The High Court has refused a father’s application to replace supervised access with unsupervised contact and a comprehensive access programme, leaving the existing order in place.
In a judgment delivered on 26 July 2013, Mr Justice Garrett Sheehan said the applicant had not established, on the balance of probabilities, that varying the order would be in either child’s best interests. The court refused the application and all relief sought in the father’s motion. It did not make a new access arrangement.
The existing order, made on 24 May 2012, provided for supervised visits on Sundays and Wednesdays, with the father’s mother acting as supervisor. The order said the daughter would attend only if she wished. The father told the court his mother was no longer available to supervise.
The father challenged the approach and conclusions of a clinical psychologist who had prepared two earlier reports, and submitted that supervised access amounted to emotional abuse. He also alleged that the mother had alienated their daughter and impeded access to their son. The mother’s counsel argued that the application should be dismissed because the father had not filed a further affidavit as directed by the court.
Before giving judgment, the judge sought updated views from the children about unsupervised access. An interview planned through a person nominated to assist the court did not take place after the father contacted him. The father accepted making the call and said any evidence from the proposed interviewer could be contaminated. The judge found that he had not contaminated potential evidence, but declined to delay the case further. The children’s views were conveyed by the mother’s counsel, who said neither child wanted unsupervised access at that time. The judge accepted that account as reliable and held that the children had been adequately heard in the circumstances.
The judge said the father’s affidavit did not meaningfully address how a change would serve either child’s best interests. Although he had been given an opportunity to file further evidence, he did not do so, including on his objections to proposed experts or his difficulty finding a supervisor. The court said it was unable to rely on his evidence and refused the application.