MOTHER WANTS HER CHILD TO ONLY HAVE SUPERVISED TIME WITH THE FATHER DUE TO HIS RIGID THINKING THAT COULD INFLUENCE THE CHILD
Danvers & Rebas [2021] FCCA 663 (7 April 2021)
This is a parenting application filed by the mother so that the father could only have supervised time with the child due to the father’s habit of expressing bad opinions about the mother in front of their child.
Facts:
The Father is 66 years old and is an artist/pensioner. The Mother is 29 years old and works full-time in an office.
In 2012, the child X was born. around April 2018, the parties separated. At that time they were living in Suburb C, New South Wales. The Father relocated to Adelaide to live with his family immediately after separation. The Mother relocated to Melbourne in late December 2018.
Prior to the commencement of proceedings, the child was living with the Mother post-separation in NSW. In July 2018, the Father presented at the child’s school, collected the child without the Mother’s knowledge or consent, and traveled with her to Adelaide.
On 6 August 2018, orders were made for the child to be returned to the Mother and for the child to live with the Mother. The Father was restrained from being within 100 meters of the child’s school or the Mother’s residence.
The Mother seeks orders that she have sole parental responsibility for the child and for the child to live with her. The Mother seeks orders that the Father spend supervised time with the child once every six weeks at times and dates as agreed between the parties. The Father seeks orders that the parties have equal shared responsibility for the child. The Father seeks further orders for him to spend unsupervised time with the child.
The family consultant gave oral evidence before the Court, and in particular, stated that the Father was focused on expressing opinions about the Mother's past. She expressed the view that, as the child was at a developmental stage, she was subject to influence and that the child relied upon both parents to guide her.
The family consultant made an assessment that the Father’s focus, or rigidity of thinking, undermines the child's capacity to form her own views, and therefore relationships. The family consultant made reference to long-term and entrenched behaviors, as well as rigid thinking on behalf the Father.
Issue: Should the father only spend supervised time with his child?
Analysis:
The Father is very rigid in his thinking, and it is quite apparent that he has gained nothing from the insights that could have been gained from the family reports which were there for his assistance. However, the concern is that the arrangements proposed for the child to have ongoing supervised time with the Father, when he does not pose a physical risk, is likely to exacerbate the tension and conflict between the parties. This increases the risk of ongoing legal proceedings between the parties is not in the best interests of the child or the parties.
The Father is now 67 years old and appears to be set in his views on a range of subjects, in particular in relation to the capacity of the Mother. He has previously engaged with a psychologist and that has not assisted him, in the sense that it has not led to a modification of his behavior or provided insights into how to manage his relationship with the Mother and the child.
The Father must understand, having read the material, that he cannot discuss these proceedings with the child and use the time he has with the child as an opportunity to express his negative views about the Mother, as well as his own grievances about the situation he now finds himself in. If the Father wishes to spend more time with the child, by reason of further orders of the Court, he would have to demonstrate over a period of time of at least 12 months, that he has not breached these orders, and engaged in counseling by way of therapeutic psychological treatment.
The child has clearly expressed a desire to spend time with the Father. Both of the children’s parents have much to offer the child.
If the Father continues to undermine the Mother by subjecting her to baseless criticism in relation to her parenting and the state of her life when she was 20 years old, then the benefits of the child spending time and having a relationship with the Father become negligible. Because of the reasons expressed by the family consultant, in particular that the Father’s behavior will have a tendency to undermine the child’s relationship with the Mother and thereby affect the child’s wellbeing.
No matter what orders the Court makes, there is a risk that the Father will continue to expose the child to risk by involving her in adult discussions, denigrating the Mother and discussing Court proceedings. However, the protective frameworks created by the orders made by the Court, to some extent, have the likely effect of minimising those risks.
Conclusion: The court orders the child spend time with the Father between 9.00am and 5.00pm (or as otherwise agreed between the parties) on each third Saturday or Sunday,