE FATHER’S TIME WITH THE CHILD TO BE SUPERVISED AFTER THE FATHER SCREAMED AT THEIR DAUGHTER
Delfino & Seacrest [2020] FCCA 3531 (22 December 2020)
This case involves the mother who seeks for the father to spend supervised time with the child alleging that the father is violent towards her and their daughter.
Facts:
The mother proposes that the child live with her and that the Father spend time with the child supervised at the C Contact Centre each alternate Saturday for a period of two hours as per the Contact Centre’s availability.
In March 2019 the child called the Mother while she was spending time with the Father, it was a Saturday morning and the child was screaming and crying. The Mother alleges that the child told her that the Father had become angry and was screaming at her.
The Mother alleges that due to the Father’s history of violence towards herself and in front of the children she does not believe the child is safe with him unsupervised. The Mother alleges that the child has told her on many occasions that she does not want to spend time with the Father. She alleges that the child has told her that the Father tells her things and wants her to keep them from the Mother which upsets her. The Mother alleges that the child has made it clear to her that she is scared of the Father after the incident where he screamed at her in 2019 and at the changeovers since.
Issue: Should the father spend unsupervised time with the children?
Law:
- Family Law Act 1975 ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC,
Analysis:
The Court takes into account the family consultant’s opinion that given the child’s account of the Father’s behaviour towards her during her previous visits (including March 2019), including screaming at her and telling the child distressing and untruthful things, and her reported fear due to these actions, it was recommended that any time the child spends with the Father be supervised.
At this interim stage, the Court has a concern, based on the material before it, including the child’s statements to the family consultant and including the Father’s statement to the family consultant that during the relationship he has become angry with the Mother in regards to parenting matters. Should the child now live with the Father, or spend unsupervised time with him, there is a real possibility that the child may be exposed to anger on the part of the Father and thereby suffer emotional harm; in this regard, there is an unacceptable risk of the child being exposed to psychological harm if either living with the Father or spending unsupervised time with him.
Conclusion: The Court orders that X should live with his mother and spend time with the father each alternate weekend for a minimum of three hours on either Saturday or Sunday supervised by a private supervision agency.