A Canberra judge surprised a number of Australians yesterday when he ordered that a four-year-old boy have visitation with his violent, drug-taking father.
Federal Circuit Court judge Warwick Neville decided that the boy should spend at least two hours a fortnight with his father at a supervised contact centre.
The boy’s father, known to the courts as Mr Tierney, originally wanted much more time with his son, and had been fighting the courts to accomplish this. He had requested that the boy be allowed to stay with him every second weekend and every Tuesday following school. By comparison what the judge acquiesced to might seem slight, but considering the father’s history it remains a surprise.
In the past, Mr Tierney has shown on several occasions that he may not be the best caregiver for his child. He tested positive for both methylamphetamine and a prescription painkiller called Endone (also called “hillbilly heroin”), but openly denied using them in court. He also threatened his former partner with a shotgun, serving jail time for the offence, and threatening to slit his own throat. However, Mr Tierney maintains that he wasn’t threatening to shoot his partner, but rather himself. Additionally, on two previous occasions Mr Tierney also took his son without consent, and left the state.
Given all of this, it’s unusual that the courts allow him to see his son at all, let alone at a contact centre where staff might not be prepared to deal with an angry father with a weapon and a grudge against his ex-partner. The judge noted that Mr Tierney’s past guaranteed that the visitations would be supervised, and said that these were interim orders until the report from the court-appointed psychiatrist was prepared.
There hasn’t been a statement from the mother of the boy at present about what she thinks about the situation, but leading child protection advocate Hetty Johnston from Bravehearts said these situations were all too common. She said that many mothers felt pressure to agree to the orders of the court, even if they didn’t think it was the best thing for their child. They worry that by not agreeing, they will be seen negatively as trying to hurt the other parent.
“These are parents who want to protect their children from clearly dangerous partners, who are being advised by their own legal representation, because of the way the system currently works, to make decisions that are not in the best interests of their own children.”
At the moment there’s no way of knowing how Mr Tierney will act in the future, but there have been tragic cases in the past that suggest the courts are not always right. These include a 17-year-old girl in WA who was court ordered to spend time with her father, a convicted pedophile, before she committed suicide. These situations are clearly not best for the child involved, and more thought might need to be given to their safety, instead of the wants of the parent.
*Featured picture is a stock image
Have your say!