Harcourt & Corrington [2025] FedCFamC2F 825 | Case summary

Harcourt & Corrington [2025] FedCFamC2F 825 | Case summary | Zoe

[54]

I found the Mother to be generally responsive to questions in cross-examination. I formed the view that the Mother did her best to answer questions honestly, and she made admissions against interests, such as her earlier drug use and the time she felt overwhelmed caring for the children.
The Mother admitted to recording some communications she had with the children without the Father knowing they were being recorded. This became Exhibit 10 and some of the comments the Mother makes in the recording do not show her in a good light.
As to the Father's credit, I found he was generally not responsive to questions. I formed the view that when asked a question the answer to which would cast him in a bad light, the Father was vague and often took a long time to answer.
The Father made general admissions in his Affidavit evidence that he perpetrated family violence against the Mother of X and Y, and also against his former partner, Ms O, who is the mother of his older child, P. He did not go into any particulars, despite the Mother specifying multiple serious incidents of family violence.
Despite making these general admissions in his Affidavits in these Court proceedings, the Father denied physical violence against the Mother when interviewed by the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing in Victoria in June 2020[2].
In cross-examination, when the Father was asked questions about the particulars of his family violence, I found that he was that he was either non-responsive or deliberately vague in his answers. I formed the view that he did not want to admit to the particulars of his violence.
I granted the Father a certificate under section 128 of the Evidence Act (Cth) so that the Father could answer questions about his drug use. Despite the certificate, the Father was slow to make any admissions, and was again vague in his answers.
The Father was caught in a lie during cross-examination. His father, Mr K and his step-mother, Ms L, were witnesses in the Father's case who were waiting in the Court precincts to be called for cross-examination.
During a break in the Father's cross-examination, he spoke to his witnesses in the Court precincts, despite being told not to do so. The Father was directly asked by Counsel for the Mother if he spoke to his witnesses about the evidence he had given. The Father responded "Not the evidence I've given, no."
This was utterly false.
The Father had been cross-examined about allegations of violence against P's mother just prior to the break, including an allegation that he had caused her to have a black eye.
Mr K and Ms L were interposed and each gave evidence that the Father exited the Court room and walked over to them and told them of the allegations against him of causing P's mother to have a black eye.
I formed the view that the Father was an unreliable witness who would lie if he felt the answer would cast him in a bad light.
Where the Mother and Father provide different accounts of the same incident, I prefer the Mother's evidence.
Where the Father's evidence about an issue is not supported by other evidence, I do not accept his evidence about that issue.

[57]

The Father has filed four Affidavits in these proceedings before me.
The Mother has made very specific and detailed allegations of the family violence she says was perpetrated against her by the Father.
The evidence by the Father about his conduct is scant.
At paragraph 114, [8] the Father says he has previously committed acts of domestic violence towards the Mother. He does not specify what those acts of domestic violence were.
Later in paragraph 116, the Father says: "I recall that I was not very nice to [Ms Harcourt] and there were occasions where we got physical with each other." I do not know what the Father concedes by that statement.
In cross-examination, the Father admitted that he slapped the Mother on the face, causing bruising. He said it was one slap. Exhibit 14 shows the heavy bruising caused by the Father on the Mother's face. I do not accept the Father caused that bruising to the Mother's face by one slap.
I find that this was an instance where the Father sought to minimise his violence.
Exhibit 15 shows bruising to the Mother's elbows. The Mother's evidence is that these bruises were caused in January 2018 where, after an altercation, the Father pulled the rug from under the Mother and she flew up in the air pretty high and landed on her elbows.
The Father admitted to causing this bruising. Therefore, I take it that he accepts the Mother's description of how he caused that injury.
In cross-examination, the Father was asked multiple questions and took long pauses and failed really to articulate the extent of what family violence he admitted to.
Between June and October of 2020 the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing in Victoria, being the Department of Child Safety equivalent, was involved with this family as they were at that time living in Melbourne.
Exhibit 23 contains notes of the summary of the intervention by the Department and it is noted there that the Father denied physical family violence against the Mother. He told the Department Officers that the Mother would follow him if he left the room during an argument and that he acknowledged there was a conflictual way the parents communicated with each other.
It is noted that the Father stated that he had not wanted to engage with a men's behaviour change program as he did not feel the situation warranted him being placed in an environment with people who are ordered to be there.
Exhibit 23 goes on to say: "It has been noted that the children show little reaction to family violence that has occurred which could indicate that it normally occurs in their presence."
The Father's evidence is that from the Department's perspective, neither he nor the Mother had the capability to look after the children.
The Father's assertion is not supported by Exhibit 23. It notes that at that time, the Mother and children were being supported by the Department to return to Queensland. Exhibit 23 also notes that the children were in the primary care of the Mother.
The Father was placed outside the home to reside in a motel at the time of the involvement of the Department.
The Father advised the Department officers that he is engaging with a psychologist which will support him to address his mental health and anger management which, they said, was in the children's best interests should he have future contact with them.
The Mother was referred to a family violence service in Queensland and child protection [in Victoria] have notified their counterparts in Queensland so "monitoring can occur."

[62]

The Mother's evidence was that the paternal grandfather withheld the children after a contact visit with their Father on 5 January 2022.
The Mother said that he did this in retaliation for the Mother obtaining a variation to the protection order against the Father.
The Mother was still breastfeeding Y at that time.
Mr K was cross-examined about this issue by Counsel for the Mother and he conceded that he was aware of the protection order proceedings. He said he felt the Mother was 'holding onto it and not launching it when it could have been launched, so that Mr Corrington could have had that Affidavit in time to actually seek legal aid or get legal advice on it'.
Mr K conceded in cross-examination that the Mother did talk to him about the Father's violence against her.
Mr K said in cross-examination that the Mother told him "there had been violence in their relationship, physical violence and also coercive violence I suppose and also verbal violence."
Mr K said that "she had reported it to police and there were reports made in Victoria, I believe or Queensland."
In retaining the children, the paternal grandfather enabled the Father to keep the children in his primary care, going against the care arrangement that had been in existence since the children were born.
From that point on, the Father moved in with his parents until he later found his own independent rental accommodation.
I find that the paternal grandfather was clearly aware of the Father's violence against the Mother because she told him so.
I find the paternal grandfather knew the Mother was obtaining a variation of the protection order against the Father and this prompted him to eject the Mother from his home and retain the care of the children.
This was in the context of the paternal grandfather conceding in cross-examination that he knew the Father had been violent to the Mother.
I find that the Father engaged in coercive control against the Mother when he withheld the children from her on 5 January 2022.
I make this finding because:

[70]

The Department of Child Safety in Queensland was involved with the Father, his former partner Ms O and their child P in 2014. Exhibits 16 to 20 set out the notifications received and the concerns of the Department at that time in respect of P.
Exhibit 18 is a Child Concern Report Summary dated early 2014 which means that P, who was born in 2013 was two months old at that time.
A history of domestic violence from the Father is noted. Exhibit 19 is a Child Concern Report Summary dated mid-2014. This means P was not yet a year old.
In relation to this incident there are concerns in relation to a domestic violence incident that occurred after the Father was allegedly smoking drugs.
The Father pushed Ms O's face into the ground and she subsequently left the relationship with the child.
The Father provides only scant evidence as to his relationship with P's mother. In his Affidavit filed 19 April 2024, the Father does note that P's mother had a domestic violence order against him but then says they now have a healthy co-parenting relationship for P.
In cross-examination before me the Father admitted he had been violent to P's mother, but was vague and evasive in answering questions as to the specifics of the behaviour to which he admitted. The Father did admit that there were two or three times the police were involved with him and P's mother.
When answering questions posed by Counsel for the Mother, I find that the Father tried to mutualise the violence between himself and P's mother, by saying that he had to restrain her a number of times and that he and P's mother have mutual protection orders against each other.
Counsel for the Mother put to the Father specific allegations contained in the Department of Child Safety material which included an incident in May 2016 where it was alleged that in an alcohol fuelled rage the Father had abused and hit P's mother causing her to have a black eye and bruised ribs.
The Father denied giving P's mother a black eye.
The Father accepted in cross-examination by Counsel for the Mother that when he was violent to P's mother this would be fuelled by alcohol and sometimes by cannabis.
There was a protection order against the Father in respect of P's mother and it seems from his criminal history[12] that in mid-2015 the Father was convicted of a contravention of domestic violence order in early 2015. There was no conviction recorded and he was fined $600.
The Father does not depose to this breach nor to the circumstances that gave rise to his conviction.
I find that the Father did engage in serious physical violence against P's mother.
I find that he did push and shove her as he admitted, but not as he would tell me that it was mutual.
I find that the Father grabbed P's mother's face and pushed her causing bruising to her nose and face.
I find that the Father does not take responsibility for his violence against P's mother.
The Father's failure to take responsibility for his egregious violence, and failure to change his behaviour, led to the significant family violence he perpetrated against the Mother in these proceedings to which X and Y have been exposed.

[72]

In February 2024, Queensland Police Service attended the Father's home at approximately at 2:03am.
Exhibit 22 is a Solicitors Office Report details of the call out obtained from Queensland Police Service under subpoena.
At paragraph 55 of the Father's Affidavit filed 19 April 2024, he annexes an email from his former partner. The Father asserts that this is the same person who attended the Father's home at 2:03am in February 2024 that resulted in the police call out.
The Father's former partner was not called to give evidence in these proceedings and the Father seeks to rely on the email that he has annexed to his Affidavit from his former partner.
The police record at Exhibit 22 does not name the person.
Therefore, I do not know whether the person who attended the Father's home at 2:00am in the morning is the same person who sent an email to the Father.
The Father was cross-examined by the Counsel for the Mother and he had confirmed that he had contacted that person so she could do an email for him.
What I do know is that a person with whom the Father was previously in a relationship, turned up at 2:00am in the morning such that the police attendance was required. This person was intoxicated, became erratic and unstable, was screaming and yelling and was claiming that the Father had raped her several times.
In interview with Ms M for the preparation of the third Family Report, the Father told Ms M that his ex-partner, who attended his home in February 2024, had not accused him of sexual harassment as suggested by the Mother.
Exhibit 22 shows that the person who attended the Father's home in February 2024 told police that the Father (known as the aggrieved in Exhibit 22) had raped her several times.
I am not prepared to accept there is any material difference between the terms sexual harassment and rape.
Therefore, I find that the Father's statement to Ms M was false.
The Father told Ms M that his former partner had been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder recently.
Exhibit 22, under the heading 'Aggrieved version' does not indicate the Father told the police attending his home about any mental health problems suffered by the ex-partner.
I can make no finding about the truth of the allegations made by the Father's ex-partner.
What I can make a finding about is that:

[74]

The Father wants me to accept that he is remorseful and ashamed of his violence towards the Mother. And yet his Affidavits are replete with references to the mutual violence and toxic relationship of these parents.
The Father alleges Mother was violent towards him and points to the protection order made in his favour against the Mother dated early 2019.
The Mother was charged with a breach of that protection order to which she pleaded guilty.
The breach arose from an incident where the Father alleged the Mother bit his arm and tried to hit his head against the wall.
In cross-examination, the Mother denied biting the Father's arm but did admit that she pulled his hair and she may have scratched his arm.
She said she did so because she was underneath him trying to break free.
The Mother denied attempting to hit the Father's head against the wall. She said that she did not have the strength to do that.
I was able to observe both parents in Court before me and I could see the Mother is correct about the significant height difference between them.
The Father is 6 foot 4 inches, and the Mother is 5 foot 2 inches. I could see the Father is much larger than the Mother.
Given their disparate heights and sizes, I do not accept the Father's version of events. I prefer the Mother's version that she was trying to get the Father off her.
In or about August 2022, another incident gave rise to the Mother being charged with another breach of the protection order against her.
The parents were at a changeover with the children and the Mother says the Father refused to get the children out of his car.
She said he stood over her and raised her anxiety and then when she was sufficiently triggered, he started to record the exchange.
He then took his recording to the Police to complain about the Mother, who was then charged with breaching the order.
The Mother says that she also had been recording the exchange with her phone in her pocket, but her phone had died so she could not prove her side of the story.
The Mother was cross-examined about this issue, but the Father was not. I am not prepared to make a finding on either party's version of events.
The Mother pleaded guilty to that breach. The changeovers have since been conducted at a supervised contact centre.
I propose to make an order that where changeovers are not conducted at the school, they should continue to occur at a supervised contact centre.
This will ensure the parents do not come into contact with each other and will eliminate the risk of the behaviour described by each parent.

[77]

In August 2020, the Mother and children were supported by the Victorian Department of Families, Fairness and Housing to return to Queensland.
It seems the parents were separated at that time but continued an on/off relationship until June 2021.
When the Mother and children moved from Melbourne to Queensland, she and the Children were living in a refuge for approximately 4 months.
From April 2021 to around September 2021, the Mother and the two children were living with the paternal grandparents.
This was the time the country was in the grips of the COVID pandemic and the borders were closed at various times.
The Mother's evidence is that this prolonged her stay with the paternal grandparents, as she was waiting for the vinyl in her caravan to be repaired.
The Mother's evidence is that the Father was also staying at the paternal grandparents' house which the Mother did not like. So she moved with the children to her friend Ms T's place for a short time.
The Mother and the children then moved to U Refuge for seven weeks.
The Mother then moved with the children to an off-grid mobile home to Town W in October 2021 until January 2022.
As stated earlier in these reasons, the paternal grandfather was aware that the Mother had applied for a variation to the protection order against the Father.
The Mother says that the paternal grandfather was upset about the contents of her affidavit for the variation in which she said she did not feel supported and that the paternal grandparents had failed to protect her from the Father like they had promised, because they let him stay at their home when she and the children were staying there.
Mr K conceded that he was aware of the Mother's proceedings to vary the protection order. He conceded that he was aware his son had been physically violent to the Mother and acknowledged previously seeing the photograph of the Mother's bruised face, being Exhibit 14.
Both Mr K and Ms L conceded they knew about the Father's violence towards the Mother and also P's mother. Mr K kept the children and handed them over to the Father who was then able to stay at his parents' place with the children.
I accept the Mother's evidence that after she was evicted from the home of the paternal grandparents, she struggled with homelessness.
I accept the Mother's evidence that it took a long time to find permanent stable accommodation because the removal of the children from her care meant that she no longer received the parenting payment from Centrelink.
From the time the children were withheld from her, the Mother was limited to the Newstart allowance through Centrelink which she said was $630.36 per fortnight or $315 per week.
I accept the Mother's evidence that she could not afford to pay rent in south-east Queensland on those Centrelink benefits.
I accept the Mother's evidence that the support service providers to whom she tried to get help were extremely unhelpful to her because the children were removed from her care and those support services listed her as a single woman, who was not high on the list of priorities for housing.
The Mother commenced these proceedings on 1 July 2022 and an order was made by consent by Senior Judicial Registrar Thiele on 22 July 2022 for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility (as it was then known) and for the children to spend equal time with the parents. I note that this order was made by consent.
I accept the Mother's evidence that because of the difficulties she had with getting stable accommodation, she could only have the children in an equal time arrangement pursuant to the consent orders, for about 4 months.
I accept the Mother's evidence that from October 2022 until April 2023, the Mother was forced to live in her caravan, renting space in someone's backyard for $150 per week.
I accept the Mother's evidence that in November 2022, she told Ms J that she had returned the children to the Father two days early because she could not keep them for the full amount of time.
I accept that this was due to the Mother not having her own accommodation, living with others and having financial stress.
I accept the Mother's evidence that from April 2023 until November 2023, she would house and puppy sit at Ms Z's home where she paid $250 per week.
I accept the Mother's evidence that at times when she did not have suitable accommodation, she preferred to leave the children with their Father because they at least had a roof over their head at night. I find that the Mother was child-focussed in this decision.
The Father would criticise the Mother over her drug use, her unstable housing and unstable mental health.
The paternal grandparents similarly criticise the Mother for her drug use, unstable housing and unstable mental health.
I find that, in light of the Father perpetrating the family violence and his own drug use, these criticisms are rather obnoxious.
I find that the Mother's inability to secure stable housing and her periods of homelessness were as a direct result of the serious family violence perpetrated against her by the Father.
The Father's family violence set off a chain of events that resulted in:

[80]

The Mother's mental health has been an issue in the proceedings since the commencement of the proceedings.
Ms M said in the first Family Report in Exhibit 2 that the Mother will require support if she has complex PTSD from the violence she experienced.
The Mother says that she suffers anxiety as a consequence of the Father's violent and controlling violence against her including physical violence.
She says her homelessness was a consequence of the Fathers behaviour and that it was difficult for her to provide for the children in the way they deserved.
The Mother gives evidence that she has never been diagnosed with a mental illness.
Certain documents were returned under subpoena from Queensland Health and the Mother was cross-examined by Counsel for the Father.
Exhibit 3 is a triage screen dated September 2021 which was a referral by Town U emergency department. The Mother denied any suicidal ideation and it is noted on Exhibit 3 that the words 'impression: - Complex PTSD in current situational crisis.'
Exhibit 5 is a progress note from Town U Community Mental Health Service where the Mother self-presented at the clinic saying that she needed to talk as she has trauma and that she is distressed.
The Mother then engaged with Ms J in April 2022, and she has continued with that counselling on average every 3 or 4 weeks depending on Ms J's availability.
Between May 2024 and the final hearing in October 2024, the Mother had had 9 sessions with Ms J via telehealth.
Ms J gave evidence on behalf of the Mother and was cross-examined. Ms J is a social worker who works as a health care worker at AA Centre in Region BB.
In cross-examination before me, Ms J said part of her work with the Mother was in respect of relapse prevention plan and she said that upskilling is around not falling back on old behaviours so utilising new skills rather than using drugs to avoid the pain, discomfort, etc.
I accept Ms J's evidence.
I am satisfied that the Mother appropriately accessed support from Ms J and that she has continued on in with that engagement for more than two years.

[81]

Dr N, Psychiatrist, was engaged to do a psychiatric assessment of the Mother and his report is annexed to his Affidavit filed 7 March 2023.
The Mother has made clear in her Affidavit of evidence that she does not accept the conclusions of Dr N.
The Mother's interview with Dr N took place via zoom rather than in person, on 3 January 2023.
She said that she had difficulties with communicating with him due to the virtual communication and also because he had a heavy accent.
The Mother said she was constantly interrupted in her answers to Dr N's questions and she considered that he had not properly recorded her history in his report.
The Mother has been prescribed mirtazapine, an antidepressant, 7.5 milligrams by her general medical practitioner. Dr N said this is a very small dose and is likely to only help with sleep.
At the time of the assessment, the Mother was prescribed medicinal cannabis, since 2022, to treat anxiety. Therefore, at the time of the Mother's interview with Dr N, she was on medicinal cannabis for anxiety and was not using other drugs.
The Mother has now successfully ceased any cannabis use since November 2023. She has also engaged in counselling with Ms J as to relapse prevention.
I find that Dr N did not properly consider the context of the Mother's cannabis use, in light of it being medically prescribed for anxiety, and failed to consider the anxiety caused by, or exacerbated by, the family violence.
I find that Dr N did not properly consider the negative impact on the Mother's mental health of having the children removed from her primary care, whilst Y was still breastfeeding.
Dr N failed to properly consider the confluence of factors impacting the Mother's health coming from family violence, trauma caused by the family violence, trauma caused by the removal of the children, financial distress and unstable accommodation.
I find that Dr N unfairly judged the Mother in respect of the choice he said she made to pay for drugs instead of prioritising the needs of the children.
I find that Dr N's assessment of the Mother was made in the vacuum of failing to consider the trauma she suffered as a result of the serious family violence perpetrated against her by the Father.
I do not accept Dr N's assessment of the Mother's parenting capacity.

[82]

I do not know why the Father was not required to undertake a psychiatric assessment with Dr N.
When the Father attended the first interview with Ms M on 19 January 2023, Ms M reports that the Father told her that[14] he was diagnosed with anxiety and depression when he was 16 years old.
He said that in the past he felt suicidal, and he spoke to counsellors about his feelings.
The Father told Ms M that he was prescribed anti-depressants from the age of 16 years old until 2020.
The Father was born in 1988, which means that in 2020, the Father was 32 years old. This means that the Father was prescribed anti-depressants for 16 years, which is half his life.
The Father also told Ms M that he was feeling stressed currently.
Exhibit 23 makes clear that the Victorian Department of Families, Fairness and Housing had notes that the Father was seeing a psychologist Dr CC on 12 August 2020, who raised significant concerns for the family unit should the Father remain in the home.
Dr CC raised concerns about the ongoing family violence and cannabis use by the parents and recommended that the Father receive long term therapy, a psychiatric assessment and engage with a men's behaviour change program.
Within Exhibit 23 is the note that the Father told Department Officers that he was engaging with a psychologist which will support him to assess his mental health and anger management, being Ms DD, psychologist.
Department Officers indicated they were not able to reach her for an update.
The recommendation by Dr CC for the Father to undergo a psychiatric assessment was in August 2020. The Father told Ms M that he ceased taking anti-depressants in 2020. This should have raised serious concerns about the Father's mental health.
The Father proffers no details of, or any evidence from, any counsellor, psychologist or doctor he sees for his mental health.
The Father clearly has anger management problems. The state of the Father's mental health might either explain, or shed light on, his long-term perpetration of family violence.
There should have been a psychiatric assessment of the Father and the Father should have proffered evidence of his current mental health treatment.
In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary proffered by the Father, I am willing to infer from the evidence that the Father has an anger management problem and he may have an underlying untreated mental health condition that may adversely affect his parenting capacity.

[83]

Both parents admit to using illicit drugs in their earlier years and also during their relationship. And yet it was only the Mother's drug use and alcohol use that was focussed on by Ms M in her reports.
The Mother's evidence is that she ceased taking any illicit drugs from November 2023. She told Ms M that staying in the EE Centre assisted her to change her pattern of alcohol and drug misuse.
The Mother complied with my order to undergo a hair follicle drug test, the result of which is annexed to her Affidavit filed 21 October 2024. The result shows the Mother's drug test was negative.
The Father admitted to smoking cannabis and using alcohol to excess during his relationship with P's mother.
In respect of his cannabis, he conceded in cross-examination, that at that time he was smoking maybe ten bongs a day. He said that this was a gram or two.
As stated earlier in these reasons, the notes from the Victorian Department of Families, Fairness and Housing showed the Father was smoking cannabis during their involvement with the family in August 2020.
The Father gave evidence under the protection of a section 128 certificate that he continues to use cannabis. He claims to have a prescription for medicinal cannabis. He did not produce any medical evidence before me about the reason for the medicinal cannabis, and the date upon which he was first prescribed medicinal cannabis.
Again, the Father would seek to mutualise the illicit drug use by telling me in cross-examination both he and the Mother used drugs together including Ice.
He conceded in cross-examination that when he took Ice he would become angrier. On maybe one or two of the handful occasions he took Ice.
The Father's Counsel advised the Court that the Father spends $120 per fortnight, being $60 per week on the medicinal cannabis. Neither the Financial Statement nor the Father's Affidavits stated the cost of the medicinal cannabis.
The Father was ordered to undertake a hair follicle test the results of which were annexed to his Affidavit filed 23 October 2024.
This test results shows the Father tested positive for cannabinoids and specifically Carboxy-THC. The cut off is 0.05 pg/mg and his result was greater than 10 pg/mg.
The medicinal cannabis taken by the Father contains THC, which is why it tested positive on the hair follicle drug test.
Annexed to that Affidavit is a letter from Dr FF from GG Medical Centre dated 22 October 2024. Dr FF indicates that it is not possible to check if the result of cannabinoid use in the Father is indicative of his compliance or exceeds, his prescription. The letter goes no further to articulate why it is the Father is on medicinal cannabis and whether it was Dr FF who prescribed it.
Attached to the Affidavit are some photographs of the container the Father asserts houses his medicinal cannabis. From the label on page 13 the date 12 September 2024. The label indicates that there are eight repeats.
Also on the label are the words "vaporise and inhale 0.5 g before bed *add on 0.1g every alternate day until symptoms control. Maximum of 1g daily- next repeat available from 12/09/2024."
I do not know what symptoms are expected to clear by the use of this medicinal cannabis.
I do note from as early as his relationship with the mother of P in 2014, the Father was smoking cannabis.
The Father admitted in cross-examination that sometimes when he was violent to P's mother Ms O, he would be fuelled by alcohol sometimes by cannabis.
Exhibit 21 is the Father's criminal history in Queensland. In mid-2016 the Father was convicted of all charges of possessing dangerous drugs and possessing utensils. No conviction was recorded and he was on a $330 recognisance.
In early 2019 the Father was again convicted of possessing utensils or pipes that had been used in early 2019. No conviction was recorded and he was fined $250.
I find that the Father has a long history of using cannabis since at least 2014. I do not know if the convictions noted in Exhibit 21 relate to any other drugs besides cannabis.
The Mother in these proceedings has long asserted that the Father's cannabis use is a risk to the children. She says the Father smokes cannabis around the children.
In her evidence, Ms M said there is no evidence that the Father's parenting capacity is impaired by his use of medicinal cannabis. I reject this opinion.
The Father has smoked cannabis since at least 2014. In 2020, Victorian child safety officers identified significant concerns for the family unit should the Father remain in the home.
The children were with their Mother and the Father was put out of the home.
This tells me that the Department had significant concerns about the Father's parenting capacity.
The Father had the onus of proving why he needs to take medicinal cannabis and how that medicinal cannabis affects him and potentially his capacity to parent two young children.
P was exposed to family violence perpetrated by the Father against his mother in 2014, which the Father accepted was at a time he was smoking cannabis and indeed up to ten bongs a day.
X and Y have been exposed to the Father's family violence against the Mother at a time that he was smoking cannabis because it seems he has not stopped smoking cannabis.
The Father has taken no steps to take anger management counselling and he continues to smoke cannabis.
There is no cogent evidence before me of the medical need for the Father to use medicinal cannabis. This evidence should have been proffered by the Father.
The Mother says the Father would smoke cannabis inside the house and in the bathroom. The Father admitted that he does smoke cannabis inside the house, but not around the children.
Ms L said she does not like the Father smoking cannabis at her house and because it is on acreage he can go outside to smoke.
During the trial, the Father gave evidence that X had an asthma attack overnight of day 2 of the trial and he was up with her at 4.30am.
He admitted that he had last taken cannabis at 10:30pm or 11:00pm the night before.
I asked him this because I was concerned about his demeanour in the witness box - he was asking multiple times for questions to be repeated and he seemed to lack focus.
I have no evidence about the proximity of the children to where the Father is when he smokes cannabis.
I am prepared to infer that X's asthma is likely to be affected by being in proximity of the Father when he is smoking cannabis.
The Father's failure to proffer evidence about the medical reason for the prescription for medicinal cannabis raises questions of risk because:

[88]

I cannot ignore the Father's long history of perpetrating family violence on women, commencing as early as 2014 against P's mother.
This family violence has included physical violence and coercive control.
It seems to me that nothing has changed for the Father since the recommendations of Victorian child safety officers in August 2020.
The Father has failed to engage in any drug rehabilitation or anger management.
There is no cogent evidence of any psychological engagement.
The Father has not engaged in any reputable men's behaviour change program.
I find that the Father finds excuses for his behaviour and seeks to blame the women for his violence, seeking to mutualise it.
X has complained to her Mother and to Ms M that the Father smacks her when she is naughty and she does not like it.
The Mother's evidence is that X told her that the Father has whacked her on the side of the head.
The Father has denied using physical discipline on the children in his Affidavit. Given the difficulties I have with the Father's credit, I do not accept his evidence.
Given the Father's family violence history, and given his lack of engagement with any anger management counselling, I consider it is more probable than not that the Father has, at times, used inappropriate physical discipline on the children.
I find the Father inappropriately disciplines the children despite doing the parenting courses he claims to have attended.
I also intend to make an order that neither of the parents is to use physical discipline on these children.
It may be that the Father has an anger management problem and this manifests itself in his inappropriate physical discipline of the children, and may contribute to his family violence.
Or it is possible the Father may be suffering from an underlying mental health condition that causes him to lose his temper and lash out physically.
I have no cogent evidence of the impact of the Father's drug use on his mental health and on his violence.
It was incumbent on the Father to provide evidence about his use of medicinal cannabis and whether or not it adversely affects his parenting capacity.
The unanswered questions about the Father's mental health, in addition to his seemingly constant cannabis use and his admitted family violence, leads me to conclude that that the children are at risk in the Father's care.

[103]

I am satisfied that moving the children to their Mother's primary care will promote their safety.
I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of the children for the Mother to have sole decision making authority. She has agreed to consult with the Father about a decision and I have made that order.
The parents will need to ensure that their communications are respectful and child-focused.
I will make an order for the children to spend time with their Father on alternate weekends during the school term from after school Friday until 3:00pm on Sunday.
In the event the Father is unable to collect the children from school on the Friday, then changeover will occur at 10:00am Saturday at the B contact centre.
I will make an order that the children will communicate with the Father via Facetime on Tuesdays and Thursdays each week from 6:00pm to 6:30pm.
The Father is to initiate, and terminate, the call.
The parents agreed to the children spending half the school holidays with each parent and I consider it is in the children's best interests for this to occur.
With respect to the December/January school holidays, given the children are still young, I consider it is appropriate for this holiday period to be week-about, with changeover occurring on a Saturday at 10am.
I will make an order that the changeovers that do not occur at the children's school will continue to occur at a supervised contact centre. The parents already use two centres - being D Contact Centre and B Contact Centre - and continuing to use these centres will ensure the children are protected from any conflict between the parents.
I consider it is in the children's best interests to spend time with their parents on special days, such as Christmas.
Given the supervised contact centres may not be able to facilitate a changeover on the Christmas special days, I will make an order for changeover to be at McDonalds Town F, New South Wales, which is about half-way between the parents' homes.
Effecting changeovers this way will ensure the Mother and the children are not exposed to family violence by the Father and will promote their safety.
X is not yet 7, and Y is only 5. X has told the Mother she wants to live with her.
The Father acknowledges this but submits that X is too young for me to place weight on her views and wishes.
I do not propose to place determinative weight on X's wishes, but I do take them into account.
The Father's evidence was that he has engaged X with a psychologist. I have no cogent evidence about X's counselling.
If X is having psychological support, and if this support has been beneficial to X, I would expect the Mother to take all necessary steps to have X continue to engage in therapeutic support.
There is a practical difficulty for the children to spend time with each parent, given they live 3 hours apart.
The children will continue to have to travel about 3 hours one way to spend time with their Father just as they have been travelling that distance to spend time with their Mother.
If the parents remain living that far apart then the children will continue to travel as they have had to travel since November 2023 when the Mother moved to Town G. They are familiar with having to travel that distance.
The Father criticised the Mother for moving to Town G and even criticised her choice of rentals. He provided evidence of his searches for rentals in the Town G area that he says are under $375 per week.
I take this evidence to mean that there is available accommodation in Town G should the Father wish to move closer to the Mother so as to reduce the children's significant travel time.
The parents will each be at liberty to attend the children's school events and I expect the parents to each behave in a child-focused manner.
The Father can choose to properly engage with counselling for his family violence and work towards ending his dependence on medicinal cannabis but I do not make an order requiring him to do so.
He has to want to change for there to be any chance of long-term success.
I will make an order that in the event either parent has engagement with State Police or a State child welfare agency, then they are to provide details and documents to the other parent.
This will keep the parents informed of any family violence or other child welfare issue arising in the other parent's household which may place the children at risk in that household.
I will make an order that the parents can provide a copy of the Court's reasons to any psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor engaged by either parent to assist them to comply with these Orders and to help that parent to promote the children's relationship with the other parent.
I am satisfied that the Orders I have made at the outset of these reasons are in the children's best interests and I make those orders accordingly.

Harcourt & Corrington [2025] FedCFamC2F 825 (24 July 2025)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (115 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (2)