Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte [2025] FedCFamC2F 789 | Case summary

Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte [2025] FedCFamC2F 789 | Case summary | Zoe

[56]

I note the report of [Dr J], Neuropsychologist. Her evaluation occurred on November 30th 2019. [X] was referred by both parents for an assessment of [X]'s cognitive and learning skills as well as emerging concerns about inattention in the previous 12 months. The summary of her findings was that [X] has average intellectual ability, average spelling and mathematics ability, average word attack and reading comprehension, and below average sight word reading. She thought there were concerns in relation to attention and concentration which required support and monitoring. She also noted anxiety, low mood and low self-esteem. [X] was recommended to a clinical psychologist to address the latter.

I note the documents obtained under subpoena from [K Centre], where [X] had been seeing a consultant paediatrician [Dr E] since late 2019. In her first report dated November 17th 2019, [Dr E] notes a list of problems - severe generalised anxiety on a background of emotional trauma, learning difficulties, recurrent abdominal pain, sleeping issues and parental concerns of asymmetry of breast lumps. She notes that [X] had been experiencing abdominal pain and nausea every morning before going to school and she was struggling to express her feelings. She was also crying excessively and her mother described her as a very anxious child who was constantly worried, had hypersensitive behaviour, had a number of negative feelings and had a poor relationship with her father. She occasionally hits her head in frustration although she denied a self-harming intent. She had started seeing a child psychologist due to emotional trauma in the past. She had a long standing history of learning difficulties supported by a Reading Recovery program and extra tutoring in mathematics. She presented to the school clinic with frequent panic attacks. Basically at that stage [Dr E] examined her and conducted a number of investigations which did not reveal significant physical pathology.

In a report dated July 19th 2020, [Dr E] provides a different problem list of ADHD inattentive type, early oppositional and defiant disorder, autistic traits and anxiety disorder. It was noted there were ongoing frequent anger outbursts, emotional dysregulation and obsessive compulsive behaviour. In addition to anxiety, she had a habit of stealing, lying, attention seeking behaviour, high distractibility and poor executive functioning. She was taking an antidepressant fluoxetine with minimal improvement in her anxiety. As a result of her interview, [Dr E] felt she had psychogenic abdominal pain, and she increased [X]'s fluoxetine. In a report dated September 2020, [Dr E] followed up on the increased fluoxetine, concluding that it had not had the desire result and she increased the dose further, leaving open whether to add an ADHD medication. This too did not seem to be effective and six weeks later she reviewed progress with [X] and her mother, deciding to add an ADHD medication. At a further review in December 2020, she felt that there had been some improvement.

In a report dated May 26th 2021, [X]'s behavioural difficulties were reported to be worsening and that [X] was complaining of experiencing visual hallucinations, the content of which are outlined. It was noted that [Mr Angwin] was in gaol by this stage, the parents were in the process of being divorced, and that [Mr Angwin] had an extensive personal and family mental health history. [Dr E] increased [X]'s antidepressant again back to a previous higher dose and indicated that if things had not improved by their next consultation in several weeks time, she would recommend an urgent psychiatric assessment through the local Infant, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (ICAMHS). In the meantime, she also referred [X] to [Ms L], a psychologist, for a comprehensive assessment of possible autism. By her next report dated October 13th 2021, she had referred [X] to ICAMHS where she was receiving "trauma counselling as well as cognitive and behaviour therapy". She noted a slight improvement in [X]'s social anxiety and she made no changes to the medications she was prescribing to [X]. In a report dated January 19th 2022, [Dr E] refers to [X] awaiting psychiatric assessment at ICAMHS, presumably indicating that although [X] had already been seen there, it had been by one of the other allied health professionals. [Dr E] also referred [X] to a paediatric gastroenterologist [Dr M] in relation to her abdominal pain, whose opinion on December 21st 2021 was essentially that this was probably psychogenic, also noting that her mother showed a similar symptom profile.

I note the documents produced under subpoena by [N Centre], where [X] saw [Dr B], a Registered Psychologist, on referral from [Dr E]. Her first report is dated June 25th 2020 when she notes that she had seen [X] on nine occasions since February 2020 (at age 9 years). She described her as a creative and friendly girl who engaged easily in conversation. She was initially referred due to anxiety levels and inattention. [Dr B] felt that her anxiety appeared to improve to the point that this was no longer an issue but that instead, some behaviours had become concerning which included stealing, lying, attention seeking behaviour including urinating in her clothes and bowel movements in the bath, inattention, high distractibility, poor executive functioning, and social skills difficulties.

[Dr B] administered tests of cognitive and learning abilities which indicated average intellectual ability, average spelling, reading, comprehension and mathematics, and low average sight word reading. She also notes that in recent months [X]'s classroom teacher had reported that she was not performing to these levels in the classroom. The teacher had apparently referred to [X] appearing to switch off, draw over her book and be unproductive, as well as to rush her work. Accordingly [Dr B] had [X]'s mother and teacher complete a standard ADHD assessment, the results of which appeared to be highly suggestive of ADHD. Her mother reported Very Elevated scores on all of the subtests and her teacher reported Very Elevated scores on two of the six subtests, elevated scores on two subtests and, perhaps surprisingly, an Average score on the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subtest.[12]

(Emphasis added)

[78]

The parties commenced cohabitation around 2006/2007 and lived in a unit that the Father owned in Suburb S, before moving into a bigger home in Suburb S in 2008, held in the Father's name. The parties were married in 2009.
The Mother has two children from a previous relationship that are not the subject of these proceedings - Ms T born in 2003 ('Ms T') and Mr Q born in 2005 ('Mr Q'). Ms T is autistic and suffers from Attention Deficit Disorder, OCD, and from several medical conditions.[33]
Ms T and Mr Q lived with the parties when they commenced cohabitation, with the Father taking on a father figure role, as they had no contact with their biological father. As at the time of the trial, Ms T and Mr Q, now young adults, lived with the Mother and X.
In or about 2009 the Mother ceased her employment and worked in accounts for the Father's company ('U Company'), which he started up soon after the parties commenced their relationship. The Mother also undertook a TAFE course in bookkeeping, and in 2010 enrolled in tertiary studies, with the goal of becoming a finance professional, but deferred her studies to take on additional work for the Father's business.
In the period before the Mother fell pregnant with X, she alleged the Father was verbally abusive towards her on numerous occasions and would destroy property in their home - claiming she was too frightened to leave.
X was born in 2010.
The parties lived in various rentals until October 2010, when they purchased a property in Town V ('the Town V property') which became the matrimonial home for the period of 2013 and 2017. Town V was a large property, with the parties occupying a large, renovated shed. The property also had a separate dwelling which the Father rented out. That separate residence, and its occupants, are afforded some attention later in these Reasons.
In 2015 and 2016, the Father was convicted of physical assaults upon the Mother.
The parties separated for a short period in 2017. They moved into rented accommodation in 2020 and separated on a final basis in December 2020.
In early 2021 - an Apprehended Violence Order ('AVO') was made in favour of the Mother for a period of five years. That order was varied in late 2023. The order runs until late 2026 and its essential terms are extracted here:[34]

[79]

[Mr Angwin], you must follow the orders below. It is a criminal

offence not to follow these orders. You could be arrested by police

and charged. If you are convicted, you could go to prison for up to 2

years and be fined up to $5,500.

You could also be charged with other criminal offences. If you are

convicted of these offences, you could receive a much higher penalty.

The Apprehended Violence Order made [in] 2021 against you has been varied.

You must follow these orders everywhere in Australia.

You must follow these Order(s) until [late] 2026.

The Order(s) have been made to protect [Ms Angwin].

You must follow these orders even if [Ms Angwin] doesn't want you to or tells you that you don't need to. If you attempt to do any of the things below, it will still be a criminal offence called a breach.

Orders about behaviour

1. You must not do any of the following to [Ms Angwin] or anyone she has a domestic relationship with:

A) assault or threaten her

B) stalk, harass or intimidate her. and

C) Intentionally or recklessly destroy a damage any property or harm an animal that belongs to or is in the possession of [Ms Angwin]

For example:

•You must not do any of these things in person, through another person, or through electronic communication and devices (for example, by phone, text messages, emails, Facebook or other social media, or GPS tracking).

• You must not do or say anything that may make [Ms Angwin] feel frightened, or feel that you may harm her or damager her belongings in any way, including any jointly owned property and pets.

Orders about where the defendant cannot go

8. You must not go into:

A) any place where [Ms Angwin] lives, or

B) any place where she works, or

C) any place listed here

[W Street, Town Y].

For example:

•You are not to go within the boundary of those places.

Other orders

11. NOT TO CONTACT OR APPROACH THE PERSON IN NEED OF PROTECTION EXCEPT FOR PURPOSES OF CHILD/RENS WELFARE

Most relationships do not include fear, control or violence. You are now part of a minority of people who has one of these orders, and this is recorded on the NSW Police system.

When children are exposed to violence in the home, they are much more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety and aggression, and they do worse at school.

Many people take this as a turning point.

If you would Ilka to talk to someone about managing your emotions or stresses, help is available. Call:

• Men's Referral Service [...]

• Relationships Australia [...]

• The Parent Line [...].[35]

[82]

In 2021 the Father went to prison for several matters, including a serious assault upon the Mother dating back to 2010, together with breaches of an Apprehended Domestic Family Violence Order.
After the Father's release from prison in 2021, his visits recommenced and occurred four occasions, but stopped in February 2022, after the Mother claimed that he was intimidating towards her and failed to abide by the agreement relating to the point of changeover.[37]
As stated, the Mother initiated proceedings on 21 March 2022. On 20 April 2022, interim consent orders were made confirming that the Mother had sole parental responsibility for X, and that X live with her.[38]
On 12 July 2022 the parties agreed to interim orders that X spend no time with the Father, and that Dr C, Psychiatrist, ('Dr C'), be appointed as a Single Expert.[39] The last occasion X saw her father was on 24 October 2022 in the company of Dr C. Dr C's report was released on 17 November 2022.
In December 2022 the Mother relocated with X to Victoria, with the assistance of the NSW Police Domestic Violence Task Force and Z Organisation, to be closer to her family. Once there, the Mother homeschooled X for four months, because of the poor state of X's mental health and separation anxiety. This was not successful - X lost focus and did not progress well with subjects such as English and Mathematics. Consequently, the Mother enrolled X at a school in Victoria from February 2023 until the end of term 3 in 2023. Unfortunately, this was not a positive experience, as X's behaviour was challenging - including getting into fights with other students and, on one occasion, choking a fellow student. She also started associating with students who would vape and not go to class.
The Mother moved back to New South Wales in September 2023 and X was enrolled in a school in New South Wales from term 4 of 2023. X remains at that school - its details kept secret from the Father. The Mother stated that X initially struggled but began to enjoy school. She settled into a group of friends, went to sleepovers and received awards at school.[40] As stated, X's 2024 school report provided some corroboration of the Mother's evidence in this regard.
The Mother stated in her affidavit that over the 2022-2023 period, X's mental health improved significantly, including weaning her off co-sleeping with her - a behaviour that started due to X's anxiety. The Mother said that she had been working on setting heathy boundaries and trying to improve X's independence.[41]
In late 2022 the Mother commenced a relationship with Mr AA ('Mr AA'). He is a public servant who works for BB Organisation. They do not live together. Mr AA has two children aged 11 and 13.
On 26 June 2023 the parties finalised their property dispute, from which the Mother received a payment of three million dollars ($3,000,000) and $1,400 per week spousal maintenance.[42]
In late 2023 X called the police and complained about the Mother, alleging that she was left at home alone whilst travelling with Mr AA overseas to Country CC. Police took no action as it was established that the claims made by X were false, and the Mother had made every attempt to make sure X was looked after while she was away.[43]
The trial commenced on 26 February 2024. It continued in a stop-start fashion over 12 days throughout the year, with final submissions received on 13 December 2024. Large amounts of material were relied upon, including 49 exhibits.

[164]

33. It was 2002 when I gave up alcohol. [In] January 2022, it will be 20 years without a single alcoholic drink. I have never fallen off the wagon on even one occasion.

34. However, whilst I have up alcohol in 2002, a year prior to my incarnation in 2021, I started to rely heavily on Valium and then went to Temazepam, then to Silcox, all designed to tranquilise me so that I could sleep.

35. In late November 2020, I was diagnosed with ADHD and prescribed Dexamphetamine.

36. I was taking "tranquilisers" at night to enable me to sleep after using the prescription drugs Dexamphetamine and the Modafinil during the day.

37. I was also using Lyrica 600mg and I was taking 1200mg per night. I was using Valium 50mgs per night, Phenergan 150mgs per night, Soma a Chinese brand variant of Valium one to two tablets each night of Zanaflex, also a Chinese variant of what we have in Australia, called Zanax.

38. My dependency on the prescription only got worse when my Father went into hospital in early 2020

39. He was diagnosed with [a medical condition] and the Doctors told me it was a terminal illness. In 6 months he went from being a rugged, strong and capable individual to a little more than a vegetable and it hit me very hard.

40. I was staying at [O] Hospital sleeping on a yoga mat next to his bed for 2 months just to comfort him.

41. I was staying there all night and then in the morning, I went home, showered, had breakfast and then went to work at by business, all day long.

42. I was on all of the above medication for 2 years prior to my arrest and I took it every single day.

Breakdown of Marriage

43. I noticed that while the drugs I was on helped me to sleep better it became an addiction it was affecting my marriage and intimate relationship with [Ms Angwin].

44. I was 47 at the time and found out that the drugs in combination with my age were leading to a reduction in libido.

45. I felt depressed, embarrassed and lost. I became aware that steroids could increase my levels of testosterone. So I made an order online.

46. I did not think about the consequences at all. It was an impulsive and pride driven decision. One that I look back on with regret and shame.

47. Not only did I lose my family, but it felt like all the hard work I put into abstaining from alcohol had instead been replaced by my addiction to prescription drugs.[58]

[183]

In the event that the Court forms the view that the mother's allegations are largely unsubstantiated, then in my view they should consider the orders which [Mr Angwin] is seeking. That said, even under those circumstances I am not of the view that the Court should necessarily make orders to the full extent that he requests. He has clearly been charged with a very broad range of offences and he has been found guilty of some. In addition, the Court may form the view that even though the evidence for some charges did not exceed the criminal test of beyond reasonable doubt, they may exceed the threshold accepted by the Family Court for a finding of unacceptable risk in certain areas, probably principally in the areas of physical and emotional risk. Moreover, I was in no doubt that [Ms Angwin] has been [X]'s primary caregiver and that [Mr Angwin]'s parenting is probably not of a particularly comprehensive nature. He is very invested in those areas in which he asserts he and [X] share an interest, and there is evidence he has been engaged with [X]'s school, but I think he is probably relatively untested in terms of the sole day-to-day care of a child of this age. That is not to say that he is not capable of upskilling in this area, and of course [X] is also of an age where she is much more independent in terms of activities of daily living. However I am firmly of the view that he would require professional support in the form of parenting counselling which could also advise him on [X]'s particular emotional and behavioural vulnerabilities.[68]

Due to these and other qualifications, it is possible that the Court may form the view that while [Mr Angwin]'s time with [X] should be restored, the level of acceptable risk may be such that this needs to be on a regular professionally or family supervised basis, or the time may not require supervision but it may be limited in extent. Indeed unless the Court finds that [Ms Angwin] is not just unreliable in her account, but also has an enmeshed and rather corrupting influence on [X] in the direction of adverse personality development, I am of the view that [X]'s primary residence needs to be with her mother and siblings.

(Emphasis added).

[198]

Lee J recently considered the approach in Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369:
1. The matters set out in subsection (2)(a), (b) and (c) are mandatory but not exhaustive considerations; other considerations may also be relevant, including the inherent likelihood of the occurrence of the fact alleged and the notion that all evidence is to be weighed according to the proof which it was in the power of one side to have produced, and the other to have contradicted: Blatch v Archer [1774] EngR 2; (1774) 1 Cowp 63 (at 65 per Lord Mansfield).
2. The concept used in subsection (1), being the "balance of probabilities", is often misunderstood. It does not mean a simple estimate of probabilities; it requires a subjective belief in a state of facts on the part of the tribunal of fact. A party bearing the onus will not succeed unless the whole of the evidence establishes a "reasonable satisfaction" on the preponderance of probabilities such as to sustain the relevant issue: Axon v Axon [1937] HCA 80; (1937) 59 CLR 395 (at 403 per Dixon J). The "facts proved must form a reasonable basis for a definite conclusion affirmatively drawn of the truth of which the tribunal of fact may reasonably be satisfied": Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298 (at 305 per Dixon CJ). Put another way, as Sir Owen Dixon explained in Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 (at 361), when the law requires proof of any fact, the tribunal of fact must feel an actual persuasion of its occurrence or existence before it can be found.
3. Justice Hodgson put it differently, but to the same effect, by observing that when deciding facts**, a civil tribunal of fact is dealing with two questions: "not just what are the probabilities on the limited material which the court has, but also whether that limited material is an appropriate basis on which to reach a reasonable decision**": see D H Hodgson, 'The Scales of Justice: Probability and Proof in Legal Fact-finding' (1995) 69 Australian Law Journal 731; Ho v Powell [2001] NSWCA 168; (2001) 51 NSWLR 572 (at 576 [14]-[16] per Hodgson JA, Beazley JA agreeing).
4. Whatever way it is put, a "[m]ere mechanical comparison of probabilities independent of a reasonable satisfaction will not justify a finding of fact": NOM v DPP [2012] VSCA 198; (2012) 38 VR 618 (at 655 [124] per Redlich and Harper JJA and Curtain AJA); Brown v New South Wales Trustee and Guardian [2012] NSWCA 431; (2012) 10 ASTLR 164 (at 176 [51] per Campbell JA, Bergin CJ in Eq and Sackville AJA agreeing).
5. Although s 140 EA is now the starting point, the concepts it incorporates are neither new nor novel. Any fact-finding inquiry depends upon context. As Kiefel CJ, Gageler and Jagot JJ recently observed in GLJ v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore [2023] HCA 32; (2023) 97 ALJR 857 (at 874-875 [57]), the statutory provision:

[238]

4. The mother accepts that [X] is now at a point where her prospects of changing from her prior conflicted state whilst in contact with the father are probably at the level of identifiable probability rather than possibility. Therefore, it is imperative that [X] is provided with the optimal opportunity to bring change into her life. Such an opportunity is only awarded to [X] by making the orders sought by the mother and excluding any contact, influence or interference by the father whether intended or not.

...

23. The mother contends that [X] mimics or has acquired negative behaviours from the father, such as lying and stealing. [X] has picked up several levels of conduct from the father of which are contrary to her best interests. [X]'s school records and her therapists reports all support her having steadily distanced herself from these past concerning behaviour's. Whilst so ever the father is present in [X]'s life, whether directly or by stealth, given the father's propensity to influence [X] under the guise of "I just want what's best for her" to grow into an independent young lady. It is the mothers case, and a concern for [Dr C], that [X] does not have a level of maturity to distinguish between the father's priorities - contact/influence over [X] at any cost - and her own need to resist and slowly recover from the trauma that pervades the father's relentless pressure to be involved in her life. This pressure emanating from the father's need to be a part of [X]'s life as opposed to whether his involvement would serve or be detrimental to [X]'s best interests.

24. It is plain, and as opined by the Single Expert, that the father doesn't fully understand the impact of his actions on [X], substantially underestimating it, despite his so-called remorseful statements.

25. The mother submits that should [X] be made to have contact with the father, then, she will need to manage how she reveals herself to him, causing further and unwarranted stress in [X]'s life.[98]

(Emphasis added)

[275]

My work with [Ms T] revealed that she had experienced long term trauma symptoms as a result of exposure to domestic violence perpetrated by her stepfather on her mother, culminating in a very violent incident in which her mother was seriously injured, and according to [Ms T] almost killed, when [Ms T] was aged about 13. I understand that the stepfather went to prison for the assault but after he came out of prison he and [Ms T]'s mother gradually reconciled, and they were living together at the time of my contact with [Ms T].

While there was not ongoing physical violence in the home after the reconciliation, a raised voice, or even hearing her stepfather's voice (which was a reminder of the past violence) triggered trauma symptoms for [Ms T]. She tended to avoid exposure to the trauma by remaining in her room and sleeping a lot of the time. She reported a joking relationship with her stepfather, which covered her inner turmoil, so it may not have been obvious to the family members that [Ms T] was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which was frequently re-triggered by the presence of her stepfather in the home. His presence also prevented the trauma from being resolved for her.

With [Ms T]'s agreement, I conducted a session with [Ms T], her mother and her stepfather to discuss [Ms T]'s ongoing trauma symptoms and to let the mother and stepfather know about [Ms T]'s PTSD symptoms and the ongoing traumatisation triggered by the stepfather's presence in the home. The stepfather expressed remorse regarding the past violence, but there appeared that the controlling dynamics common in families where violence occurs were still present, and that the mother was also suffering anxiety and distress in relation to the situation at home. The stepfather was not assessed during this interview but there was some suggestion during the interview of his having some mental health issues.

The need for the mother and the stepfather to seek treatment independently was discussed with them. Both were already engaged with a counsellor/psychologist, but the stepfather indicated that his counselling was not in relation to the past abuse and that it was not a setting in which he could discuss his violent history. Both adults were receptive to the discussion about [Ms T]'s PTSD symptoms, and it was not long after this session that I was informed that they had decided to separate. The stepfather moved out of the home, but I understand he remained in intermittent contact with my client, [Ms T], until he was incarcerated for an offence which is unknown to me.[124]

(Emphasis added)

[292]

The mother contends that the father poses an unacceptable risk to the child, to an extent of which it is appropriate and, in the child's best interests, for the father to have no contact with her and be restrained from approaching or contacting her. The mother alleges that the father is a deeply antisocial person masquerading behind a charismatic, persuasive, and manipulative façade as well as being violent and controlling across virtually all spheres of such misbehaviour. The mother contends that Court can safely assume that he will not change while the child is of an age that she remains within the jurisdiction of this Court.

15. The comprehensive allegations of family violence are not isolated events, but instead an alarming pattern demonstrating vicious cycle that can be triggered by the slightest annoyance to the father. The father has an extensive criminal history of which cannot be in contention**. The father has admitted to several of the mother's allegations of abuse and neglect, including some which did not give rise to police convictions. There is no sufficient evidence that the father has broken this pattern and cured his behaviour.** The father purports to have learnt from his mistakes. He claims that 'while I was in custody, I had a lot of time to think.' However, the Court can hardly accept this suggestion in circumstances whereby as recently as November last year, it came to the mother's attention that the father had a mention of a criminal matter (file number [...]). The father was charged with have custody of a knife in a public place.

...

17. It must follow that the child is at an unacceptable risk of harm should she be in the father's care. Take for example the instance in which father has situated himself in a position whereby he has caused himself to be shot at, '[Mr KK], who pulled out a .38 pistol and pointed it at my chest. After arguing with [Ms DD] and [Mr KK], [Mr KK] shot me in the leg ...' The Court only needs to imagine the child being in the father's care in such an instance, to picture the probable devastating ramifications that would follow. Ramifications which by no means uphold the child's best interests, and ramifications in which the Court can hardly suggest that any child should experience at any stage in their life, let alone as a child.

18**. As recognised above, there is no compelling or sufficient evidence that suggests that the father has broken this pattern and cured his behaviour**. It must follow, and as similarly held by the Single Expert, the range of harm is incredibly broad, with an unacceptable risk of several forms of both abuse and neglect.[129]

[335]

I am satisfied that X has been greatly impacted by her exposure to the Father's violent behaviour, as evidenced from her psychological reports and the evidence of Dr C.
The Father submitted that the Court can be satisfied that he does not pose an unacceptable risk to X's physical or psychological wellbeing, even if the Court finds that he has acted in a violent manner in the past. The Father urged the Court to consider the many safeguards that surround the Mother, including Mr AA, her connection to police and her access to this Court. He referred to the therapeutic work that he has undertaken over recent years, his abstinence from drugs or alcohol, his good record whilst incarcerated and his general good behaviour as evidence that he has reflected upon his past and improved. Further he is prepared to undertake supervision of his time or changeovers if necessary.
Given the nature of the family violence that I have found the Mother and X have experienced, I cannot be satisfied that X will not be exposed to further family violence in the Father's unregulated care. I accept that the Father has made legitimate efforts to improve his behaviour and control his emotions and his abstinence from drugs was an important step forward. There is, however, more work for him to do to convince the Court that X would be safe from further exposure to violent behaviour if time occurred unregulated. That said, the Father would be unlikely to expose X to further family violence if he had professionally supervised time with her.
The difficulty is, that even supervised time will likely expose X to psychological harm. X is showing signs of improvement from the extensive trauma that she has experienced by being exposed to the violent and chaotic circumstances she endured. As set out earlier in these Reasons, X's mental health has been deeply affected by her experiences. The risk that X's health will regress if she spends any time or has any communication with her Father is too high at this time. In this regard I accept the submissions of Ms Doosey:

[349]

At this stage, the matter was referred to the JCPRP, who screened the matter in for sexual abuse and exploitation based on an allegation that [Mr Angwin] had touched [X] between the legs while in the parents' bed in the middle of the night when she was about four or five years old. She was apparently wearing underwear and she was not awoken by the incident. She apparently made no complaint the following day about pain, discomfort or blood. [Ms Angwin] added that [Mr Angwin] had also talked to [X] about things of a sexual content such as joking with her about being a stripper when she grows up. It was noted that the matter was referred to (presumably the Department of Health) for them to report back. There is no record of this occurring.

In the meantime, [X] was interviewed by JCPRP staff on May 17th 2022. The interviewers were apparently satisfied that she knew she was to tell the truth. In terms of a bad incident with her father, she referred to the chair incident from 2016 when she thought she was about three years old. In response to a question about what she liked about her father, she indicated shopping because he knows what she likes. In terms of what she does not like about him, she referred to him getting angry and stressing out over small things such as losing a shoe, and hurting people and breaking things. She denied that he had hurt her. There were then questions in relation to the alleged incident of being touched between the legs by her father. The questions appear to not have been leading.

She recalled that when she was about four or five years old, she might get into bed with her mother and father. The context was that if she felt scared, they might ask her if she wanted to come into their bed. The interviewer went through a body chart and it appears that [X] did not acknowledge any inappropriate touching.

[Ms Angwin] was provided feedback about the content of the interview and the lack of a disclosure. She expressed surprise because [X] was experiencing fearfulness at sudden noises and other things. She said that [X] had also told her about her father teaching her to shoplift, about her being in a car when he had several motor vehicle accidents, and about him getting her to start a fire in the electrical box at [Town V]. She also described being supported by the Domestic Violence Task Force, their assistance having included in the installation of extra cameras in the home as well as an SOS device.

...

Although it appeared that the allegation concerning inappropriate touching when [X] was about four or five years old was referred to the Department of Health for assessment, in fact it seems that the JRU undertook an investigation themselves which involved an interview of [X] on May 17th 2022 which did not lead to a disclosure of any sexually inappropriate conduct, but did yield [X] basically referring to liking the same things about her father she told me, and similarly disliking the same things she told me about her father.[162]

(Emphasis Added)

[352]

Even if I were to have found that X would not be at an unacceptable risk of harm if she had supervised time with her father, I would still need to consider if the Mother's parenting would be discernibly impacted if that were to occur, such that it would not be X's best interest to have time nor communication with him. Counsel for the Mother, Mr Batey, submitted that any contact or communication with the Father will destabilise the Mother to a point where she does not have the capacity to care for X, increasing the Mother's anxiety.[164]
This argument is often referred to as a 'Re Andrew' argument, arising from the decision in Re Andrew [1996] FamCA 43; (1996) FLC 92-692, where it was decided that the Court can consider the impact of a parent's time with a child upon the primary carers ability to parent the child, such that it would impact upon the welfare of the child. The principle is summarised as, in the circumstances of a case, "time between the father and the child would cause such a level of distress and anxiety in the mother so as to sufficiently affect her parenting capacity and that, as a result, the father's time with the child should be limited."[165]
The Full Court in Keane v Keane affirmed that the Court may consider, where the Court does not find that a parent represents an unacceptable risk of harm, the belief of a parent that the child may be at risk of harm so far as to 'discernibly' impact upon that parent's caregiving ability, even if such belief is irrational, so long as the belief is genuinely held. However, the Full Court noted that such consideration should not overshadow or override the child's right to a meaningful relationship with both parents or the other considerations under section 60CC of the Act - particularly where appropriate steps can be taken to ameliorate or mitigate such beliefs, such as professional treatment:
1. In Russell v Close, the Full Court referred to the decision of the Full Court in B and B [1993] FamCA 143; (1993) FLC 92-357 ("B and B") and stated, at [32]:

[355]

It is not unreasonable for the Court to take into account in assessing whether an unacceptable risk exists, the need of a custodial parent to be assured of the children's protection. As primary caregiver, anxiety about the children's exposure to potential harm is likely to impact adversely on that parent's ability to care for the children.

Subsequent authorities, however, confirm that it is an error to assume that, in each and every case where a parent is concerned about the safety of a child in the other parent's care, the court will infer that there is an unacceptable risk that the concerned parent's parenting capacity will be adversely impacted. To do so risks elevating those fears to an extent that it overshadows the totality of considerations set out in s 60CC of the Act. In particular, as noted by the primary judge, it does not give the concerned parent a right of "veto" over whether the child should have time with the other parent, citing Marra and Marra (Unreported, Full Court of the Family Court, Fogarty, Baker & Butler JJ, 8 September 1993). As explained in Marra at [6]:

The genuinely held beliefs or concerns of the custodial parent as to access are relevant considerations in deciding what access to order (s.64(1)(bb)(i) and (v)). However, it does not give to the custodian a veto. Its relevance is the extent to which it may have an adverse impact upon the welfare of the child as a result of it affecting the custodian's caregiving capacity. The wife's fears in the present case, whilst of personal concern to her, do not appear likely to have significant effect upon her capacity as a custodian. The trial Judge in this case, though bound to take account of the wife's fears, elevated her fears to an extent which transcended the consideration of the best interests of the children.

Importantly, the Full Court in Marra held that not only is it necessary for the court to determine whether a parent has a genuine concern about the welfare of the child in the care of the other parent but it is also necessary to determine whether the concerned parent's parenting capacity will be "discernibly impaired". 'Discernibly', or similar expressions that have been used in the relevant authorities to which we have referred, means no more than being an evident or detectable impairment in parenting capacity such that there is an unacceptable risk that the child's welfare will be adversely impacted.

[362]

To whom it may concern,

My name is [Ms PP], I am a police officer attached to the [Region QQ] Metro Domestic Violence High Risk Offender Team. As the title suggests, our focus is High Risk domestic violence victims and offenders.

I have been working with [Ms Angwin] for some time now, in relation to serious Domestic Violence offences committed upon her by her husband [Mr Angwin] .

I have laid multiple serious Domestic Violence charges against [Mr Angwin] to which he is currently on bail. I am currently completing a complex investigation into [Mr Angwin] for further previous heinous offences including serious assaults on [Ms Angwin] which have had serious psychological implications on her children [Ms T], [Mr Q] and [X]. The matters will be processed through the court at a later date, not set before the court at this time.

[Ms Angwin] has been assisting police with all investigations, and it is apparent that [Mr Angwin] is aware of her current residential address as he used to reside at the property. Some offences suggest to seriously harming [Ms Angwin] and ultimately her three children. [Mr Angwin] has made multiple threats to shoot and physically assault [Ms Angwin].

[Mr Angwin] has strong social ties with criminals/groups in [Suburb S] / [Suburb RR]/ [Town Y] areas and surrounds. Due to the extent of the criminal charges and [Ms Angwin] caring for her three children as a single parent, I am aware [Ms Angwin] is attempting to relocate where [Mr Angwin] cannot locate her.

My unit, and the police in general, would fully support your organisation in relocating [Ms Angwin] and her three children to a suburb outside the above areas as a matter of priority as [Mr Angwin] is aware of her current residential address.

[Ms Angwin] requires ongoing financial assistance from Centrelink to support her and her children and this will also be necessary for their relocation. [Ms Angwin] has expressed to police that she is struggling financially as a result of her Domestic Violence abuse which has resulted stress, anxiety and hardship within the family.

If you require any further information to support the relocation of [Ms Angwin] as a matter of priority, please do not hesitate to contact me directly. [170]

(Emphasis added)

[376]

[Ms Angwin]'s medical records and her account documents a long history of anxiety and depression extending back as far as the beginning of this relationship, but possibly also even before she met [Mr Angwin], in the light of her complex family situation and sexual abuse as a young teenager. It is likely that she has hardly been free of these symptoms ever since, although clearly they have peaked at various times. It is also documented over the last five or six years of the relationship, that her anxiety also had significant physical manifestations in terms of jaw pain and irritable bowel which continue to afflict her. She has sought psychological counselling support at various periods, and she has basically relied on an antidepressant throughout this period. She is currently also taking an anti-ADD medication and a medication to help her sleep. The latter is probably warranted, although whether or not she suffers from ADD is probably academic.

She is clearly very emotionally reactive to the stresses which are in her life. Whether her emotional symptoms have caused her to withdraw from the children as is alleged by the father, is not completely evident from the corroborative material, but [X]'s mental health records are consistent with her having been very engaged with support for [X] throughout her life. The corroborative material also seemed to indicate that she was very engaged with [Ms T] at the time of her surgery in the last year of the relationship, which also on the face of it does not appear to corroborate [Mr Angwin]'s account.

My view after reviewing these materials is that [Ms Angwin] is an emotionally very vulnerable person, and that she has definitely suffered significant emotional and physical manifestations of anxiety as well as significant stress related depression. It is possible that the current manifestations of this are compatible with them being described together as a chronic form of PTSD which is being maintained by the stress of the current proceedings and looking after three children, each of whom have their own significant emotional needs. The persistence and the nature of her anxieties is best managed by a combination of psychiatric and counselling care, such as she is undertaking at the moment.[179]

(Emphasis added)

[388]

[X] told me that she was eager to see her father. Although she had also spoken with me about how he could be frightening, she made no reference to me needing to be careful about anything, nor to wanting any particular precautions taken beyond those which I had told her about in terms of keeping the parents separate etc. They greeted each other with a tearful and what appeared to be a completely mutual hug, and they separated at the end of my session with expressions of sadness and a desire to see each other again, although there did not seem to be clear expressions by [X] for that to happen soon. Indeed then and throughout the observation, she maintained a rather neutral and slightly careful demeanour. It was she who was most adept at keeping their dialogue going when there were several occasions, particularly earlier on, when her father seemed briefly lost for words. Understandably [Mr Angwin] asked a number of questions about school, to which it was clear to me that [X]'s responses were not accurate in terms of the correctness of matters which applied basically to the present, because I had been told she is currently not attending school. It is also possible that she dissembled about other matters as well. On those occasions when I was certain she was dissembling, she nevertheless provided a fairly convincing and detailed account, but she also managed to shift off that topic fairly quickly.

So while [X] gave her father what appeared to be a seamless and genuine account of contemporary matters which were not true, probably on a needs basis, she otherwise seemed quite content to see her father, eager to communicate with him, missing him, but also protective of her maternal family. While I felt that her dissembling was related to an awareness that she needed to protect her family, the basis for that could have included a view that her mother could not cope as well as she could with the proximity of her father. It is also possible that [Mr Angwin] can be so engaging and persuasive that an emotionally vulnerable child like [X] has idealised him and largely overlooks his faults.[186]

[433]

[Dr C], just in terms of [X]'s future, I just want to ask you an overall last question. In your opinion, are the conditions currently sufficiently favourable for you to feel confident to endorse [X] commencing seeing her father pretty - in the short term? What - - -?---No.

I just - - -?---Yes. No. No. No, I don't think so. I just think that there are too many - her - her - her problems are too pervasive and, I mean, cover so many areas and are - and are quite - quite serious in - in a number of those areas and - I mean, they spread as widely as gender dysphoria, I think, which has really greater dimension, more because it's less dangerous, I suppose, than some of the other things that have happened. No. She - she really needs to have an optimal opportunity to bring some change into - bring some change into her life. There are a couple of things I would say about that. The first one is that - that I - that I think her mum will be a good partner with the therapist. Now, I'm not - there's nothing in there that gives an examination of why [X] has stopped sleeping with her mum, but she may have decided to, but it's - it - equally it's quite - something like that is quite often an almost immediate focus of counselling in a child of this age, even a younger child. Usually what happens is the parent is given some advice about how to - how to manage that situation. And there seemed to be some inferences that - that that is, in fact, what happened: that this was done with the therapist guidance and it worked. Often it doesn't. And the same thing goes for the school attendance. It may simply be a matter of - simply a matter of [X] feeling confident that her dad isn't - isn't going to come to school, but she has come back to live in the - you know, in the last 12 months, to live in the area where they were living before, where I think her anxiety about that was quite high. So I think - I think as well as that, her - it's possible that her mother has also had some therapy - therapeutic guidance about how to manage that situation, and that makes me feel more confident that as they start to get into some of the really - the tougher areas, about honesty, for instance - I mean - and about her conduct towards other kids and things of that sort, that - that - that her mother has the capacity to benefit from counselling and how to manage those situations as - as well. So - so I think that if there's, sort of, moratorium of a couple of years, that provided the mum does continue with a consistent form of therapy and counselling, in terms of [X]'s counselling, in terms of counselling - [X]'s counselling incorporating her and in terms of the mum also getting some independent counselling, that there's some prospect that at the end of that time - I mean, that will be - it will be outside the jurisdiction of the court by then, or roughly - that at - that at that point, and possibly as a part of the therapy, [X] will be in a better position to be able to deal with - with - with communicating with her dad and - and she will also be able to have better skills to manage it safely rather than engaging with her dad at his - at the level he seems to want to, but which she feels uncomfortable with. So - so I do - I do think that there's some hope for that relationship**, but it really depends on her being able to live in the real world more, and being able to integrate things side by side, rather than, you know, being in an either/or sort of situation**. You're either this, or that, or something else. Yes, so that would be my view about it.[214]

(Emphasis added)

[438]

15. Both parents stated that they were each diagnosed with ADD/ADHD, and [Ms Angwin] said that she takes medication to assist her. [Mr Angwin] stated that he was diagnosed after he questioned whether he had ADHD, and after taking some of the children's stimulant medication to determine its effect. [Ms Angwin] reported that she was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of experiencing family violence. She regularly sees a psychologist and psychiatrist, and takes prescribed medication to manage her mental health. [Ms Angwin] expressed concern that [Mr Angwin] will manipulate various systems, such as the Court, and use her fragile mental health and parenting capacity against her. [Ms Angwin] expressed concern that [Mr Angwin] has studied various conditions so he can gain access to and abuse prescribed medication.

16. [Mr Angwin] reported that he has previously been diagnosed with anxiety and depression, and does not take any medication. He said that he worked on his mental health from a "grass roots level" to determine his triggers, and has found that meditation, faith, and education have improved his mental health. He partially acknowledged the adverse impact his poor mental health previously had on the children, however, he stated that his mental health and behaviours have since improved. He described [Ms Angwin]'s parenting capacity as poor when she felt overwhelmed with "new" or "pressing" tasks, and would often shut down, resulting in him managing a "tsunami of issues". Noting the history of family violence described by [Ms Angwin], it is likely that her mental health state can be understood in this context. Her current involvement with mental health professionals also indicates that she has taken appropriate steps to manage her mental health and improve her capacity to manage the needs of the children. If her account has veracity, then it raises concerns about [Mr Angwin]'s mental health, and how his behaviours, if erratic or aggressive, may be perceived by the children in the context of trauma.

17. [Ms Angwin] stated that she has not used heroin, as alleged by [Mr Angwin]. She said that she tried marijuana once when she was a teenager and did not like it. She said that she maintained good health during her pregnancies and did not smoke or use any drugs. [Ms Angwin] expressed concern regarding [Mr Angwin]'s use of substances, and the possibility the children will be exposed to this. Whilst [Ms Angwin] reported that she did not witness him use drugs, she said here were often boxes of tablets in the home. [Mr Angwin] reported that he used cocaine, MDMA and marijuana between the ages of 18 and 24. He further said that he abused prescription drugs, such as pain killers and anti-anxiety medication in his adult life and during their relationship. He said that his abuse of prescription drugs increased after their separation, however, he said he has not abused prescribed medication since he was incarcerated in [early] 2021. [Mr Angwin] stated that he has not consumed alcohol for 20 years. [Mr Angwin] expressed some concern that [Ms Angwin] becomes intoxicated at times, alleging that on one occasion, [Ms Angwin] took the children to Victoria, and left [X] on her own one evening in the hotel room, causing [X] to become scared.[215]

(Emphasis Added)

[450]

Session One, [...] November 2022, Observations: In the first session, [Mr Angwin] introduced himself, his demeanour was serious, outwardly appearing tough with prominent dark tattoos on his face and arms, attire casual yet clean, the tone was serious and sounded anxious. He predominately directed his gaze downward avoiding eye contact, psychically, his hands were clenched, and he was altering his seated position. Upon clarification of the counselling process and the ethical guidelines, I enquire what were his hopes and aspirations for attending therapy sessions. The client answered, "I want to become the best dad that I could be. I further probed, how the best dad that could be looks like? He replied "He doesn't scream, doesn't yield, is not violent, and teach his children skill that are good, as oppose of manipulations and taking advantage of others." From this point on the client started narrating his story; the theme was focus on his incarceration period which coincided with the COVID 19 pandemic. He said he was just been released from prison. It seemed that it was a challenging and humbling experience, also a time for reflections and lessons while he was incarcerated. The client was very open about his life experiences, and why he was incarcerated. It was observed that he was separated from his wife due to domestic violence issues, and that he was legally prevented from seeing or contacting his children. it was also observed that the client was challenged by the experiences he was sharing up to this point. However, he was emotionally resilience, or not allowing himself to be emotionally vulnerable, he was speaking fast although clear. It was observed that he regretted his actions and was taking full responsibility for the situation himself and his family were going through. It was also observed that when he talked about been prevented to contact with his children, his tone changed, his facial expression showed a sense of pain, guilt and shame. Although, he did not directly express it. At the end of the session, I asked the client if he would like to continue the counselling process, he replied that he would like to book another session.[222]

[478]

What would be the benefits to [X]?...The benefits - I believe to - that [X] would have by seeing me would allow me to - allow me to be an ear were she is able to express to me how much I've - how much I've hurt her and the family.

I don't follow that, sorry?...Well - if - if - if I am an ear - I can allow myself to - or if I can allow and have an opportunity whereby [X] is able to express how much I've hurt her and the family over the years, then I think in time she may be able to - she may be able to grow int - into just - just a nice - beautiful young girl.

Well and I'll paraphrase here, are you saying that one of the purposes is that 'I can apologise to her'?...Not me - I - I don't - I need her to - my apology won't mean anything, I've apologised million times anyway.

Which - directly just shows -?...I'm saying - I'm saying that my - I'm saying that, for her to be able to get some sense of closure or some - be granted some explanation as to why I - I was the way that I am moving forward and allow her the - the ability to be able to just rip me apart, you know, just -

Have you considered the disadvantages of [X] being reminded of how you were and your forgiveness?...Yes

It could be very destabilising for her, it could bring back memories of frightening things that occurred during the relationship?...Absolutely.

You understand [Dr C] say that as she appeared in front of him, she appeared to be part of a well-functioning, mutually supportive family, do you remember reading that?...Yes.

Have you considered that your re-entering into her life might upset all of that?...Absolutely, yes.

Well that' a huge risk for [X]?...Yes, it is.

All on the strength of you saying a) I'm sorry, and b) I've changed. And you understand sir, that you'd be up against a little girl whose current or certainly problems in 2022 were as a result of your behaviour?...Yes.

It's a big risk -?...How many times do you want me to say it? Yes.

for [X]?...Yes.

And the advantages are that she gets to hear you confess as to how bad you were and that it's never going to happen again?...Yes.[230]

(Emphasis added)

[479]

The Father's concessions were admirable and demonstrated insight, and acknowledged the reality that X is still recovering from the impact of his behaviour during the relationship. It is clear that X needs time and space and period of peace and tranquillity before the Father can re-engage with her in a safe way.
That said, given X longs to see her father, and it would be naïve to think that she will not want to reach out to him - quite possibly before she attains the age of 18 years. That will be a very challenging time for the Mother, as the older X becomes, the harder it will be for her to resist accommodating her views.
It is important, in my view, that measures be put in place to make any future reconnection as child focused as possible. To that end I intend to make orders that ensure the Father has some information about X in the years to come so that if she reaches out, he will be able to reconnect with her in a meaningful way. This may also assist the Mother, as X, in those circumstances, will not be able to accuse her of trying to cut her father out of her life altogether.
I intend to order that the Mother provide the Father a copy of X school reports, redacted in the same way as those tendered in evidence.[231] I will also order that the Mother forward a photograph of X to the Father at the end of each term. I note that when he met with X with Dr C he found it challenging to move the conversation forward, and X had to manage that discussion.[232] Having knowledge of her will help the Father to meaningfully re-engage with X when the time comes. My hope is that the Father, having this information, will be able to more easily engage with X if, and when, she reaches out to him. Having this information should also incentivise the Father to continue with anger management therapy. To assist, I will give leave for him to provide a copy of these Reasons to his treating therapist(s).
The orders I will make will not make provision for the Father's to have time nor communication with X. It is not in X's best interests, at this time, to reconnect with him. This, however, is more likely to be a suspension of the Father's time with X, rather than a long-term cessation. It is quite possible that X will express a clear desire to re-connect with her father in the years to come, with the Mother left to manage the demands of a strong-willed young woman. If that happens, the Mother may need to reach out to the Father so that any reconnection can occur in a slow, measured and child focused way. For these reasons the Mother and X need to build resilience and the Father needs to continue to work on his temperament.
I note that the Mother and Father will still communicate with each other to give effect to the terms of the Binding Child Support Agreement. The Mother and the ICL sought several injunctive orders - which I intend to make - but will need to cater for that reality as well as the possibility of attending mediation - at the Mother's initiation.
Finally, the Mother proposed orders that will enable her to take X outside of Australia. X is an Australian citizen, as are her parents, and there is no reason as to why she should not be allowed to spend holiday time in another part of the world. I will so order.

[487]

The operation of the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility is significant. The line of authority from the Full Court suggests that, if the presumption remains in place, equal shared parental responsibility must be ordered.[235] Section 61DA makes clear, however, that this outcome may not always be appropriate.
Sections 61DA(2) and 61DA(4) provide for ways by which equal shared parental responsibility may not be ordered, as are relevant to the case at hand.
Section 61DA(2) provides that, from the outset, the presumption will not apply if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent (or someone who resides with a parent) has engaged in child abuse or family violence.
The standard set out in s 61DA(2) is important. It does not require proof of the fact that, on the balance of probabilities, child abuse or family violence took place. It requires only that the evidence provides reasonable grounds to believe that a person has engaged in child abuse or family violence. The wording of subsection (2) indicates a legislative intention to, in limited circumstances, prevent the application of the presumption notwithstanding that there may be no evidentiary finding of child abuse or family violence. Any actual finding of child abuse or family violence itself activates s 61DA(2), at which point there becomes no need to explore whether or not the presumption applies. Once s 61DA(2) is enlivened, whether through reasonable grounds of belief or a factual finding on the balance of probabilities, the presumption is excluded as a matter of law. In those circumstances there is no discretionary power by which the presumption may be revived.[236]
The enquiry as to an order for parental responsibility always, with the exception of s 61DA(2) and 61DA(3), commences with the presumption that equal shared parental responsibility is in the child or children's best interests. This is not to say that the presumption, once in place, is set in stone.
Section 61DA(4) accounts for instances in which, although the presumption applies from the outset of the enquiry, an order for equal shared parental responsibility may nevertheless not serve the child or children's best interests. If s 61DA(2) applies, s 61DA(4) never comes into operation.[237] Subsection (4) provides for the presumption to be rebutted - namely, for it to be ousted from consideration, despite the fact that it was initially applicable. To rebut the presumption, a judge must determine on the balance of probabilities, that it would not be in the child or children's best interests to order equal shared parental responsibility. The grounds upon which the presumption may be rebutted are significantly broader than those given in s 61DA(2). A court must, therefore, reach, "a level of satisfaction on the evidence ... that it would not be in the interests of the child for [the presumption] to apply," and must give "explicit and cogent reasons why the presumption should be rebutted."[238]
If the presumption is rebutted, it does not mean that I no longer have jurisdiction to make an order for equal shared parental responsibility as agreed by all parties. Warnick J in Robertson & Sento [2009] FamCAFC 49, though in dissent, plainly sets out the operation of s 61DA(2) by reference to the words therein:

[494]

As can be seen, the ADVO allows the parties to contact each other for the purposes of 'child/rens welfare' - a provision that the Father relied upon when he had X author the note to the Mother.[243] Although the injunctive orders I intend to make do not allow contact between the Mother and Father even for the purposes of the child's welfare, they will allow contact in writing to occur between the Mother and Father. Contact will be permitted for the purposes of actioning the provisions of the Binding Child Support Agreement, providing the Mother with the Father's postal address so that he can receive school reports and photos, and, if initiated by the Mother, to arrange for mediation. This is necessary, because there may come a time when the Mother - informed by X's views - needs to seek a change to the Orders. In the meantime, the injunctive orders are needed to ensure the safety of the Mother and X and provide them with the space needed to recover from the traumas of the past. If there needs to be a relaxation of the injunctions to facilitate discissions, the parties will have to agree to any changes in a written document, signed by both of them.
As I have said, the Father has much to offer X. He is intelligent and successful and should be a strong role model for X during her formative years. The difficulty is that if X is exposed to the Father at this time would likely impact on her psychological well-being and raise the risk of her health regressing. The Court is not prepared to take that risk. Even if it is that X will inevitably make her own move to reconnect with the Father, the Court must, at this time, do what it can to protect X's psychological and emotional well-being.
Both parties will need to start planning for the possibility of X reaching out to her father at some point - perhaps before she turns eighteen. The Mother will need to build her psychological resilience, and the Father will need to work on his temperament. My hope is that he will engage with relevant programs and continue with psychological assistance. If he can really address his violent and combative nature towards others, he may be able to rebuild trust with the Mother and provide X with an easier path into adulthood.
If there needs to be a change to the Orders that I have set out, I implore for the parties to engage with a mediation process, to work out the best means of re-introducing X to the Father in a safe way for both the child and the Mother, rather than resorting to the Court. This will require a significant change of attitude by the parties. Again, any change to the Orders will need to confirmed in a written document signed by them both.

Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (660 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (4)

Cases Cited (10)