Blog

May 15, 2016

Unacceptable risk

Proctor & Proctor [2016] FCCA 613 (23 March 2016)

The following is annotated. For full case: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCCA/2016/613.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=family%20law%20act

Unacceptable risk

Each party raises allegations of unacceptable risk to the children. In dealing with those allegations and the evidence suggested to support those allegations I propose to consider a line of authorities as discussed by me in Deacon & Castle^[230] and I incorporate that discussion herein:
454. In dealing with an issue of unacceptable risk, I am considerably assisted by the Full Court’s decision in Johnson & Page and particularly passage of that judgement at paragraphs 62 and 63 and 65-68 (inclusive) as follows:

“Relevant legal principles

The principles to be applied by a trial Judge in determining whether a child should spend time with a parent when the issue of sexual or other serious abuse is alleged to have been perpetrated on the child and/or it is asserted there is an unacceptable risk of harm to the child if the child spends time with a parent are those set out by the High Court in M and M.

Given the nature of the challenge to his Honour’s reasons it is appropriate we set out the relevant passages from M and M at 76-77

In considering an allegation of sexual abuse, the Court should not make a positive finding that the allegation is true unless the Court is so satisfied according to the civil standard of proof, with due regard to the factors mentioned in Briginshaw v. Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 C.L.R. 336 at p. 362. There Dixon J. said:

“The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal. In such matters ‘reasonable satisfaction’ should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences.”

His Honour’s remarks have a direct application to an allegation that a parent has sexually abused a child, an allegation which is often easy to make, but difficult to refute. It does not follow that if an allegation of sexual abuse has not been made out, according to the civil onus as stated in Briginshaw, that conclusion determines the wider issue which confronts the Court when it is called upon to decide what is in the best interests of the child.

No doubt there will be some cases in which the Court is able to come to a positive finding that the allegation is well-founded. In all but the most extraordinary cases, that finding will have a decisive impact on the order to be made respecting custody and access. There will be cases also in which the Court has no hesitation in rejecting the allegation as groundless. Again, in the nature of things there will be very many cases, such as the present case, in which the Court cannot confidently make a finding that sexual abuse has taken place. And there are strong practical family reasons why the Court should refrain from making a positive finding that sexual abuse has actually taken place unless it is impelled by the particular circumstances of the case to do so.

In resolving the wider issue the Court must determine whether on the evidence there is a risk of sexual abuse occurring if custody or access be granted and assessing the magnitude of that risk. After all, in deciding what is in the best interests of a child, the Family Court is frequently called upon to assess and evaluate the likelihood or possibility of events or occurrences which, if they come about, will have a detrimental impact on the child’s welfare. The existence and magnitude of the risk of sexual abuse, as with other risks of harm to the welfare of a child, is a fundamental matter to be taken into account in deciding issues of custody and access. In access cases, the magnitude of the risk may be less if the order in contemplation is supervised access. Even in such a case, however, there may be a risk of disturbance to a child who is compulsorily brought into contact with a parent who has sexually abused her or whom the child believes to have sexually abused her. But that is not the issue in this case.

Efforts to define with greater precision the magnitude of the risk which will justify a court in denying a parent access to a child have resulted in a variety of formulations. The degree of risk has been described as a “risk of serious harm” (A. v. A. [1976] VicRp 24; (1976) V.R. 298 at p. 300), “an element of risk” or “an appreciable risk” (M and M(1987) FLC 91-830 at pp. 76,240-76,242; (1987) 11 Fam L.R. 765 at pp. 770 and 771 respectively), “a real possibility” (B and B [Access] (1986) FLC 91-758 at p. 75,545), a “real risk” (Leveque v. Leveque (1983) 54 B.C.L.R. 164 at p. 167), and an “unacceptable risk” (In re G. (a minor) (1987) 1 W.L.R. 1461 at p. 1469). This imposing array indicates that the courts are striving for a greater degree of definition than the subject is capable of yielding. In devising these tests the courts have endeavoured, in their efforts to protect the child’s paramount interests, to achieve a balance between the risk of detriment to the child from sexual abuse and the possibility of benefit to the child from parental access. To achieve a proper balance, the test is best expressed by saying that a court will not grant custody or access to a parent if that custody or access would expose the child to an unacceptable risk of sexual abuse.”

455. And:

456. In W and W (Abuse allegations: unacceptable risk) [2005] FamCA 892; (2005) FLC 93-235 the Full Court (Warnick, May and Boland JJ) discussed the issue of “the unacceptable risk test” and in so doing reviewed a number of cases determined after M and M. Their Honours at paragraph 111 noted:

In summary, the law is well settled as to the standard of proof required to make a positive finding of sexual abuse, and that such a finding should not be made unless a trial Judge is satisfied to the highest standard, on the balance of probabilities abuse has occurred. We accept, as a matter of practice, a trial Judge will almost inevitably be required in a case where sexual abuse allegations are raised to consider whether abuse has been proven on the balance of probabilities as well as considering whether or not an unacceptable risk of abuse exists. The High Court in M and M recognised the difficulty in defining with any degree of precision what constitutes an “unacceptable risk” and the cases determined after that decision testify to the difficulty. However, the questions posed by Fogarty J in N and S, and referred to by us in paragraph 105, do provide a structure or framework which may assist a trial Judge to assess future risks to a child.

457. Two recent decisions of the Full Court have again examined the question of unacceptable risk. In Napier v Hepburn [2006] FamCA 1316; (2006) FLC 93-303; (2006) 36 Fam LR 395 the majority (Bryant CJ and Kay J with whom Warnick J agreed in upholding the appeal), by implication, approved passages from Fogarty J’s discussion in N and S (1996) FLC 92-655 at 82,713 which are as follows:

One of the difficulties which arises in the application of these principles is in seeking to preserve an independent content to the notion of ‘unacceptable risk’. Though the purpose behind the notion is to assist a court in determining what is in the child’s best interests, the importance of asking the question separately lies in its specific guidance to courts faced with the difficulties which cases of sexual abuse raise. There is a danger that it will be treated just as an expression which must be ritually used in judgments which involve questions of sexual abuse, but given no substantive meaning or weight. It is easy to say that there is or is not an unacceptable risk of sexual abuse, and so to be seen to be applying the correct legal test. Those words seem sometimes to be used without an appropriate degree of consideration.

Because it may be said that in every case there is, at least in theory, a risk of harm, it is inevitable that courts will have to make some effort to quantify the relevant risk. In S and S, [1993] NZFLR 657] Thomas J addressed the difficulty involved here. At 670 his Honour said:

“Qualifying words such as ‘unacceptable’, ‘real’, ‘serious’ or ‘appreciable’ are merely methods of expressing the fact that the risk has a foundation in the evidence which is incompatible with the welfare of the child.

In the Court of Appeal, [[1994] NZFLR 26] Gallen J, Cooke P and Hardie Boys J agreeing, said at 33-4:

“It is in the assessment of the risk that the difficulties arise. The cases all indicate that it is not ‘any degree of risk’ which is sufficient and various adjectives have been used to indicate the degree of risk which can justify appropriate action on the part of the courts. The four most commonly used adjectives are ‘unacceptable, real, serious or appreciable’. None are particularly helpful and discussion of them tends to degenerate into a matter of semantics. The judge in this case indicated that they were merely methods of expressing the fact that the risk has a foundation in the evidence which is incompatible with the welfare of the child. While at first sight that is a helpful formulation, the same difficulties arise in determining what kind of foundation is necessary and what kind of risk can properly be said to be incompatible with the welfare of the child.

In the end I doubt whether a court can go beyond saying that there must be actual evidence which at the very least gives rise to the conclusion that behaviour may have occurred or may occur which has had or could have deleterious effects on the child concerned. It must be more than mere conjecture and need not go as far as the proof which would justify a conviction. From that it will be seen that there are two emphases to be kept in mind. The first is the foundation from which the conclusion may be drawn and the second and by far the more important, is the effect which can rationally be predicted on the child. In considering the whole matter as the judge points out, it is necessary to bear in mind the serious consequences which can occur to a child if he or she is subjected to behaviour which is inappropriate in this area.

Thus, the essential importance of the unacceptable risk question as I see it is in its direction to judges to give real and substantial consideration to the facts of the case, and to decide whether or not, and why or why not, those facts could be said to raise an unacceptable risk of harm to the child. Thus, the value of the expression is not in a magical provision of an appropriate standard, but in its direction to judges to consider deeply where the facts of the particular case fall, and to explain adequately their findings in this regard.

In asking whether the facts of the case do establish an unacceptable risk the court will often be required to ask such questions as: What is the nature of the events alleged to have taken place? Who has made the allegations? To whom have the allegations been made? What level of detail do they involve? Over what period of time have the allegations been made? Over what period of time are the events alleged to have occurred? What are the effects Exhibited by the child? What is the basis of the allegations? Are the allegations reasonably based? Are the allegations genuinely believed by the person making them? What expert evidence has been provided? Are there satisfactory explanations of the allegations apart from sexual abuse? What are the likely future effects on the child?

This is not a catalogue of the correct questions, but a reminder that it is questions such as these which are required to be considered in deciding whether an unacceptable risk may be shown. The weight to be attached to the various answers to the relevant questions will inevitably vary from case to case. But it is essential that questions like these be asked.

In answering the unacceptable risk question the court must undertake a qualitative analysis. For instance, that determination cannot appropriately be made through a process which counts the number of considerations which favour access, and those which militate against access, and then asks on which side the balance falls. Rather, the essential weight must be attached to the magnitude of the harm to which the risk relates. The notion of ‘unacceptable risk’ must be assessed in light of the grave consequences of sexual abuse to a child’s development, as well as the effects of future contact with the party. As Thomas J said at 670:

“In assessing whether the risk is unacceptable, the court is not merely evaluating the risk that sexual abuse between the parent and child will occur. Inherent in the risk to the child are the potentially severe and destructive consequences of sexual abuse should it in fact occur. These potentially ruinous consequences do not need repeating. The probability of lasting emotional and psychological damage to the child, generally becoming acute during adolescence, is well-documented.”

Against this background, the resolution of any allegation itself is what the High Court at 12 Fam LR 610; [1988] FLC 77,080 termed ‘subservient and ancillary to the court’s determination of what is in the best interests of the child’. This recognises that sexual abuse is not a matter which lends itself to convenient characterisation in traditional evidentiary terms, such as may be appropriate for more public and easily detectable offences. Though ‘the court should not make a positive finding that the allegation is true unless the court is so satisfied according to the civil standard of proof’, to require such a finding as a prerequisite to satisfaction of the unacceptable risk test would make no allowance for the reality and nature of sexual abuse or the essential task of the court — the promotion of the welfare of the child. The High Court has emphatically rejected such an approach.

In M v Y, [[1994] NZFLR 1] Hardie Boys J (Cooke P and Gallen J agreeing), warned against the danger of allowing a resolution of the allegations to overwhelm the issue at 8:

“It is all too easy — and it is understandable — where an allegation of gross misconduct towards the child is levelled at a parent, for the focus to shift from the welfare of the child to the truth of the allegation. Its truth will doubtless be very important in an assessment of the child’s welfare, but it will not always be crucial. But for the accused parent, most particularly if the accusation is false, its refutation may seem essential; while the accuser, firmly believing it, may see it as essential to sheet it home. Along the way, it is easy to lose sight of the child, innocently caught up in the midst of the strife.”

If the court is able to make a balance of probabilities finding that sexual abuse has taken place, that finding will have a powerful, often decisive, bearing on any contemplated orders. But an inability to be so satisfied will not have such an effect. The court must still ask the ‘unacceptable risk’ question. An example of this is Thomas J’s approach at 681-2:

“I do not consider that it has been established on the balance of probabilities having regard to the seriousness of the allegations that Mr S sexually abused his son. But I am not prepared, Temm J’s decision in Y v M notwithstanding, to make a finding, applying the same standard of proof, that Mr S did not sexually abuse his son. Whether one likes it or not, the answer to that question remains uncertain, and it is that uncertainty which must be taken into account in determining what is in L’s best interests.”

This is not to suggest that there is a two-step approach which must be followed, but a reminder that the failure to be satisfied of the occurrence of sexual abuse on the balance of probabilities does not of itself answer the question whether an unacceptable risk can be said to exist. There is no requirement to ask whether the evidence satisfies a balance of probabilities finding in favour of abuse, though that may nevertheless be useful in some cases. There is, however, a requirement to ask whether the evidence establishes an unacceptable risk. [Full Court’s emphasis]

458. Also potentially relevant to the issues raised in this appeal are Warnick J’s comments in his separate judgment in Napier v Hepburn, which were adopted with approval by the Full Court in Potter v Potter (2007) FamCA 350. His Honour said:

I also wish to add some comment on what I perceive as a further goal of fulsome discussion by a trial judge of the component aspects that may, in any given case, lead to a conclusion of “unacceptable risk” of harm to a child. That goal is to provide a platform, for any future consideration of the family’s circumstances. Once a finding of unacceptable risk is made, imperfect though the process that leads to that result may be, the finding can come down between parent and child like an iron gate, that no subsequent efforts can raise. At least a close examination of the steps leading to a finding of “unacceptable risk” can illuminate paths by which a family (or a court making decisions for a family) might subsequently explore options for change. (paragraph 114)

459. In his recent paper entitled ‘Unacceptable risk – A return to basics’ the Hon. John Fogarty A.M. set out his summary of the principles emerging from M and M as follows:

(a) The decisive issue is and always remains the best interests of that child.

(b) All other issues are subservient.

(c)The nature of the risk is best expressed by the term ‘unacceptable risk’. It is an evaluation of the nature and degree of the risk and whether, with or without safeguards, it is acceptable.

(d) Where past abuse of a child is alleged it is usually neither necessary nor desirable to reach a definitive conclusion on that issue. Where, however, that is done the Briginshaw civil standard of proof applies.

(e) The circumstance, if it be so, that the allegation of past abuse is not proved in accordance with Briginshaw, does not impede reliance upon those circumstances in determining whether there is an unacceptable risk.

(f) The concentration in these cases should normally be upon the question whether there is an unacceptable risk to the child.

(g) The onus of proof in reaching that conclusion is the ordinary civil standard.

(h) But the components which go to make up that conclusion need not each be established on the balance of probabilities. The court may reach a conclusion of unacceptable risk from the accumulation of factors, none or some only of which, are proved to that standard.

and thereafter expanded some points contained in the summary”

There must be actual evidence which at the very least gives rise to the conclusion that behaviour may have occurred or may occur which has had or could have deleterious effects on the child concerned. It must be more than mere conjecture.

By reference to the above discussion of evidence I am not satisfied that an unacceptable risk to these children or either of them has been established as regards Ms Proctor. I do not accept that she has assaulted either child or either of their now adult siblings.
There is and thankfully has not been in these proceedings, any allegation of sexual abuse.
I am satisfied that the parents jointly and severally have exposed these children to family violence (and in that regard the apportionment of culpability is of little assistance, although to the extent that such a task might be undertaken Mr Proctor is, I am satisfied, more culpable for the perpetration of family violence and the children’s exposure to it).
The video evidence that was produced by Mr Proctor (and subsequently destroyed by him, I am satisfied, when it was made manifestly clear to him that it did not assist his case and, in fact, caused some significant disadvantage to his case) depicts these children present during significant family conflict and, I am satisfied, behaviour within the section 4AB definition of family violence. The fact that the children appeared so familiar with that behaviour, such that it appeared common place and without reaction or the need for reaction by them, is disturbing in itself.
I accept the evidence of the Family Consultant that these children have been exposed to family violence and that it has had a significant impact upon them particularly emotionally. The evidence, as it stands, does not permit me to make a finding that the children have or would suffer serious psychological harm such as to found a finding of abuse within the section 4definition in the Act.
There is, in this case, also a serious issue regarding the children’s neglect. Neglect is not a term that is defined within the Act. It might well be argued that a failure to protect, preserve and facilitate the child’s right to a relationship with each parent (as the principles provide for) could constitute “neglect”. However, it is not necessary for me to pursue the issue further as there are alternate means of addressing the issues in dispute in this case.
I have real concerns as to the children’s welfare in the future particularly in light of the clear evidence that Mr Proctor lacks any insight into the role that he plays in undermining the children’s relationship with their mother and, in so doing, causing serious emotional distress to these children. That most certainly constitutes a risk to these children although, in all probability, falling short (although only just), of that required by the case law discussed above to justify a finding of “unacceptable risk”.
The father’s attitude towards the mother and the children’s relationship with the mother is particularly concerning especially the revelation of the father’s real behaviour manifested in the father’s actions 9 January 2015. That Mr Proctor would, on the one hand, give evidence to this Court, including during his oral evidence whilst cross-examined, that he actively supports and encourages the children’s relationship with the mother when he has, on the other hand, made statements to the children, whilst delivering them to their mother at a Police Station, such as “she is not your mother” and “she is the enemy”, is a breathtaking failure to demonstrate either insight or truthfulness.
I am not satisfied that Mr Proctor has any capacity to develop insight into the children’s need for a relationship with their mother or the relative absence of risk posed by his perception of the mother as against the reality of real risk to their welfare constituted by his behaviour towards the children.

Your passionate team of family lawyers

Let’s work out your next steps together. Book your free consultation to start the process.

Or call us on 1300 365 108

Blog

Unacceptable risk