A “family report” was prepared in 2005 by Court employed “mediator” Paul Lodge. He is apparently regarded as something of a guru within the Court because he had written a paper and given a speech at an international conference on the subject of “child alienation” from one parent. He thus had a predisposition to try to both protect and enhance his reputation by fitting as many cases as possible into this intellectual framework.
Under cross-examination, Lodge said: “The intense and chronic conflict between the parents has began to erode whatever attachment there was between Jeff and ‘A’, as is entirely predictable given her age and intensity of the conflict”.
This was despite an affidavit prepared by a women at ‘A’s Rose Bay Primary after-school care centre who wrote: “In the afternoons when Jeff comes to collect ‘A’ she always runs up to him to meet him when she sees him and she will not let him talk to staff members or even sign her out. She often says during the course of the afternoon when Jeff is picking her up, in an exited tone: ‘Daddy’s picking me up this afternoon; Daddy’s picking me up this afternoon.”
Lodge claimed that ‘A’ “would not suffer serious consequences if she were not permitted to see Jeff again”, saying that “observations of ‘A’ with Jeff suggested that the relationship was not affectionate”.
During the case Jeff again attempted to have the Court take note of the views and concerns of ‘A’s 17 year-old sister. Unlike Dr. Qadrio in the first Family Law Court case, Lodge refused to talk to the older sister who had witnessed Avigail’s violence. Suzanne Christie, acting as part of the “child representative” team said to Jeff: “She’s 17, she’ll move on.” While Avigail did cross-examine one of Jeff’s affidavit witnesses, the “child representative team” did not cross-examine any of them. They thus waited in vain outside the court room.
Jeff’s affidavit to the Family Court referred to two incidents. ‘A’ had refused to go with him one day when he went to collect her from her mother, saying: “I’m sick and I want to stay with Mummy”. The next time Jeff had contact with ‘A’ when he picked her up from school she was very happy to see him, and eventually said:
“I’m sorry for what I said.”
In reply Jeff said: “It’s alright. Just remember that I love you very much.”
In a subsequent conversation. ‘A’ said to Jeff: “You are a good daddy. But it’s a secret.”
Jeff: “Why is it a secret?”
‘A’: “Don’t tell Mummy. She hates you. She will smack me.”
Justice O’Ryan in 2002 – and Dr. Quadrio – had recognized that Avigail was violent, but Lodge had no interest in pursuing such possible facts. In his mind, the only think that mattered was his own superior judgement base on limited conversations and his theories of “child alienation”.
During the Court case, Avigail presented a number of documents. In was in pursuit of the origins of one of these documents which purported to offer overseas employment to the mother’s new husband that Jeff sought to subpoena the supposed author, a Sydney based man. It was only at the very end of the day in Court (about 4pm) that Justice Steele agreed to the subpoena — which Jeff then had to prepare — while declaring that he would not admit any testimony by this man unless Jeff could have this man in Court the first thing (9.30am) next morning.
When next morning Jeff informed the Judge that he had managed to deliver the subpoena, Steele pointedly said: “I didn’t think that you would make it.” Appearing in Court, the man said he was not the author and there was no job offer.
In addition to this document, Avigail submitted affidavits from people saying that they thought Jeff was dangerous and a threat to the welfare of ‘A’. These also turned out to be forgeries.
The new husband of Avigail served nearly four years in a NSW prison in the late mid-1990’s for fraud, and had previously been charged with similar offences in Canada and Queensland — and it emerged in the Family Court that he was still actively using three different names on various personal and business documentation!
In his final judgement, Steele said that he had no choice but to indicate in his final decision that “she knowingly put forward the affidavit said to be that of Mr. … which was not signed by him and an affidavit of Ms. … not sworn by her.” In his judgement, Steel wrote that Avigail “was an unsatisfactory witness. She appeared to present as someone who was uncertain and lacking in confidence and knowledge but seemed acute to any nuances which would assist the version of events which she was putting forward”.
In his final judgement on 4 May 2005, Steele said Avigail could take ‘A’ overseas subject to a “payment of a $20,000 bond into a joint account of Avigail and Jeff”. He said that if Avigail were permitted to take ‘A’ overseas, he would “not expect Jeff to make significant efforts either in terms of time or money to see her”.
When Jeff asked for a stay order so he could prepare and lodge an appeal document, Steele refused the request and said he would only grant this after the appeal was lodged. When Jeff objected that “they could leave straight away”, Steele said: “Probably. You better hurry up and get your appeal in”.
“Child representatives” Jane Saltoon and Suzanne Christie said nothing in response to this. With help of a barrister Jeff lodged an appeal order on 6 May. After explaining the urgency of the application to registry staff one of them went away and returned saying that he had spoken directly with Steele who refused to hear the issue before 19 May.
Oblivious to all this, on Wednesday 18 May Jeff went to pick up ‘A’ from an after school dance class and was told that she was not there. He was eventually able to determine that ‘A’ had not been at school that day and that the mother had earlier told a friend that she was going to Russia. In a panic, Jeff rang the Family Court only to have Joanne Chayna — a third member of the supposedly “independent” child representative team — answer the phone!
It later emerged that Avigail had taken Steele’s orders to Federal Police on 9 May. A policewomen rang Steele’s associate who confirmed that the O’Ryan imposed PASS order preventing ‘A’ leaving Australia no longer applied — and they left Australia!
Jane Saltoon later suggested to Jeff that Steele had “intentionally” frustrated his efforts to lodge an appeal, and thus allowed Avigail to take ‘A’ overseas — and thus avoid both paying a $20,000 bond and a perjury charge. Saltoon later seems to have regretted her (in her own words) “went along with it” attitude as she described it to Jeff in a later telephone conversation.
It is worth noting that after Jeff had faxed a copy of Steele’s May 2005 reasons for judgement to Dr. Quadrio (the psychiatrist who produced the Family Report when the issue was before Justice O’Ryan in 2002), she rang him and said that she was willing to make an exception to her normal rule and become re-involved in this case if it was legally possible. She indicated that she was not impressed with Lodge’s assessment.
The video below was recorded the day AFTER the Court decided that the relationship between Jeff and Anastasia was “not affectionate”.