Judge awarded visitation to father who allegedly strangled child and beat mother

"The relationship between the parents has been marked by significant conflict," the review notes.

"The mother alleges a history of domestic abuse and coercive control. The father denies those allegations, save that he acknowledges that he has been convicted of a series of breaches of a safety order.

"Further allegations said to have been made by the child concern the father. These include an allegation that the father put his hands around the child’s throat. The father denies those allegations."

An expert report in 2025 recorded that the child, who is now 14, expressed a wish not to have fixed access days and to be allowed to decide when to see her father.

"She expressed concern that her father would learn what she had said and question her about it. She described her father as aggressive in the manner in which he spoke to others and said that she found him frightening," the review said.

The judge directed that the father see the child every second Saturday. In her comments, the judge said she did not care about the protection order and made a facetious remark to the effect that the father was “not going to come out and beat the head off” the mother.

It was alleged that the District Court failed to comply with the constitutional and statutory obligation to ascertain the child’s views and give them due weight.

"The District Court judge made a series of statements during the hearing, the timing of which gave rise to an objective appearance that the judge had reached conclusions on important disputed issues prior to hearing all of the evidence," the review found.

The review notes the judge's "sarcastic" reference to the “sainted mother”, statements that the mother had brought the child to her deteriorating mental condition and should be ashamed of herself.

The judge also described the parents as “bad parents” .

At one point, the judge noted the child was having to deal with “this shit”, immediately attributing responsibility to the mother and directing her not to nod at the court. The mother was later directed to sit down because the judge was “done” with her.

Following the father’s evidence, the judge described the mother’s face as “a mask of utter hatred”, adding that this “tells me something”, and stated that the mother was now “under the spotlight”.

A judicial review pubished recently found the hearing was "fundamentally flawed" and the ruling was quashed and the protection order reinstated.

The Right to Transparency campaign, who represent mothers and others who feel they have been unfairly treated in family court, welcomes the judgment.

"The judgment shines a light on issues within the family court system that our campaign has long been trying to bring into public conversation," a spokesperson said.