self-represented litigant
1: Mitchell & Mitchell [2014] FCCA 2526 | November 14, 2014
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.
2: Garzelli & Lewis (No. 3) [2014] FamCA 742 | September 9, 2014
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