Case: interim decision about violence

Case: interim decision about violence

In Schafer and Becker, the mother sought to limit the amount of time that the father had with the children, based on her assertion that he was violent.

The most significant evidence that the mother had about the violence was that when the child E: “returns from time spent with his Father he is “out of control”, “violent”, “destructive” and “abusive”, and in particular he is violent and abusive towards his Mother and family members” and “the Father, in the presence of the Child E, “went berserk” screamed very aggressively, and was yelling and spitting, and was so angry at the Mother that the Mother says she was fearful for her safety”.

The mother sought to rely on police documents including the father’s criminal history.

Federal Magistrate Lucev ruled that on an interim basis the police documents were inadmissible because:

“The documents:
do not reveal that any family or domestic violence orders have been taken out;
do not reveal that there has been any violence in, or in relation to the Children, or that they have been exposed to any violence; and
reveal that the one matter which went to Court (involving the Father and the police), and upon which considerable emphasis was placed in the hearing, was dismissed with a costs order in favour of the Father.
In the circumstances, the bundle of often repetitious hearsay documents which reveal no actual or potential risk of exposure of the Children to violence, and which seek to potentially significantly prejudice the Father will not be admitted for the purposes of the interim application.”

The mother was ultimately unsuccessful on limiting the amount of time based on the issue of violence- there was simply not enough evidence.

An illustration perhaps of the need to ensure that affidavit material is extremely thorough, even at an interim stage, when relying on allegations of violence. Or put another way- plenty of assertion, not enough evidence.

Request an Appointment
Fill in the form below to find out if you have a claim.
Request an Appointment - Stephen Page
Things to Read, Watch & Listen

3 Countries You Should Never Use for Surrogacy

When intended parents consider international surrogacy, the legal and ethical landscape can be treacherous. One government has taken a blunt but pragmatic approach: rather than issuing a blanket prohibition on overseas commercial surrogacy, it has published a short list of specific countries where surrogacy arrangements will almost certainly jeopardise a child’s legal status. That list… Read More »3 Countries You Should Never Use for Surrogacy

Self-Represented Litigant in Family Court Australia: What You NEED to Know First

Representing yourself in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia is increasingly common. Cost pressures, the perceived simplicity of some disputes and a desire to stay hands-on drive many people to act without a lawyer. That can work in certain circumstances, but there are important legal and practical limits to be aware of —… Read More »Self-Represented Litigant in Family Court Australia: What You NEED to Know First

My Surrogacy Reform Wish List for Australia

Australia’s surrogacy framework is fragmented, outdated and producing avoidable harm for intended parents, surrogates and, most importantly, children. A clearer, fairer and nationally consistent approach to surrogacy law reform would reduce cost, stress and legal uncertainty while better protecting human rights and minimising exploitation. Below is a practical wish list for reform that focuses on… Read More »My Surrogacy Reform Wish List for Australia

Family Law Section Law Council of Australia Award
Member of Queensland law society
Family law Practitioners Association
International Academy of Family Lawyers - IAFL
Mediator Standards Board