Brunet & Hautum [2025] FedCFamC1F 283 | Case summary

Brunet & Hautum [2025] FedCFamC1F 283 | Case summary | Zoe

[16]

At the first day of hearing the parties agreed on a set of final orders pursuant to which the mother has sole parental responsibility for making long term decisions for the parties' four-year-old-son. In addition, the parties relevantly agreed the child would live with the mother, that she would be at liberty to obtain an Australian passport for the child, and be able to travel with him outside the Commonwealth of Australia. They also agreed there would be orders made for the personal protection of the mother and child pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") restraining the father from a range of activities, including approaching the mother or child, or attempting to locate them.
The orders as agreed enable the mother to change the child's surname and make decisions regarding where the child will live - which may include outside Australia.
The parties were not able to agree as to what orders - if any - should be made for the child to spend time with or communicate with his father.
This is an unusual case in that the nature of the risks posed by the father are in some respects subtle and nuanced. For the reasons that follow, I am not satisfied it is currently in the child's best interests to spend any time or have any communication with the father. This is substantially because I have significant concerns about the child's safety in the father's care, and because I am concerned as to the impact any orders for time will have on the child given the likely effect such orders will have on the mother and her psychological functioning. I have also determined that those risks to the child cannot be alleviated or sufficiently ameliorated by supervised time, or by providing only limited time.
It will also be apparent from these reasons that I am confident the mother will adopt a child focussed approach in relation to how she manages the child's knowledge and understanding of, and any relationship with, his father. She may, at some future time, determine it is appropriate to re-introduce the father into the child's life. Whether, when and how will be matters for her. I have varied the s 68B restraints pursuant to the Act made on the first day of trial so that the father will not be in breach in the event that he approaches the child, or mother provided any such contact on each occasion is at the express written invitation of the mother.

[17]

The parties commenced their relationship in around 2014 and started living together in early 2015, before marrying in 2019.
In 2003, prior to the parties meeting, the father was charged with recklessly making false or misleading statements and importing a prohibited import. Those charges related to the father's overseas purchase of weapons which he attempted to bring into Australia without declaring them. He was found guilty without conviction.
On about mid-2007, as a 22-year-old health care student, the father was charged with sexual offences. It was alleged the father provided prescription medication to the complainant and then had non-consensual sex with her. The father faced trial and was acquitted of the sexual offences ("the 2007 alleged offences"). The father pleaded guilty to drug charges in the same trial - one of which involved supplying a person with a prescribed drug.
The father sent the complainant electronic messages after the incident saying what he had done was terrible and inexcusable. At trial before me he admitted he had humiliated her, and mocked her, using sexual acts to do so. He also admitted the complainant had been intoxicated at the time of the alleged sexual offending.
Shortly after being charged, the father experienced suicidal ideation. He was admitted into hospital and diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood and substance related disorders. At that time the father acknowledged he had been using cannabis, MDMA and alcohol for a protracted period.
In late 2019, shortly after the parties married, the father engaged in sexual conduct with a work colleague. At that time the father was a health professional at the City N hospital . The complainant was a health care worker there. The mother was at that time completing her residency at a hospital in New South Wales and accordingly the parties were living in separate home.
The parties' son was born in 2020.
In late 2020 the father was informed by the Australian Federal Police via telephone that it was alleged he had committed sexual offences in late 2019 ("the 2019 incident"). Some of the conversation was heard by the mother, who was understandably extremely distressed by the allegations. The mother said the father insisted she not tell anyone about the allegations.
In early 2021 the father was suspended from his employment as a health professional pending investigation of the sexual offences allegations.
In early 2021 the father was charged with a number of sexual offences including two acts of indecency, one count of assault and two counts of sexual intercourse without consent arising from the 2019 incident. The father admits he had sexual intercourse with the complainant, but said it was consensual. At about this time the father's employment was terminated. At trial before me the father acknowledged this complainant was also intoxicated at the time of the alleged offending.
The parties separated on about June 2021. The father moved in with his mother in City B and the mother moved with the child to her parents' home, then in Region C. The mother facilitated time between the child and his father.
In mid-2021 the father's medical registration was suspended by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulatory Agency ("AHPRA").
In early 2022 the mother and her parents moved with the child to Region D. The mother continued to facilitate the child's time with his father. Between about June 2021 and June 2022 the child spent about one to two nights each week with the father. The mother's evidence is that she felt she had to provide that time to "keep things calm" for the child's sake.
The father first stood trial in relation to the 2019 incident in early 2022 before a Judge of the City N Supreme Court. This resulted in a hung jury in early 2022. A re-trial was scheduled for mid-2022.
In mid-2022 the City N Director of Public Prosecutions contacted the mother and took a statement from her. The father had previously sent the mother a message telling her not to speak to the police, even if they threatened her with a subpoena. The mother's statement was important as it related to whether the father had the care of the parties' pet at the time of the 2019 incident. This was significant as the complainant had given evidence about being assaulted and held by force. The father's evidence had been that was not possible as the pet was living with him, and all the pet's accoutrements were kept in that area. The mother's statement to the police contradicted the father's evidence about the whereabouts of the pet - as the pet was then living permanently with the mother in New South Wales.
On 29 June 2022, after reading the mother's statement, the father tried repeatedly to contact the mother in an effort to coerce and intimidate her to corroborate the false evidence he had given at trial about the care arrangements for the pet. That included him calling her from a no caller ID. He also sent her text messages on about 30 June 2022 to ask her to meet up with him.
The father attempted to call the mother again before sending her an email on about 30 June 2022 in which he admitted he had lied under oath and asked the mother to change part of her statement to benefit his defence. He had directed her to read the email "by yourself".
The father's email read in part:

[21]

The following day the father sent the mother a further text message in which he again asked her to meet with him. He said her actions - presumably in cooperating with the police - were "brutal" and "disgraceful".
At some point in mid-2022 when the mother did not respond to his text messages, the father contacted her parents by text message and by telephone asking to see the child.
The mother attended upon the police that afternoon and reported the father's communications with her.
At around 7.30 pm the police attended at the father's home. He was arrested, served with a provisional apprehended domestic violence order for the mother's protection ("the ADVO") and charged with stalking and attempting to influence a witness. The child has spent no time or had any communication with the father since then.
The father deposed that he was released on bail "with instructions not to contact [the mother], except through a lawyer".
The paternal grandmother said the father returned from the police station looking sad and defeated. He had a bottle of wine in his hand which she took off him and poured down the sink.
Notwithstanding the ADVO the father sent the mother text messages that evening, in which he wrote "Thanks for getting me arrested, it really highlights where u stand". He also told the mother she had "become my most hated enemy and got me arrested" which "left me with no choice but to end my life".
The mother was also contacted by other friends and acquaintances to whom the father had sent messages suggesting he was ending his life.
The police were called, and they contacted the paternal grandmother. The paternal grandmother went into the father's room to check on him and discovered he was cutting his arm and "there was blood everywhere". She called the police and requested an ambulance. Prior to receiving the telephone call from the police, the paternal grandmother was unaware that her son had been drinking to excess and had self-harmed.
The father was taken by ambulance to hospital where he was assessed and admitted - initially as an involuntary patient. He remained in hospital for about a week.
The hospital admission notes record that the father was assessed as experiencing severe mood disturbances. A history of depression was noted. He required surgery on the arm where he had attempted to cut an artery.
According to the Mental Health Review undertaken in mid-2022 the father was assessed by the psychiatrist as having an adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood and an alcohol use disorder. The features of his adjustment disorder were recorded as "prominent anxiety; panic attacks, physiological symptoms anxiety and insomnia".
The second trial regarding the 2019 incident was adjourned from mid-2022 and re-listed in late 2022. In late 2022 the prosecution filed an amended indictment adding counts of perjury and attempting to pervert the course of justice.
In late 2022 the next trial commenced. On the first day, the father pleaded not guilty to aggravated perjury and guilty to perjury simpliciter. He pleaded not guilty to the offence of perverting the course of justice. The trial proceeded on both the sexual offences and the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The mother had to give evidence during that trial. She was subjected to cross-examination by the father's legal representatives. I accept this caused her a great deal of additional stress and anxiety.
In late 2022, the jury were discharged after failing to reach unanimous verdicts on the sexual assault counts and on the count of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
A third trial was listed to commence in mid-2023.
In late 2022 the father lodged a formal complaint against Detective Sergeant Constable E with the Australian Federal Police Professional Standards, who was the officer in charge of investigating the 2019 incident. The father's complaints against the officer included attempts to pervert the course of justice, the provision of false or misleading statements to the court, contempt of court and dishonesty.
In late 2022 the father offered to plead guilty to the count of attempting to pervert the course of justice in full discharge of the indictment. That plea was not accepted.
On 31 January 2023 the father wrote to the mother's solicitors advising that the mother's affidavit sworn on 27 January 2023 contained "multiple deliberately false statements" which amounted to perjury. The mother was given 72 hours to respond. In the event of no response, the father said he would swear an affidavit stating the allegations were knowingly false and seek that the mother be referred for criminal prosecution.
In early 2023 the father lodged a complaint against Detective Sergeant Constable E with the City N Commonwealth Ombudsman ("the Ombudsman"). The complaint was referred to Professional Standards and then to the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (now the National Anti-Corruption Commission ("NACC")). In mid-2023 NACC determined to take no action.
In mid-2023 the prosecution discontinued the proceedings in relation to the sexual offences and filed an amended indictment that contained only the two justice administration offences - being perjury simpliciter and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The father pleaded guilty to both counts in mid-2023.
In mid-2023 the father sought that the Australian Federal Police Professional Standards act on his complaint against Detective Sergeant Constable E. I am unaware as to the outcome of that complaint.
In late 2023 the sentencing hearing took place before a Judge of the Supreme Court of City N in relation to the charges of perjury and perverting the course of justice.
Judgment was delivered in late 2023. In the course of the sentencing remarks her Honour observed, inter alia, that the father had told deliberate and premeditated lies in order to undermine the credibility of the complainant and secure his acquittal. Her Honour also referred to the objective seriousness of the offences and the impact the persistent nature of the father's offending had on both the complainant and the mother. Her Honour noted the father's apparent inability to appreciate the impact of his conduct on the mother. It appeared to me that at trial before me, the father continued to lack any real understanding of the impact of his behaviour.
The father was sentenced to imprisonment for perjury and for perverting the course of justice. A non-parole period was set. He was immediately taken into custody.
In late 2023 a final family violence protection order was made in which the father is the defendant. It is for the protection of the mother. It will expire in late 2025. As already noted, however, by consent final orders were made pursuant to s 68B of the Act.
The father appealed the sentence imposed on him by the Supreme Court of City N. The father did not advise the mother he had done so. The mother learned of the appeal when she was told about media reports referring to it.
On 6 February 2024 the mother's lawyers were contacted by lawyers instructed by the paternal grandmother. They advised their client sought to resume her relationship with the child and proposed time on a weekly basis for a few hours before progressing to alternate Sundays for the full day. The letter also advised that if the father's application for time was not granted, the paternal grandmother would seek substantive orders for time with the child.
On 13 February 2024 an Application in a Proceeding was filed on behalf of the paternal grandmother seeking she be joined as a party and have time with the child.
In early 2024 the father raised a complaint with the City N Judicial Council regarding the manner in which the Judge had conducted the hearing in early 2022. It was asserted by the father that her Honour failed to give him a 'fair hearing' as she was biased, incompetent, condescending, made sarcastic comments, appeared to have little to no understanding or experience of criminal law, was incapable of writing her own directions and was unable to adequately instruct a jury. That complaint was dismissed in early 2024.
The father's appeal against sentencing was heard by the Supreme Court of City N Court of Appeal in mid-2024. The appeal was dismissed in late 2024 with their Honours noting that the overall non-parole period and overall term was lenient.
At trial before me, the father maintained there were errors in the findings made around the perjury charges - even though he pleaded guilty to the charge.
The father was released on parole in late 2024, after spending a period of time in jail. He was initially to reside in City N. However, he has now relocated back to his mother's home in City B.
On 4 February 2025 the paternal grandmother discontinued her application to spend time with the child. She is no longer a party to the proceedings but gave evidence in support of the father.

[24]

At the commencement of the trial the father sought orders that the child spend time with the paternal grandmother ultimately on the second Sunday each alternate month, together with time for religious holidays, and that the father be permitted to be present during such spend time periods. It was his application that either the paternal grandmother or such other person nominated by her would be present during any time the child spent time with the father.
At the conclusion of the evidence of the parties, and prior to the evidence of the Single Expert, the father abandoned his application for his mother to have time with the child and for him to be present during those visits. Instead, he proposed that the parties engage a private psychologist to supervise and assist the child's reintroduction to the father, and that the psychologist make recommendations as to when supervised time (which would occur on four occasions each year, with professional supervision) should commence. However, the father's counsel promptly acknowledged that such a proposal impermissibly delegated decision making to the psychologist and the orders were not pressed.
Ultimately it was the father's proposal that the Court ought not make orders prohibiting time or communication - although there was no specific proposal put as to what orders for time or communication should be made beyond a concession that time at this stage would be on a supervised basis.
The father and his mother both gave evidence.
The father is 40 years old. He lives in his mother's home in City B. He is not currently in paid employment. His medical registration has been suspended and his efforts to have his registration reinstated have been unsuccessful to date. I understand the father has an action on foot with a hearing at some point this year to have his registration reinstated.
The father has taken multiple actions to complain when he feels he has been wronged. That includes having complained to the Ombudsman regarding the investigating officer, which was found to have no merit; a complaint to the Judicial Council in City N regarding the Judge, which was found to have no merit; and an unsuccessful appeal against sentencing. At trial before me he said he had also made a complaint against the Crown prosecutor who had cross examined him, and also the Crown prosecutor who had put forward the sentencing submissions. He also acknowledged he had sued H Hospital for wrongful dismissal. I understand the father received one month's salary as settlement for that claim.
The father admitted the complaints against the prosecutors and the Judge were, in retrospect, not appropriate. He said he sincerely regretted the complaint against the investigating officer, but maintained it was a valid complaint. He also maintained his appeal had been appropriately pursued.
In January 2023 the father also threatened to have the mother referred for criminal prosecution in relation to what he considered to be deliberate lies in her affidavit material.
In addition, the father gave evidence that his brother made a complaint about the mother to AHPRA. It was the father's understanding that the complaint was made after he told his brother that the mother had taken credit for research papers the father had written, and that she had referred to his use of Propranolol in an affidavit. This complaint was made while the father was in jail and accordingly, the mother was solely responsible physically and financially for the parties' child. When asked about the complaint, the father initially maintained it was appropriate as the mother had - according to the father - been dishonestly conducting research to further her career, and he had been upset that despite 'everything he had done to help her' he was in jail. He ultimately admitted this was a bit of 'tit for tat' and he ought to have instructed his brother to withdraw the complaint.
Senior counsel put to the father that he was malicious and vindictive and would stop at nothing to complain and seek sanctions against those who do not agree with him. The father said he agreed with that proposition "to an extent". It was put to him that he was petty and small to which he said "unfortunately at times, yes". He also acknowledged he showed a lack of empathy and insight in allowing this complaint to proceed.
As already observed the father pleaded guilty to a charge of perjury. He had lied about the parties' pet living with him and sought to coerce the mother into giving false evidence to corroborate that lie. However, at trial before me, he struggled to acknowledge he had told a lie in his criminal proceedings, asserting that he had been "extremely nervous" and gave "a terrible answer". He did acknowledge that his evidence that the pet was living with him was not correct, and that he should have immediately corrected it but did not. He acknowledged he had asked the mother to lie and say the pet was transitioning between homes. He also acknowledged in the email he sent he asked the mother to lie on his behalf so that he would not be punished and accepted this was an example of him failing to take responsibility for his wrongdoing and displayed a spectacular lack of empathy. However, the father would not acknowledge that the main reason he sent the email to the mother on about 30 June 2022 was so that his lie would not be uncovered. In his trial affidavit the father did not refer to the content of the email other than to depose:

[26]

That does not accurately reflect the content of the email.
I did not find the father to be a credible witness. I have serious reservations as to the veracity of his evidence, and I prefer the evidence of the mother where their versions diverge. At times under cross-examination, the father resisted propositions he felt painted him in a negative light - but later acknowledged their accuracy. For instance, he denied that the two complainants were vulnerable but later acknowledged that they were. He denied lacking empathy or demonstrating a lack of insight in relation to a number of matters, to later acknowledge "I should have conceded that immediately. As you pointed out I do lack empathy at times". He initially denied having made dismissive and humiliating comments about his mother-in-law at the wedding only to later acknowledge that at times he was disrespectful and belittling of her.
At trial before me, whilst superficially he appeared polite and contrite, I was left with the impression that the father lacks empathy towards the mother and has no real insight into the damaging impact of his behaviours on her, on her sense of safety and security, or as to the flow on impact on his son. For instance, the father conceded the mother should have sole decision making for the child. That includes determining the child's surname. The father acknowledged that within the health care community at least his name is infamous and that the mother could be highly embarrassed by the connection. However, he maintained that the child should continue to have his surname as part of the child's name.
It is notable that the father has not apologised to the mother or her family for the distress and pain he has caused as a result of the 2019 incident and what followed. There was also little in the father's trial material that suggests he has any real insight into the distress and anxiety he has caused.
Curiously, towards the end of the cross-examination by senior counsel for the mother the father agreed he was seeking supervised time with the child as he acknowledged he presented a risk to the child, substantially as a result of concerns regarding the father's mental health and alcohol issues. He also agreed that in many respects he was an appalling role model for the child.
As will be plain in the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that the father has engaged in a spectrum of behaviours that are deeply disrespectful to women, including the mother, and into which he demonstrated minimal insight. I also have significant concerns as to his ability to modulate his behaviour. To that end I note that the father contacted the mother in mid-2022 despite his lawyers advising him against do so. He also contacted her after he was arrested and charged, and notwithstanding that there was an ADVO the terms of which explicitly restrained him from contacting her. The father also threatened to have the mother criminally charged in relation to what she deposed in her affidavit material, and whilst he was in jail he enabled his brother to lodge a complaint against her with a professional body. These matters are deeply troubling.
The paternal grandmother was also required for cross-examination. She was not an impressive witness.
A Notice of Risk was filed on behalf of the paternal grandmother on 22 March 2024. In that document the paternal grandmother records that the father has caused harm or posed a risk of harm to the child as a result of his:

[28]

It was also recorded that the paternal grandmother alleged the father's mental health issues caused harm or posed a serious risk to the child, and that she "has concerns about the father's ongoing mental health".
At the hearing the paternal grandmother resiled from those statements. She denied that the father was a risk to the child and denied that he had ever been a risk. When confronted with her own Notice of Risk she maintained she does not, and never did, regard the father as presenting a risk to the child before reluctantly conceding that perhaps the father's mental health had presented risk issues. She was unable to explain this contradiction.
It was apparent from the evidence given by the paternal grandmother that she minimises any complaints or accusations levelled at her son and excuses his behaviour. For instance, the paternal grandmother acknowledged that the father called her stupid, and that she had a low IQ. She insisted he was just "poking fun" at her, and these comments were made in good humour and in jest. In relation to the allegations of sexual misconduct, she told Dr G that the father is very good looking and "people do sometimes throw themselves at you". She told the maternal grandmother that the father had "done nothing wrong" and that the allegations were "made up by someone who is jealous". The father acknowledged his mother had described the complainant in the 2019 incident as being motivated by jealousy and that his mother also believed similarly in relation to the earlier complainant.
The paternal grandmother demonstrated a remarkable lack of interest in having any conversation with her son as to the nature of the sexual offences allegations raised in 2007 and then in 2019 - insisting that she and her son simply never found the time to have any discussion about these matters. She said she and the father also "haven't had the chance to sit down and have a decent family conversation" about the events on the night of mid-2022, insisting the father had been "extremely busy trying to prepare" for the court cases. She said she had never discussed with the father the reasons for his hospitalisation in 2007 either.
The father acknowledged his mother had never admonished him or criticised him for having extra-marital sex.
Dr G formed the view that the paternal grandmother presented as minimising and contextualising the narrative regarding the sexual assault charges. I share that view.
The failure by the paternal grandmother to notice or respond to her son's increased alcohol use and mental health issues in the lead up to his attempted suicide in mid-2022 was also problematic. I formed the impression that the paternal grandmother would prefer to 'turn a blind eye' to any shortcomings on behalf of her son.
I formed the impression that the paternal grandmother also failed to recognise the impact the father's behaviours have had on the mother.
In all the circumstances, the paternal grandmother could not be relied upon to act protectively - or provide any type of genuine support - in the event she was involved in any time the child was to spend with his father.

[30]

It was the mother's case that orders for no time and no communication should be made.
The mother is 38 years old. She is employed as a health care worker by K Centre. She hopes to qualify as a consultant in health care. She currently works part-time. She lives on a property with her parents. In relation to further training, she may be required to undertake that anywhere in Australia or in New Zealand. Sensibly the father does not object to the mother being able to travel with the child as may be required to progress her career.
The mother was an impressive witness. She gave clear, concise, and thoughtful responses. She says she remains extremely apprehensive of the father, and that the thought of facilitating any time between him and the child at this stage caused her considerable anxiety and distress.
In her evidence, the mother was child focussed. She remained open to the possibility that at some stage in the future - perhaps when the child is a pre-teen, or in his early teen years - it may be appropriate for the child to meet his father. She impressed as giving careful consideration to many factors - including being well aware of the importance not to denigrate the father to the child, understanding the need to ensure he knows he has a father and to provide him with appropriate information and wanting to support the child in the event he becomes genuinely curious about meeting his father in time. She said when - and if - it was appropriate to reintroduce the father to the child would depend on the child's age and stage of development. The mother envisaged working with a psychologist in the future to assist her and the child with the process. She felt it was likely either she or another trusted adult known to the child would need to supervise that reintroduction.
The maternal grandmother also gave evidence. She impressed as genuine and was obviously very supportive of the mother. She deposed that the father had been highly demeaning and disrespectful towards herself, his own mother and the mother on a number of occasions, including in public. She corroborated the mother's evidence as to the level of stress and anxiety the mother experiences regarding the father.

[41]

It is the mother's evidence that the father subjected her to coercive and controlling behaviour throughout the relationship, and that those coercive and controlling behaviours have continued post-separation. She says as a result she continues to feel fearful of and intimidated by the father.
The mother says during the relationship, the father's behaviours towards her were intimidatory and disrespectful, and have had a significant effect on her well-being. That included publicly humiliating her and telling stories to undermine her credibility and intelligence. He took photographs of her which were uncomplimentary and showed the images to other people. In addition, he pressured the mother to meet expenses on his behalf - asserting he had limited cash - despite having significant funds invested in shares. He also refused to drive the mother home from hospital on one occasion in 2017 when she had attended there with an injury. It would only have been a 10-minute drive. In his oral evidence the father agreed that "in retrospect" he should have taken her home.
The mother's evidence was also that the father would made demands on the mother - including demands for sex or physical intimacy - and then sulk or refuse to speak to the mother if she did not comply. She deposed the father was violent during sex, including placing his hands around her neck during intercourse and attempting to choke her. She said he gave her equipment and items for bondage and sadomasochist sexual activities on their wedding night, which shocked and intimidated her.
The father acknowledged to Dr G that he did like to hold the mother and perhaps he missed her signals if she wanted to pull away from him. He described to Dr G that he liked holding the mother because it made him feel calm. Dr G noted this suggested a focus on meeting his own emotional needs. It was the mother's evidence that she generally accommodated the father's demands and avoided confronting or challenging him.
The father denied the mother's allegations of violence, including sexual violence. However, I found the mother to be a credible witness, with a more reliable recall of events that the father. I note further that the mother was not challenged in relation to her allegations of sexual violence under cross-examination. In all the circumstances, I accept her evidence.
The mother said she felt anxious and confused by the father's behaviours. She described feeling a loss of confidence and self-esteem, a deep sense of shame and failure and persistent negative thoughts.
In relation to the 2019 incident, the mother's evidence was that she was completely shocked and devastated to learn the father had had a sexual encounter with another woman just six weeks after the parties were married. She said she was pressured by the father to not disclose the sexual encounter or the subsequent allegations to anyone. That included her family. This was at a time the mother felt particularly vulnerable, having to deal with both the revelation of her husband's infidelity and the demands of being a new parent. The father denied he had told the mother she could not speak about the issue with family or her friends who were not in the medical field. He did acknowledge that on one occasion he had remonstrated with her when he believed she had informed other people. He also acknowledged that in telling her to not disclose the situation he had no regard for the mother and had put his own needs before hers.
The mother deposed that after the father had been contacted by the police in relation to the incident in 2019 the father was very angry and said to the mother of the complainant "If I went down and really hurt her then at least I would be going to gaol for something. I could kill her". The mother said she felt terrified by this comment.
I am satisfied that the father's behaviours as described by the mother fall within the definition of family violence as set out at s 4AB of the Act. The father's cumulative actions - including demeaning and humiliating the mother, making demands on her to not divulge the father's infidelity, and his sexual violence towards her - are behaviours that coerced and controlled the mother and caused her to be fearful.
The coercive controlling behaviour continued post separation.
The mother deposed to an incident at changeover in April 2022 in which the father confronted her in an aggressive and intimidating manner, insisting that the parties' pet be placed in his care. The mother was holding the child at the time. She said the father was close to her, speaking into her face, which she found frightening. The paternal grandmother who was present did not intervene or attempt to moderate the father's behaviour. The father did not admit being aggressive or intimidating at the changeover, and he did not notice that the mother was upset. For the reasons already set out, I prefer the mother's evidence about this incident over his.
As already set out, the father instructed the mother not to speak to the police if they contacted her after the trial in 2022. Then, in mid-2022, when the father learned the mother had given a statement to the police, he made repeated attempts to contact her, in an effort to persuade her to make her statement match the false evidence he gave at trial. He sent the mother multiple text messages and attempted to call her several times on her mobile and via WhatsApp. In a phone call, the father told her that whatever she had told the police would "put him in jail".
I have already set out much of the father's email sent to the mother in mid-2022 in which he admitted that he had given evidence at the trial which he knew was false. In the sentencing remarks delivered by the Judge in late 2023 her Honour said in relation to the email:

[57]

There was little in the father's evidence before me that suggested he had gained any greater insight or remorse.
These matters are deeply troubling and raise significant safety issues for the child and the mother.
I accept the mother's evidence that she remains extremely concerned about the child's safety. That fear was exacerbated by the father's continual requests to spend time with the child in mid-2022 notwithstanding the poor mental state he was evidently in at that time. I accept the mother's evidence that she continues to ruminate on what might have happened to the parties' child if she had agreed to the father's requests for time that day.
I also accept the mother's evidence that she remains fearful that the father may seek retribution for having been incarcerated as a result of the convictions of perjury and attempting to pervert the course of justice. That fear has been exacerbated by the complaint lodged against her with AHPRA, and by the father's communications in January 2023 to which I will now turn. The mother first learned of the complaint to AHPRA in the running of the trial. In her evidence she said this information shocked and disappointed her. It made her feel nervous and deflated.
In correspondence with the mother's solicitors dated 27 January 2023, the father advised he discovered the mother's address in January 2022 by checking the geolocation information attached to photographs the mother had sent of the child. I accept the mother's evidence that this caused her considerable anxiety. The father also wrote that he did not advise that he knew the address at the time as he was "saving a lot of money on petrol with [the mother's] parents doing all the driving". He also referred to having deleted all photographs and videos of the mother "that would fit into the category of 'sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll'" from his electronic devices. The father maintained this was an appropriate descriptor, it was not meant to be pejorative, and he was attempting to reassure the mother he had deleted any 'compromising' images of the mother from his devices.
On 31 January 2023 the father wrote to the mother's solicitors and threatened he would seek she be referred for criminal prosecution as he considered she had made deliberately false statements in her affidavit sworn four days earlier. Initially under cross-examination, the father denied that there was any threat in that communication. However, he then admitted it did contain a threat. That correspondence was at best sent with wilful disregard as to the impact such threats would have on the mother - who at that time was the only possible carer for the parties' young child.
Dr G was similarly troubled by this correspondence and opined that this email demonstrated an:

[63]

The father has demonstrated a poor attitude towards women. This is reflected in his attitudes and behaviours towards the mother and his own mother which has included coercive controlling behaviours, a lack of empathy, and public denigration.
It is also reflected in the father's admissions during the final hearing as to his behaviour in relation to the both the 2007 and 2019 incidents. He acknowledged that both complainants were vulnerable and intoxicated. He acknowledged that he had subjected the complainant in 2007 to humiliation, mockery and that he used sexual acts to do so. He described the complainant in relation to the 2019 incident as apparently having been so intoxicated that she had 'gaps in her memory' and was probably 'reconstructing events'. Whilst admitting the complainant was so intoxicated she could not recall what occurred he denied that he had taken advantage of and exploited her, although he later admitted, "with hindsight", she was vulnerable.
Additionally, part of the father's appeal against his sentencing asserted error in the admission of the victim impact statement made by the complainant. It was the father's position that the complainant was not a victim of either the perjury or the perversion of the course of justice and that she had not suffered harm as a result of the offending. The Court of Appeal held the primary judge correctly found the complainant was a victim. She had been cross-examined over the pet and the pet's items, which the complainant found perplexing to the point where she felt utterly confused and questioned her recall of reality. The complainant told the Court "I had to fight to be believed over a [pet item]. All whilst he was the one lying the whole time."
It is of concern that the father did not regard the complainant as a victim of his deliberate lies and that he allowed her to be extensively cross-examined - and her credibility impugned - over what he knew was a false premise. It is also of concern that he did not regard the complainant as having suffered harm in the relevant sense as a result of this line of questioning.
The father also maintained at trial before me that there were errors in the findings made regarding the perjury charges. As already set out he appealed the sentencing decision - which was dismissed. He told this Court he holds "very little respect" for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of City N.
In relation to the trial conducted before the Judge in early 2022 the father acknowledged he had previously asserted that her Honour was more interested in organising her wedding than the conduct of his criminal trial. He acknowledged he had filed a complaint in mid-2024 with the City N Judicial Council complaining that her Honour was inter alia, incompetent and inexperienced.
It is the mother's evidence, corroborated by the maternal grandmother that the father spoke about his own mother is highly derogatory terms. He frequently called her "an idiot" and said she had a low IQ. Under cross-examination the father initially did not agree that the comments he made were disrespectful. However, he admitted he made a "bad joke in poor taste" and had disparaged his mother's intelligence. He also acknowledged that on other occasions he had also made disparaging and disrespectful comments about other people, including at the parties' wedding during his speech.
I have already referred to the mother's evidence that the father also made threats to hurt the complainant after he became aware of the complaints she had made in relation to the 2019 incident.
The maternal grandmother deposed to an incident in 2021 when the father took her into the bedroom where the parties' bed was located. That was the bed on which the complainant in relation to the 2019 incident said she had been raped, or - at best - the bed on which the father had been unfaithful to the mother just weeks after getting married. The maternal grandmother said the father referred to the claim that he had thrown the woman on the bed, asserting it was "impossible because of the bed end". It was only when cross-examined at trial before me that the father acknowledged this would have been a deeply uncomfortable conversation for the maternal grandmother, and that it could have un-nerved and frightened her. He admitted at that time he had prioritised his need to have that conversation over the impact the conversation might have on his then mother-in-law. He later admitted this demonstrated a lack of empathy towards his former mother-in-law.

[67]

According to the tendered records the father reported he had been consuming about 30 drinks over each weekend and that he had engaged in this type of binge drinking for the preceding two to three years. He also reported taking benzodiazepines, MDMA (which he said he had taken every weekend since he was 17 or 18) and daily cannabis (since he was 16 years old). He reported having used other prescription and illicit substances from time to time. At the time of admission, he expressed concern about his substance use but reported he had ceased using illicit substances about a month earlier. In his oral evidence the father agreed he had been using cannabis daily, spending about $50 per day, at this time. He otherwise substantially agreed that the hospital records accurately reflected his drug and alcohol use at that time.
The father told Dr G that following the first jury being unable to return a verdict, he did not cope well with that. He became depressed and was "drinking too much". He told Dr G that if there was one bottle of wine in the fridge, he would drink that, and if there were two or three bottles, he would drink them all. The father confirmed in his oral evidence that he had consumed two and a half bottles of wine the evening he self-harmed, and that there had been days he consumed even more than that.
The discharge summary from L Mental Health Service dated mid-2022 records the father's diagnosis as "Adjustment Disorder with depressed and anxious mood on the background of Alcohol use disorder".
At trial the father acknowledged in mid-2022 he had been combining prescription medication with alcohol. He also acknowledged he had not obtained any treatment for drug or alcohol misuse since that time. He said he had received a referral to a drug and alcohol treatment program prior to his incarceration and that he needed to get a new referral for that.
Although a Notice of Risk had been filed on behalf of the paternal grandmother identifying the father's drug and alcohol use as posing a risk, the paternal grandmother in her oral evidence suggested she had no knowledge of the father's previous drug use history. She acknowledged that in the month or two prior to his suicide attempt in mid-2022 the father was drinking to an extent that caused her concern. However, her evidence was despite knowing the father was struggling to cope with the criminal allegations and upcoming re-trial, she made no effort to monitor his drinking, she 'did not take much notice' as to the amount of alcohol that was present in her home, and that she had 'no clue' as to the extent of his alcohol consumption.
The father said he is currently abstinent from illicit drugs and alcohol. He says he takes medication in accordance with any prescription.
I accept that currently the father does not appear to be using or abusing medication as demonstrated by the provision of recent Hair Follicle Test results. However I have little evidence to suggest the father has developed more appropriate ways to manage significant stressors should they arise in the future.

[68]

The father has a significant history of poor mental health. Dr G described his impression that "the father from his mid-adolescent years has evidenced personality dysfunction, with associated substance misuse disorders and mood disorders".
The father first experienced suicidal ideation in 2007 and was admitted to hospital. At that time the father was diagnosed with "behavioural and emotional disorder...adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood".
Remarkably the paternal grandmother said she has never discussed the father's 2007 hospital admission with her son. She said she had been out of the country when "it happened".
Following the sexual offences charges in 2020 the father has attended upon general practitioners describing anxiety, depression, panic attacks and insomnia. He was prescribed anti-depressant and anti-anxiety medications over 2020 to 2022.
The father made a serious attempt on his life in mid-2022. He sought time with the child on that day deposing he did so because he thought spending time with the child would settle his nerves and calm him down. It is highly problematic that the father sought to soothe himself by spending time with the parties' very young child. He was obviously highly distressed - and attempted to serious self-harm later that same day. The hospital records note the father as advising that when his parents-in-law did not respond to his requests he got "wound up" and resorted to taking lorazepam (a benzodiazepine) and drinking alcohol. He was in no state to care for the parties' young and vulnerable child.
The paternal grandmother has never discussed this hospital admission with her son either.
Dr G spoke with the father's psychologist on 22 December 2023 who advised the father had initially presented in a severely depressed state which improved quickly. The psychologist reported that when he last saw the father he was not experiencing any suicidal ideation.
Dr G opined that the father "demonstrates significant personality dysfunction" (emphasis in the original), stating:

[75]

It is the mother's evidence in these proceedings that since late 2020 she has continued to experience significant anxiety for which she is prescribed medication. In addition, she has been diagnosed with depression. The mother described suffering from hypervigilance and fear of the father, and intense worry that she may encounter him. She said she became highly anxious after learning the father had ascertained her address by checking the geolocation information on photographs she had forwarded to the father - and she remains fearful that she may be watched or stalked by the father without her knowledge, which she said adds to her hypervigilance and stress. The mother deposed having installed security cameras at her home because of her anxiety that the father may attend at her home. She said she experiences palpitations, uncontrollable nausea and physical reactions in her digestive system when she thinks about the father and the paternal family. She finds this mentally and physically exhausting.
In addition, the mother deposed suffering from nightmares, and sleep issues. She said this has impacted on her ability to prepare for and pass further exams necessary to become a health care professional. She said she has also experienced a reduced ability to participate in social activities. She also said she finds it stressful looking at baby photos of the parties' child as it brings back the memories of how difficult it was for her to enjoy that period.
The mother also described having developed a significant skin inflammation and reaction to the stress she has experienced since May 2021, shortly prior to separation. The mother takes medication and applies creams to manage this condition. At times of heightened stress, the mother's condition is aggravated. Towards the end of 2021 the mother said the condition became so severe that she had to attend the emergency department at the hospital where she is employed. She was unable to return to work for two weeks as she had a number of open wounds.
The mother said she had to take six months off work completely from February 2023 to August 2023 to help her cope with the level of stress she was feeling. She has a counsellor to assist her to deal with her mental health. She takes antidepressant medication and anti-anxiety medication. In addition, she has various creams, ointments, injections and tablets to administer when her skin condition deteriorates.
Commencing in around May 2022 and throughout 2023, the mother attended upon a psychologist for support. The notes of that psychologist confirm the mother was experiencing anxiety, hypervigilance, stress, panic, fear and worry about the child's future. The mother then attended upon a second psychologist - who was located closer to the mother's residence. Dr G spoke with both of the mother's psychologists in December 2023. The mother's first psychologist reported that the mother had initially presented as very traumatised, with significant anxiety and very fearful of the father. She said the mother had felt safer living with her parents.
The mother's second psychologist reported that the mother had become more emotionally regulated and less impacted by the situation over the course of therapy.
At trial the mother said she was continuing with regular counselling on a semi-regular basis.
In light of the stress and anxiety experienced by the mother, she has expressed deep concern about her ability to cope if orders were made for the child to spend time with the father - even on a supervised basis. The mother deposed that she remains "terrified" as to what might have occurred to the parties' child had she acceded to the father's repeated requests to have the child in his care on the day he attempted to end his life. She said she "cannot dismiss the thought that [the child] may have lost his own life that day at the hand of his father". She is worried that if she has to facilitate time, that will cause her significant stress, anxiety and fear which will impact on her ability to provide the child with a safe and secure home.
Dr G stated at the time of his interview that the mother was experiencing adjustment disorder with anxious mood. He noted the mother's "enduring insecurity and fear about the threat posed to herself and [the child] by the risk of recurrent paternal intrusive, coercive and aggressive behaviour." Dr G described that the mother remained fearful of the father and continued to have fears for the child's safety if he were to spend time with the father. She remained in a notably anxious and vigilant state.
I accept the mother's evidence that the matters to which I have referred have left the mother feeling extremely anxious, afraid, unsettled, distressed and hypervigilant. I also accept Dr G's evidence that;

[77]

I share Dr G's considerable concerns that orders requiring time or coparenting interaction will likely lead to the mother's chronic state of anxiety persisting. I note Dr G also opined the mother could be "...at significant risk of progressing to a more severe anxiety disorder or depressive disorder".
I am satisfied that the risks to the mother's functioning and parenting capacity if orders are made requiring her to facilitate time between the father and the child are significant. Whilst the mother appears quite "together", I agree with Dr G's caution that I not underestimate the degree of fear, distress, sadness and grief that the mother is experiencing.
In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that if I were to make any prescriptive orders that would require the mother to facilitate time between the child and his father this would likely profoundly negatively impact the mother's sense of security and safety. There is a real risk that the mother's parenting capacity would be diminished.
Conversely, orders that the child live with the mother, and that do not require the child to spend time or communicate with the father are - in my view - orders that promote both the safety of the child and of his mother. Such orders would provide the mother with what Dr G called "a foundation of protection for herself and for [the child]" and "a foundation of security in [her] role as parent, which will then facilitate her recovery from what has been her chronic state of anxiety over recent years".
I am satisfied the risks to the mother's functioning and wellbeing cannot be ameliorated by time being supervised, or if time were to occur on only a limited basis. I note the paternal grandmother could not be safely relied upon to assist in any way. The concept of professionally supervised time was not supported by Dr G. Quite apart from the practical issues, I am satisfied any orders for time - even limited and/or supervised - in my view, carry a significant potential to cause the mother deep distress, unease, anxiety and fear for the safety of herself and the parties' child.

[84]

I share those concerns.
As to the father's ability to address his failings or indiscretions, it is notable that the father appeared to significantly minimise the allegations when he attended upon a general practitioner in September 2020. He attended asserting he was anxious and depressed, with the notes recording only that he "slept with someone, wife found out, distressed". He was prescribed medication for depression and anxiety. To another general practitioner in December 2020 the father described "last year in [City N] [sic], went out one night and had too much to drink, cheated on wife...put a lot of strain on marriage...".
He was also less than frank with the general practitioner when he attended in February 2021. As a result of the sexual offences allegations, the father was suspended from his employment as a health care professional. However, he advised the doctor that he "has decided to seek leave from training program". At another appointment in May 2021 the father advised the doctor he was "not working at the moment, took the year off training to sort out his personal issues". He told another doctor in August 2021 that he had "decided to take a year off".
The father's communications with the mother in mid-2022 are particularly troubling. These communications were manipulative, entirely self-focussed and disingenuous. At no point did he appear to stop and consider how the mother may feel being requested to lie on his behalf. Not only did he make demands to comply with his requests to change her statement - but he then said if he is convicted it would somehow be her fault.
These matters raise serious concerns as to the father's ability to manage - or moderate - his own behaviour and appropriately care for the child, and to provide appropriate role modelling.
The Court has no such concerns regarding the mother's capacity to meet the child's needs. She has always been the child's primary carer. She works part time. She has the support of her parents who assist her in caring for the child as needed. In addition, she is almost wholly financially responsible for the care of the child - receiving around $7.88 per week from the father by way of child support.
The mother and child live on the property shared with the maternal grandparents. It is apparent the child is thriving in the mother's full-time care - attending day care and engaging in a raft of additional activities and experiences. Dr G described the child as a contented child, securely connected to the mother.
The mother impressed as very child focussed. Dr G observed the mother as showing respect for the child, considering and prioritising his needs, and demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of behaviour management. He formed the impression that the mother's proposal there be no time between the child and his father arose from a protective parental stance, and not from any malevolent desire to diminish the significance of the father. These observations accord with my own.
The mother has given much consideration to how she will talk about the father to the child and when it might be appropriate to do so. She has sought out professional advice to assist her. It was clear the mother recognises the importance to the child of understanding his identity and she understands that the child will need to be provided with appropriate information about his father and paternal family at some stage. I agree with the assessment by Dr G that the mother's approach is respectful, child centred and developmentally minded, and that she is most unlikely to demonise the father to the child.

[93]

The mother has endured behaviours and events in the course of her relationship with the father which have caused her to be highly anxious about the father, and his ability to safely and appropriately care for the parties' child. She is the child's unchallenged primary carer. I am satisfied that any arrangement that prescribes time between the child and the father carries with it a significant risk that the mother's wellbeing will be eroded and that accordingly any order for time would do more harm to the child than good. I come to that conclusion notwithstanding that by necessity no orders for time or communication between the father and child, or any member of the paternal family can be made.
I agree with the observation by Dr G that the child's needs will be best addressed by making parenting orders that provide "robust protection for the mother and [the child], and which provide the mother with security in [her] role as parent." I am of the view that the mother's capacity to safely and appropriately parent the child must be protected. To their credit the parties have already reached an agreement regarding restraints on the father approaching the mother or child.
Orders for 'identity contact' are not appropriate in this matter, given the child has no memory of the father. He last spent time with the father almost three years ago. It would, in my view, be confusing for the child to spend time with the father on four to six occasions each year in the absence of any relationship. Moreover, even orders for limited time carry the significant risk that the mother's wellbeing will be adversely affected to the extent that the child's best interests may be compromised.
In my view it is not appropriate for me to make prescriptive orders requiring time - or preventing time. As set out, any orders that require time to occur - including orders that involve the paternal grandmother - are accompanied with the real risk that the mother's parenting capacity will be impaired. I also repeat my concerns about the ability of the paternal grandmother to identify and moderate problematic behaviours engaged in by her son.
As observed, I am confident the mother is well able to assess and prioritise the child's safety and wellbeing. She is well placed to meet the child's needs, including to determine whether and how time can be introduced. Accordingly, any time or communication between the father and child will be at the mother's discretion.
If the mother determines it is appropriate at some future point to re-introduce the father into the child's life, I am also confident she will ensure that re-introduction is properly managed, and the child well supported through that process.
I share Dr G's concerns that the father may attempt to pressure and manipulate the mother in the event she does seek to reintroduce the father to the child and press her to increase time. I note Dr G's concerns that the mother may feel guilty about the restricted father/son relationship and could be persuaded or coerced by the father to increase time or continue time beyond what she - and the child - is comfortable with. However, I am satisfied the mother is well supported by her family, and also well placed to access professional supports to assist her to manage the father's potential demands should she determine in the future to facilitate a relationship between the father and the child.
The father must understand that the process of introduction - if it occurs at all - is necessarily one that the mother shall control and that it is imperative the mother's sense of security and autonomy and her parenting capacity is not undermined.

Brunet & Hautum [2025] FedCFamC1F 283 (2 May 2025)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (96 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (2)