Father Opposes Present Spend Time Arrangements with Children

 Walsham & Darracott [2021] FCCA 1533 (8 July 2021)

The father seeks an order for substantial and significant time with his children. The mother opposes the father's application asserting that the father poses an unacceptable risk. The Court, in adjudicating this matter, was guided by the best interests of the children.

Facts:

The parties commenced living together in a relationship in around 2003 and separated in March 2015. They have two children together. After separation the mother moved to Melbourne with the children. In August 2015, following an application by the father, the mother was ordered to return the children to Queensland.

In 2016, Orders were provided for the children to live primarily with the mother and spend time with the father from after school Thursday to before school Monday each alternate week and for half school holidays. The parents were to have equal shared parental responsibility. The mother sought for sole parental responsibility and for the father to spend only supervised time with the children. The father sought orders for the children to live with the mother and spend supervised time with him on alternate weekends and for block periods in the school holidays. The father’s cousin, Ms B, provides the supervision.

Issue:

Whether or not the father's time with the children should remain supervised. 

Applicable law:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA - provides that the Court, in making parenting orders, should treat the child's interest as the paramount consideration. When making a parenting order the court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility.

Analysis:

The evidence provides that the children experienced first-hand the father's dysregulated behavior. The father experiences poor emotional regulation. He is unable, at times, to control his reactions to events leading to him acting aggressively towards others and has at times physically harmed his children.  The children have also been exposed to his conduct towards others potentially causing them emotional harm and adversely impacting their wellbeing and development.

The children have expressed their desire to maintain a relationship with their father and their best interests would best be met by a conservative approach to their spending time arrangements.

Conclusion:

The Court ordered that the children live with the Mother. The children are to spend supervised time with the Father as agreed by the parties. The children are at liberty to phone either parent at all reasonable times. The Father is at liberty to contact the children on their own mobile numbers from time to time, noting that the children are responsible for these devices and that they may not always be charged and/or answer such devices.  Any communication between the parties is to be way of email and is to be limited to discussing the children or to inform the other parent of any significant issue that would impact their ability to care for the children pursuant to these orders.  The Father is restrained from attending within 400m of the children's school.