Cross-examination of the Father by Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer

Cross-Examination of the Father by Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer

57. The father said his mother was prepared to come to court and she supported his case. He conceded a longstanding police history from 1994 to 2014. The last occasion was 7 November 2014 when all charges were dropped except breach of the Intervention Order for which he received a $750 fine. This was in relation to Ms N.
58. The cross-examination traversed the various LEAP records constituting ICL1. He said he is not now facing any other charges but there is an Intervention Order concerning Ms N until 2018. He conceded numerous complaints had been made by former partners of his including Ms R, Ms J, Ms B, Ms N, Ms A Finn and Ms N. He said they were all lying. “Of course they are.” He denied breaking Ms A Finn’s arm. He said it happened but he did not break her arm.
59. He did not recall pushing Ms A Finn into a brick wall in 2004 and said he could not recall punching her numerous times. He did not recall knocking out her front teeth. When it was put to him that on 29 November 2004 a warrant to arrest him was executed, he said this would not have happened if it had not been for Ms A Finn.
60. When it was put to him that he had punched Ms B in 2010 three times with a clenched fist he said he did not hit her. She was jealous because he had rejected her. He said after she hit him he left. He said, “I know what they’re like.”
61. The father was asked if he was prepared to accept supervision at a contact centre. He replied that he would do whatever it takes but did not believe supervision was necessary.
62. He was then cross-examined about the (omitted) park incident in April 2016. The grandmother was to supervise on that day. She was not there when he took X to the farm to use an air rifle. Mr G was there.
63. The father says he does not want the grandmother there and sees the need to prove this to the courts.
64. He was cross-examined about his relationship with Ms K which lasted for five and a half years. Her child, (omitted), is not the father’s child. When cross-examined about records dated 21 July 2013 he said he kicked her out several times. He waited for police to turn up. She then called police several times. He had made a lot of bad mistakes. If she had been injured he would have been charged. He asked, rhetorically (a number of his answers were rhetorical questions), “If I was so bad why did she come back?” He said the neighbours called the police. He did not accept that there was a pattern where he returned to get possessions and arguments occurred. It did not occur that he put an arm around her neck. He denied, in effect, all the assaults alleged by the various complainants against him.
65. When his court record from 1998 to 2014 was put to him that the majority of offences were for violence or dishonesty, with the majority being for violence, he took issue although it emerged that he thought theft was not an offence of dishonesty. He accepted that there were serious counts of assault and said that he was asking the court to believe that he had changed. He takes responsibility for himself. He said people had been paid to bash him and he stuck up for himself.
66. The father was cross-examined about his alcohol consumption. He said he drinks less than a slab of beer a week. He takes 5 milligrams of Valium per night and 100 milligrams of Seroquel. That is an antipsychotic. He also takes cannabis daily. He needs it. He uses a bong and consumes about three grams a week. He consumes every night but not every daytime. The doctor gave him Seroquel to help him sleep. Before that he took other drugs. He takes them with alcohol and he goes to sleep. He takes the same amount of medication every night and it puts him to sleep in five minutes. He has undertaken drug and alcohol counselling in the past and is now enrolled in PenDAP.
67. When taken to the DHHS report from 2016, he conceded that Y was removed at birth. There has been extensive departmental involvement over the years. DHHS paid for two of his visits to Queensland. He enrolled in PenDAP in 2007 because someone told him to do it. When asked why he had not undertaken alcohol counselling before 2017 he replied this was because his lawyer told him to enrol. He wants to make changes. He wants help with marijuana. It is not healthy. He does not want to keep smoking. Three grams a week is not overboard. He was told to go by his lawyer.
68. When taken to the report from Ms K, he conceded that the blackouts referred to in her report were due to alcohol. He has seen Ms K in June 2016 till June 2017 and has seen her since then. He has bulging discs. When it was put to him that he had difficulty controlling his temper he said all his blackouts were caused by alcohol. When it was put to him that he needs marijuana to be normal he replied that that was right. He is going to apply for medicinal marijuana in the near future. Marijuana is better than other medication.
69. When it was put to him that he had not complied with the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s request for drug screens he said he had done some. He is self-conscious and is unable to urinate.
70. The father sometimes buys marijuana. He does not grow it because you do not get the same potency (he has obviously clearly tried or is otherwise conversant with such practices). He buys from a dealer. He first said that he mows his lawns in exchange but then went on to say that $60 is two weeks’ worth of marijuana.
71. The father had been at the (omitted) Hospital on 3 June 2017 with a rib problem. He was put on heavy painkillers as a result of (hobby omitted) injuries and broken ribs. He took Endone for six weeks. When it was put to him that his drug screen showed amphetamines and not opiates he said he was not taking amphetamines. He was in hospital for four or five days and had lots of morphine because he was in agony. He had $970 in cash on him in hospital and had been paid the day before. He said he could produce the invoice and bank account to prove this (they were not subsequently produced). He only got one job done before his accident.
72. When cross-examined about records from the medical centre at (omitted) it was put to him he abused a Dr G because Dr G refused to give him scripts for medicines. The father said he might have said something rude. He was upset because Dr G would not look at his file.
73. The father said he consumes three grams per week and had told the psychologist this. He thinks of suicide every day. It would be a relief from pain. (The father’s evidence about these matters was clearly distressing to him and he was in tears.)
74. The father pays Ms G $85 per session and she is enormously helpful.
75. B is not living with him but was. His date of birth was (omitted) 2001. The father pleaded guilty to assault of B when he was two years old. He was, in fact, not guilty. He was initially subjected to a custodial sentence but appealed and the sentence was hardly suspended. He has never been in jail. He said the DHHS records were all inaccurate. He had a bad lawyer and it was bad timing.
76. The father was then cross-examined about the (omitted) park incident. He said this was not close time with X. It did not provide a chance to bond. It was not long since he had seen X. He was explaining to the grandmother that travel makes him anxious. He is not comfortable in a public area. He was not angry during the conversation. When it was put to him that he had raised his voice and clenched his fists, she said this was not right. He was not angry. There was no argument. He handed his lawyer’s card to the grandmother and she took it.
77. When asked why X did not wish to see him when interviewed by Ms M, he said this was so out of character it was amazing. X was being told things.
78. When asked if he accepted the diagnosis of foetal alcohol syndrome, ADD and ADHD, the father said he was not doubting these diagnoses but they had only been done recently.
79. The father said he had a good relationship with Y and saw him all the time. Mr G was jealous. Y stopped seeing him when the first respondent saw him. He did not know who is to blame. He had not done anything. Ms N had caused all this.
80. The father was cross-examined about Ms T. He was not in a relationship with her. She is the registered carer of B and they met at the Magistrate’s Court. He sees B regularly. B is disturbed and has issues. He sees him a couple of times per week.
81. His own mother runs a (business omitted) from home. She is 72 and lives in (omitted) also. Ms A Finn had been with him from April 2017 until five weeks ago. He does not now have a partner. Ms A Finn was okay when she saw Ms M but has made no attempt to see X. X always said, “I love you, dad.” Some meetings with X did not occur. Once it was raining. On other occasions the grandmother had taken off immediately if he was delayed. He saw Ms A Finn last night and days ago. He had told her she did not need to come to court. She could come to court but he would rather not have her here. He conceded that the (omitted) park visit in April had not gone well.
82. In re-examination the father said he got a lot out support services. He had no idea he had anxiety until he was told. He deals with anger so much better and handles things so much better now.