Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) — Heard in Canberra
The Case
This child custody case involved consolidated proceedings concerning three children, a set of twins and a three-year-old, fathered by the same man across two separate relationships.
The father applied to spend time with all three children.
Both mothers opposed any contact whatsoever, citing a long and serious history of family violence, coercive control, manipulation, and threatening behaviour across multiple relationships.
The evidence before the court included police and criminal records, apprehended violence orders protecting both mothers, and a pattern of conduct that included threats to kill, threats of self-harm, the sending of intimate images to intimidate, and an extraordinary scheme in which the father falsely told both partners, and others, including police and paramedics, that he had a terminal illness in order to manipulate them into staying with him and to excuse his violent behaviour.
By the final day of the hearing, the father withdrew his application to spend time with the children and consented to orders granting each mother sole parental responsibility, with the children having no direct contact with him.
The Court found that the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the children, driven by his pattern of manipulation, coercive control, family violence, and a striking lack of insight into the impact of his behaviour.
The sole remaining question was whether the father should be permitted to send cards and gifts to the children up to four times per year.
Despite the serious concerns, the court found this limited, one-way form of communication, with the mothers having complete discretion over whether to pass anything on to the children, was in the children’s best interests, as it avoided the children either demonising or idealising an absent father as they grew older.
Key Takeaway
This case illustrates that Australian family courts can and will order no direct contact between a father and his children where there is a proven history of family violence and coercive control, but will still carefully consider whether some form of limited, one-way communication serves the children’s long-term best interests, even in the most serious cases.
The safety and wellbeing of both the children and their primary carers remains the court’s paramount concern throughout.
