History of family violence overrides access to children

A father has been denied a relationship with his child on the basis that he is an unacceptable risk to the mother.

In the matter of Lim & Zong, the parties had 1 child who was 10 years old at the time of the trial.  Initially, in 2013 the parties agreed to orders for equal shared parental responsibility and for the child to live with the mother and spend time with the father.

The parties’ relationship was strained and in July 2017 the father refused to hand over the child to the mother on two separate occasions. As a result, on both occasions the mother commenced proceedings seeking a recovery order, which were granted.

The father then had sought new parenting orders and the parties were engaged in protracted litigation.

In October 2020, orders were made ceasing the child’s time with the father based on a determination of unacceptable risk. The Judge found that orders requiring the mother to facilitate the child spending time with and or communicating with the father would have such an adverse psychological impact upon the mother that it would, in turn, vicariously impact upon the child. This risk was for the following reasons:

1. The father stalked the mother and unlawfully her premises;
2. The father sent messages to the mother threatening suicide and death;
3. The father applied coercive control over the mother;
4. The father attempted to introduce embarrassing and irrelevant evidence from a witness that was disparaging of the mother and imputed that she was a liar;
5. The mother was forced to spend the night with the child in the father’s share house; and
6. The father has inflicted injury on pets.

It was further stated that the extent of the father’s litigation was not child-focused and constituted part of his “campaign of family violence using coercion and threats over a long period of time”.

The father appealed this decision and alleged error in the primary Judge’s approach to the determination of unacceptable risk. The appellate division of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia found no error and the appeal was dismissed. The father was further ordered to pay the costs of the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer for the appeal.

Has this article created concerns for you or someone you know? Do you wish to discuss your situation with one of our Family Law team? Contact Solari and Stock on 8525 2700 or click here to request an appointment with one of our experienced Solicitors, remember to ask for your free 30 minute consultation to get your first 30 minutes for free.

Lim & Zong [2022] FedCFamC1A 146 (20 September 2022)

Article by Shweta Kumar
Photo by Mika Baumeister on Unsplash