Psychologist
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Western Australia
Catchwords: Assisted Reproduction, Biological Father, Biological Mother, Birth Mother, Child of a marriage, Evidence, Parentage, Parental, Parental Responsibility, Parental Rights, Perjury, Surrogacy
Judges: Thackray CJ
Background: A baby with Down syndrome at the centre of an international surrogacy dispute was held by the Family Court of Western Australia not to have been abandoned in Thailand by his Australian parents. This case involved twin children, Gammy, and his sister, Pipah, born in Thailand to a surrogate mother (“the surrogate”) using a Western Australian man’s sperm (“the father”) and an anonymous donor’s eggs. The father returned to Australia with Pipah, but not Gammy. It was claimed by the surrogate that the father had abandoned Gammy in Thailand because Gammy had Down Syndrome. The surrogate issued proceedings in Western Australia seeking the return to her of Pipah to live with her. The father opposed the Application and wanted Pipah to stay living with him. The father had previous conv
[Legal Issue]With whom a child lives – The applicants entered into surrogacy arrangement with the respondent birth mother – Twins born in Thailand as a result – The girl was brought to Western Australia to live with the applicants, while the boy remained in Thailand with the birth mother – The applicants seek an order for the girl to continue living with them – The birth mother seeks an order for the girl to live with her in Thailand – The male applicant is a convicted sex offender but expert evidence indicates that there is a low risk of him abusing the girl – This risk must be weighed against the high risk of harm to the girl if she is removed from her current home
[Court Orders]Orders for the girl to live with the applicants and for them to have parental responsibility – No orders requiring the applicants to allow the birth mother to spend time with or communicate with the girl – Applicants required to send some of the girl's schoolwork to the birth mother – Formal findings made that the applicants did not abandon the boy and did not try to access his trust fund.
Catchwords: Assisted Reproduction, Biological Father, Biological Mother, Birth Mother, Child of a marriage, Evidence, Parentage, Parental, Parental Responsibility, Parental Rights, Perjury, Surrogacy
Judges: Thackray CJ
Background: A baby with Down syndrome at the centre of an international surrogacy dispute was held by the Family Court of Western Australia not to have been abandoned in Thailand by his Australian parents. This case involved twin children, Gammy, and his sister, Pipah, born in Thailand to a surrogate mother (“the surrogate”) using a Western Australian man’s sperm (“the father”) and an anonymous donor’s eggs. The father returned to Australia with Pipah, but not Gammy. It was claimed by the surrogate that the father had abandoned Gammy in Thailand because Gammy had Down Syndrome. The surrogate issued proceedings in Western Australia seeking the return to her of Pipah to live with her. The father opposed the Application and wanted Pipah to stay living with him. The father had previous conv
[Legal Issue]With whom a child lives – The applicants entered into surrogacy arrangement with the respondent birth mother – Twins born in Thailand as a result – The girl was brought to Western Australia to live with the applicants, while the boy remained in Thailand with the birth mother – The applicants seek an order for the girl to continue living with them – The birth mother seeks an order for the girl to live with her in Thailand – The male applicant is a convicted sex offender but expert evidence indicates that there is a low risk of him abusing the girl – This risk must be weighed against the high risk of harm to the girl if she is removed from her current home
[Court Orders]Orders for the girl to live with the applicants and for them to have parental responsibility – No orders requiring the applicants to allow the birth mother to spend time with or communicate with the girl – Applicants required to send some of the girl's schoolwork to the birth mother – Formal findings made that the applicants did not abandon the boy and did not try to access his trust fund.
Court or Tribunal: Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Catchwords: Evidence, Recorded conversations
Judges: Judge Sexton
Background: Corby and Corby regarded the use of four non-consensual audio recordings between the parties as evidence in a custody hearing. The applicant, the mother in the estranged partnership, contended that the respondent was sexually coercive, intimidating and physically violent during their relationship.
[Legal Issue]The question before Sexton J was whether the applicant had a lawful interest under section 7(3)(b)(i) of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW).137 Her Honour decided that the applicant had a lawful interest in protecting herself from intimidation, harassment and sexual coercion.138 Moreover, the recordings were reasonably necessary because, similarly to R v Coutts, it may not have been a realistic option to report her predicament to the police139 and the recordings were important evidence as they demonstrated the difference between the public and private ‘faces’ of the respondent.140 Further, and similarly to other cases, Sexton J observed that even if she had been unable to find that the mother had a lawful interest in ma
[Court Orders](1) The audio recordings between the parties made by the Mother on 25 March, 24 June and 8 July 2012 be marked Exhibit 4.
(2) The Mother’s solicitor email the audio recordings (admitted and marked Exhibit 4) to the Father's new solicitor by the close of business on Tuesday 21 April 2015.
(3) The Mother’s solicitor save the audio recordings onto a USB flashdrive and present the flashdrive to the Exhibits counter at the Sydney Registry by no later than 4.00p.m on Friday 24 April 2015.
Catchwords: Evidence, Recorded conversations
Judges: Judge Sexton
Background: Corby and Corby regarded the use of four non-consensual audio recordings between the parties as evidence in a custody hearing. The applicant, the mother in the estranged partnership, contended that the respondent was sexually coercive, intimidating and physically violent during their relationship.
[Legal Issue]The question before Sexton J was whether the applicant had a lawful interest under section 7(3)(b)(i) of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW).137 Her Honour decided that the applicant had a lawful interest in protecting herself from intimidation, harassment and sexual coercion.138 Moreover, the recordings were reasonably necessary because, similarly to R v Coutts, it may not have been a realistic option to report her predicament to the police139 and the recordings were important evidence as they demonstrated the difference between the public and private ‘faces’ of the respondent.140 Further, and similarly to other cases, Sexton J observed that even if she had been unable to find that the mother had a lawful interest in ma
[Court Orders](1) The audio recordings between the parties made by the Mother on 25 March, 24 June and 8 July 2012 be marked Exhibit 4.
(2) The Mother’s solicitor email the audio recordings (admitted and marked Exhibit 4) to the Father's new solicitor by the close of business on Tuesday 21 April 2015.
(3) The Mother’s solicitor save the audio recordings onto a USB flashdrive and present the flashdrive to the Exhibits counter at the Sydney Registry by no later than 4.00p.m on Friday 24 April 2015.
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Allegations of Child Abuse, False Allegations of Child Abuse, Recorded conversations, Unacceptable Risk, Unsubstantiated Allegations
Judges: Murphy J
Background: The parents of two girls, aged 10 and 6, engaged in failed financial negotiations after separation. Soon after these negotiations, the mother raised allegations of child sexual abuse by the father against their two female children. The children were medically examined but were found to have no physical indications of sexual abuse. The children were also found to have made inconsistent statements to police, family members and carers. The children also made conflicting statements as to their desire to see their father.
[Legal Issue]Where the mother alleges that the father had engaged in sexual misconduct against their two female children – Where relevant rules of evidence are excluded pursuant to s 69ZT of the Act – Where expertise need not be established as a result – Where the trial judge holds that the appropriate qualifications, training or experience of an expert is a significant factor in the attribution of weight. Where the evidence is insufficient to establish the risk as unacceptable.
[Court Orders]The mother has been handed sole parental responsibility for the girls.
The father will be allowed to spend unsupervised time with the girls, aged 10 and 6, for up to half of each school holiday period, but the mother will make all major decisions about the girls.
The Judge explained that the Sole Parental Responsibility Orders were to avoid conflict between the parents.
Catchwords: Allegations of Child Abuse, False Allegations of Child Abuse, Recorded conversations, Unacceptable Risk, Unsubstantiated Allegations
Judges: Murphy J
Background: The parents of two girls, aged 10 and 6, engaged in failed financial negotiations after separation. Soon after these negotiations, the mother raised allegations of child sexual abuse by the father against their two female children. The children were medically examined but were found to have no physical indications of sexual abuse. The children were also found to have made inconsistent statements to police, family members and carers. The children also made conflicting statements as to their desire to see their father.
[Legal Issue]Where the mother alleges that the father had engaged in sexual misconduct against their two female children – Where relevant rules of evidence are excluded pursuant to s 69ZT of the Act – Where expertise need not be established as a result – Where the trial judge holds that the appropriate qualifications, training or experience of an expert is a significant factor in the attribution of weight. Where the evidence is insufficient to establish the risk as unacceptable.
[Court Orders]The mother has been handed sole parental responsibility for the girls.
The father will be allowed to spend unsupervised time with the girls, aged 10 and 6, for up to half of each school holiday period, but the mother will make all major decisions about the girls.
The Judge explained that the Sole Parental Responsibility Orders were to avoid conflict between the parents.
Court or Tribunal: Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Catchwords: Child Abuse, Emotional Abuse, failure to call witness and Jones & Dunkel inference, Hostile Parental Behaviour, Interim Parenting Orders, Jones & Dunkel inference, Meaningful Relationship, Obstruction of Contact with Child, Parental Alienation, Risk of Psychological Harm, Sole Parental Responsibility, Supervised contact with Child, Unacceptable Risk, With whom a child lives with, With whom a child spends time with
Judges: Harman JHenderson J
Background: Since separation, the three children lived primarily with their father [Mr Mitchell]. In these proceedings, Mr Mitchell has conceded that he has denied the children their right to a meaningful relationship with their mother, accepted by Mr Mitchell to be a caring and loving relationship, as well as exposing the children to his significant rage and repeated derogatory comments towards his ex-wife and her lesbian partner, while also exposing the children to discussions of adult issues, (such as the mother’s sexuality), which for children of these ages is entirely unnecessary and inappropriate.
[Legal Issue]These proceedings primarily hinged on the definition of "abuse" and "family violence", and whether the exposure of the children to the father's rage towards his ex-wife, and specifically the repeated derogatory comments towards his ex-wife and her lesbian partner, constitutes child abuse and/or family violence. The evidentiary standard of "Unacceptable Risk" was used to determine whether the risk of future abuse was significant enough to warrant measures.
[Court Orders]The children’s mother [Ms Mitchell] shall have sole parental responsibility of the three children.
The three children shall live with their mother.
The children’s father [Mr Mitchell] shall spend time with the children from 11am Saturday until 5pm Sunday each alternate weekend.
Catchwords: Child Abuse, Emotional Abuse, failure to call witness and Jones & Dunkel inference, Hostile Parental Behaviour, Interim Parenting Orders, Jones & Dunkel inference, Meaningful Relationship, Obstruction of Contact with Child, Parental Alienation, Risk of Psychological Harm, Sole Parental Responsibility, Supervised contact with Child, Unacceptable Risk, With whom a child lives with, With whom a child spends time with
Judges: Harman JHenderson J
Background: Since separation, the three children lived primarily with their father [Mr Mitchell]. In these proceedings, Mr Mitchell has conceded that he has denied the children their right to a meaningful relationship with their mother, accepted by Mr Mitchell to be a caring and loving relationship, as well as exposing the children to his significant rage and repeated derogatory comments towards his ex-wife and her lesbian partner, while also exposing the children to discussions of adult issues, (such as the mother’s sexuality), which for children of these ages is entirely unnecessary and inappropriate.
[Legal Issue]These proceedings primarily hinged on the definition of "abuse" and "family violence", and whether the exposure of the children to the father's rage towards his ex-wife, and specifically the repeated derogatory comments towards his ex-wife and her lesbian partner, constitutes child abuse and/or family violence. The evidentiary standard of "Unacceptable Risk" was used to determine whether the risk of future abuse was significant enough to warrant measures.
[Court Orders]The children’s mother [Ms Mitchell] shall have sole parental responsibility of the three children.
The three children shall live with their mother.
The children’s father [Mr Mitchell] shall spend time with the children from 11am Saturday until 5pm Sunday each alternate weekend.
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Emotional Abuse, False Allegations of Child Abuse, Parental Alienation, Parental Disorders, Psychological Disorders, Risk of Psychological Harm, Unsubstantiated Allegations
Judges: Cronin J
Background: Mr Garzelli (“the husband”) married Ms Lewis (“the wife”) in January 2007 after they had met in 2005 through the internet. The husband is a 61 year old company director who was born in Australia. The wife is a 48 year old woman who was born in Country I. The husband and wife have one child N (“the child”) who was born in 2009 in Country I. This case focussed primarily on the credibility of the wife, and on the expectation that she would work with the father in a co-operative, shared parenting arrangement.
[Legal Issue]The Court, with the assistance of the psychiatric and psychological experts, determined that the mother went to significant efforts to manipulate circumstance to reflect poorly on the husband.
It was suggested that a diagnoses of Borderline or Schizoid personality style or Asperger’s Spectrum Disorder was very likely, exposing the child to likely Parentified Child behaviours, which would force the child to align with the mother and abandon her relationship with her father, so as to meet the mother's increasingly demanding emotional needs and desires.
The diagnoses would render the chances of a co-operative parenting arrangement very unlikely.
[Court Orders]That the husband have sole parental responsibility for the child born ... 2009 but for that purpose, the husband ensure the wife is kept abreast of all major issues about the child and in particular:
(a) advise the wife of any medical treatment for the child;
(b) authorise and direct the school at which the child attends to provide all school reports, newsletters, photographs and invitations usually directed to parents to be provided to the wife.
The parents to otherwise have shared parenti
Catchwords: Emotional Abuse, False Allegations of Child Abuse, Parental Alienation, Parental Disorders, Psychological Disorders, Risk of Psychological Harm, Unsubstantiated Allegations
Judges: Cronin J
Background: Mr Garzelli (“the husband”) married Ms Lewis (“the wife”) in January 2007 after they had met in 2005 through the internet. The husband is a 61 year old company director who was born in Australia. The wife is a 48 year old woman who was born in Country I. The husband and wife have one child N (“the child”) who was born in 2009 in Country I. This case focussed primarily on the credibility of the wife, and on the expectation that she would work with the father in a co-operative, shared parenting arrangement.
[Legal Issue]The Court, with the assistance of the psychiatric and psychological experts, determined that the mother went to significant efforts to manipulate circumstance to reflect poorly on the husband.
It was suggested that a diagnoses of Borderline or Schizoid personality style or Asperger’s Spectrum Disorder was very likely, exposing the child to likely Parentified Child behaviours, which would force the child to align with the mother and abandon her relationship with her father, so as to meet the mother's increasingly demanding emotional needs and desires.
The diagnoses would render the chances of a co-operative parenting arrangement very unlikely.
[Court Orders]That the husband have sole parental responsibility for the child born ... 2009 but for that purpose, the husband ensure the wife is kept abreast of all major issues about the child and in particular:
(a) advise the wife of any medical treatment for the child;
(b) authorise and direct the school at which the child attends to provide all school reports, newsletters, photographs and invitations usually directed to parents to be provided to the wife.
The parents to otherwise have shared parenti
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Emotional Abuse, Enmeshment, False Allegations of Child Abuse, Hearsay, Meaningful Relationship, Obstruction of Contact with Child, Parental Alienation, Parental Alienation, Risk of Psychological Harm, Supervised contact with Child, Unsubstantiated Allegations
Judges: Austin J
Background: For three years after separation, children aged 15, 12 and 10 years had at the mother’s insistence spent time with the father only at the mother’s house. The mother then severed all of the children’s interaction with the father for a period and recommenced access only if the father was supervised. The mother proposed that the father be eliminated or excluded from the children’s lives. The father contended the mother had exerted so much pressure upon the children they were induced to reject him and to resist any interaction with him (alienation). The mother contended that she supported the children’s relationships with the father and their individual rejection of him and that the children’s resistance to interacting with the father was due to their own adverse experiences wi
[Legal Issue]The judge gave little weight to a recommendation by a psychologist who treated the youngest child’s anxiety, that visits by the youngest child with the father should be postponed until the child has built appropriate coping skills to manage his anxiety. The judge preferred the opinion of the family consultant over the opinion of the treating psychologist for reasons including: (a) the psychologist had made only a superficial appraisal of the youngest child’s situation, and (b) documents containing hearsay of the treating psychologist’s opinions were tendered in evidence rather than an affidavit, denying the father the opportunity to test the evidence by cross-examining the psychologist directly (expert evidence unsatisfactory).
The family consultant recommended a change of reside
[Court Orders]The judge found that if the two youngest children remained living with the mother then their relationships with the father would likely be destroyed. The judge ordered that the two younger children live with the father. The judge ordered a graduated approach where there was a temporary suspension of interaction between children and mother, followed by temporary period of supervision of the children’s time with the mother, leading to substantial and significant time with the mother.
Catchwords: Emotional Abuse, Enmeshment, False Allegations of Child Abuse, Hearsay, Meaningful Relationship, Obstruction of Contact with Child, Parental Alienation, Parental Alienation, Risk of Psychological Harm, Supervised contact with Child, Unsubstantiated Allegations
Judges: Austin J
Background: For three years after separation, children aged 15, 12 and 10 years had at the mother’s insistence spent time with the father only at the mother’s house. The mother then severed all of the children’s interaction with the father for a period and recommenced access only if the father was supervised. The mother proposed that the father be eliminated or excluded from the children’s lives. The father contended the mother had exerted so much pressure upon the children they were induced to reject him and to resist any interaction with him (alienation). The mother contended that she supported the children’s relationships with the father and their individual rejection of him and that the children’s resistance to interacting with the father was due to their own adverse experiences wi
[Legal Issue]The judge gave little weight to a recommendation by a psychologist who treated the youngest child’s anxiety, that visits by the youngest child with the father should be postponed until the child has built appropriate coping skills to manage his anxiety. The judge preferred the opinion of the family consultant over the opinion of the treating psychologist for reasons including: (a) the psychologist had made only a superficial appraisal of the youngest child’s situation, and (b) documents containing hearsay of the treating psychologist’s opinions were tendered in evidence rather than an affidavit, denying the father the opportunity to test the evidence by cross-examining the psychologist directly (expert evidence unsatisfactory).
The family consultant recommended a change of reside
[Court Orders]The judge found that if the two youngest children remained living with the mother then their relationships with the father would likely be destroyed. The judge ordered that the two younger children live with the father. The judge ordered a graduated approach where there was a temporary suspension of interaction between children and mother, followed by temporary period of supervision of the children’s time with the mother, leading to substantial and significant time with the mother.
Court or Tribunal: Childrens Court of New South Wales
Catchwords: Child Abuse, Parental Disorders, Psychological Disorders, Risk of Psychological Harm
Judges: Magistrate Graham Blewitt AM
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]
Catchwords: Child Abuse, Parental Disorders, Psychological Disorders, Risk of Psychological Harm
Judges: Magistrate Graham Blewitt AM
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]
Court or Tribunal: Childrens Court of New South Wales
Catchwords: Children, Parental Responsibility
Judges: Magistrate Graham Blewitt AM
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]
Catchwords: Children, Parental Responsibility
Judges: Magistrate Graham Blewitt AM
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Allegations of Child Abuse, Emotional Abuse, False Allegations of Child Abuse, Hostile Parental Behaviour, Obstruction of Contact with Child, Parental Alienation, Parental Alienation, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Psychological, Risk of Psychological Harm, Unacceptable Risk, Unsubstantiated Allegations, With whom a child spends time with
Judges: Bennett J
Background: This is a case of an Anglo-Australian father and a Chinese-born mother. There was a high level of parental conflict during and after the breakdown of the relationship. After separation, the mother and father lived in separate states. They had two children aged 11 and 9. The father had then re-partnered. In dispute over 'contact with the children' after separation, the mother made allegations of child sexual abuse against the father. She also made allegations of physical violence by the father against her and the children. These allegations were found to be baseless, contrived and pre-meditated by the Court. The mother also engaged in behaviour intended to incite hatred in the children against the father. This alienation proceeded to a degree where the children did not want t
[Legal Issue]Despite the findings of the Court against the mother, the Court had to address how it was going to deal with the intense "antipathy" that the children felt towards their father, to the point where they threatened self-harm if they were forced to see him.
The Court found the children to be “articulate, forthright and self-assured adolescents.” In that context, the threat of self-harm if made to spend time with the father must be given sufficient weight as a likely outcome if contact with the father was forced onto the children.
The Court concluded that imposing a “solution” on the children without deference to their views would at least compromise their development and, possibly, inspire the threatened self-harm.
[Court Orders]His Honour ordered equal shared parental responsibility, but that the children live with the mother and spend no time with the father. However, the Judge ordered a "post orders program", as recommended by the supervising family consultant with a view to the girls, being reunited with their father as soon as practicable. (this program subsequently failed: re: Wang & Dennison (No. 2) [2009] FamCA 1251)
The judge also requested that a family consultant be nominated to supervise compliance with t
Catchwords: Allegations of Child Abuse, Emotional Abuse, False Allegations of Child Abuse, Hostile Parental Behaviour, Obstruction of Contact with Child, Parental Alienation, Parental Alienation, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Psychological, Risk of Psychological Harm, Unacceptable Risk, Unsubstantiated Allegations, With whom a child spends time with
Judges: Bennett J
Background: This is a case of an Anglo-Australian father and a Chinese-born mother. There was a high level of parental conflict during and after the breakdown of the relationship. After separation, the mother and father lived in separate states. They had two children aged 11 and 9. The father had then re-partnered. In dispute over 'contact with the children' after separation, the mother made allegations of child sexual abuse against the father. She also made allegations of physical violence by the father against her and the children. These allegations were found to be baseless, contrived and pre-meditated by the Court. The mother also engaged in behaviour intended to incite hatred in the children against the father. This alienation proceeded to a degree where the children did not want t
[Legal Issue]Despite the findings of the Court against the mother, the Court had to address how it was going to deal with the intense "antipathy" that the children felt towards their father, to the point where they threatened self-harm if they were forced to see him.
The Court found the children to be “articulate, forthright and self-assured adolescents.” In that context, the threat of self-harm if made to spend time with the father must be given sufficient weight as a likely outcome if contact with the father was forced onto the children.
The Court concluded that imposing a “solution” on the children without deference to their views would at least compromise their development and, possibly, inspire the threatened self-harm.
[Court Orders]His Honour ordered equal shared parental responsibility, but that the children live with the mother and spend no time with the father. However, the Judge ordered a "post orders program", as recommended by the supervising family consultant with a view to the girls, being reunited with their father as soon as practicable. (this program subsequently failed: re: Wang & Dennison (No. 2) [2009] FamCA 1251)
The judge also requested that a family consultant be nominated to supervise compliance with t