Samoa Victim Support Group v Falealili [2014] WSFC 2 (18 September 2014)

Family Court of Samoa

Samoa Victim Support Group v Falealili [2014] WSFC 2

Case name: Samoa Victim Support Group v Vaa Asotasi Falealili, Sofara Finau and Fetu Tavita

Citation: [2014] WSFC 2

Decision date: 18^th September.

Parties:
SAMOA VICTIM SUPPORT GROUP on behalf of S F of Tanugamanono, child v VAA ASOTASI FALEALILI, male of Tanugamanono, SOFARA FINAU, male of Tanugamanono and FETU TAVITA, female of Tanugamanono.

Hearing date(s): 20 August 2014

File number(s): Misc706/14

Jurisdiction: Family Court

Place of delivery: Mulinuu

Judge(s): DCJ Tuala-Warren

On appeal from:

Order:

Representation:
Samoa Victim Support for SF
Accused in person

Catchwords: Sexual abuse” ‘Intimidation’

Words and phrases:

Legislation cited:
Family Safety Act 2013 s5, s5 (3)(b) Infants Ordinance 1961 s3, s4(2),s16, s7(1),s2

Cases cited:

Summary of decision:

IN THE FAMILY COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

In the Matter of the Family Safety Act 2013

BETWEEN:

SAMOA VICTIM SUPPORT GROUP on behalf of SF of Tanugamanono, child

Applicant

AND:

VAA ASOTASI FALEALILI, male of Tanugamanono, SOFARA FINAU, male of Tanugamanono, FETU TAVITA, female of Tanugamanono

Respondents

Representatives: Samoa Victim Support Group for SF
Accused in person

Hearing: 20 August 2014

Decision: 30 September 2014

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE TUALA-WARREN

1. On 1 August 2014, the Samoa Victim Support Group (SVSG) (the applicant) applied pursuant to section 5 of the Family Safety Act 2013 for an interim protection order on behalf of a 5 year old in their care, S.F, of Tanugamanono (the complainant).
   
2. The interim protection order was against her mother Fetu Tavita and her partner Sofara Finau and mother’s uncle, Asotasi Vaa Falealili, all of whom live at Tanugamanono as well.
   
3. All of the Respondents oppose the making of a Final protection Order, hence this hearing. None were represented by Counsel.
   
4. By way of background SVSG became involved as a result of S having been brought to them by the Police for shelter on 17 October 2013, that being the day Vaa appeared in the Supreme Court on a charge of indecent assault in relation to S, reduced to common assault to which he pleaded guilty. He was ultimately sentenced to time already served of 10 weeks imprisonment.
   
5. Following Vaa’s appearance on 17 October 2013, the Police had serious concerns about S returning home because they considered her mother and step father were not protective of her, in that they knew Vaa was sexually abusing her, took no steps to prevent it and indeed counselled S not to speak of it.
   
6. Although there is no formal application before the Court concerning the custody of S, section 3 of the Infants Ordinance 1961 (the Ordinance) says that where in any proceeding in any Court the custody or upbringing of a child is in question, the Court shall regard the welfare of the child as the first and paramount importance.
   
7. Essentially this case is also one concerning the custody of S. Under section 4(2) of the Ordinance if it appears to the Court that the parents of a child are unfit to have custody and upbringing of the child, the Court may appoint some other person to be its guardian and may make such order regarding its custody and upbringing and the right to access of either parent to such child as the Court seems fit.
   
8. Section 16 of the Ordinance allows the Court to make an order for the committal of any child living in an environment detrimental to its physical or moral well-being, to the care of a Child Welfare Officer. There has never been a Child Welfare Officer appointed but by default SVSG has filled this important role. There is no question that SVSG has taken care of many children and it is an organisation which is vital in Samoa where there are no child protection shelters. However it is equally important that once SVSG have the custody of any child, they apply to the Court for guardianship orders, unless they have the consent of the natural parents of the child.
   
9. Given that the custody of S is at issue, it is important for the court to ascertain her views and that should be done in a safe environment which will not be intimidating. I decided that I should speak to S in chambers in the presence of two court registrars.
   

The allegations

10. This case concerns allegations of sexual abuse by Vaa against S at a time when S and her parents were living next door to Vaa. S’s parents now live with Vaa and there is also an allegation that if she is returned to that environment, she is at risk of being sexually assaulted by Vaa.
    
11. There is an allegation of intimidation by Sofara of S in order to cover up what Vaa is alleged to have done to S. Because Fetu and Sofara are still living with Vaa, the applicant therefore asserts that if S returns to her parents, they will not protect her from Vaa.
    
12. Allegations against Fetu and Sofara is that they knew about the sexual abuse by Vaa on S and stopped her from reporting it.
    
13. Vaa has denied sexually abusing S. Sofara and Fetu want to take S home and also vehemently deny Vaa sexually assaulting S or them trying to cover this up. Home for them is back to Vaa’s home.
    

The hearing

14. At the hearing on 20 August 2014, the Court heard evidence in support of the application from the President of SVSG, Mrs Lina Chang, a case officer of SVSG, Niuatua Onesemo, Sefulu Hermanns and Sootuli Ulugia who are Vaa’s sisters, Naitua Tupuola Sanerivi (who is Vaa’s cousin), Constable Kuinisitivi Tofaeono, and Constable Vitolino Niko.
    
15. The Respondents all gave evidence.
    
16. I have determined that a final protection order is necessary to protect S. I now give my reasons.
    

Evidence to support the Application

17. SVSG was first informed of the matter by way of letter dated 25 July 2013 on 1 July 2013 by Sefulu Hermanns who is Vaa’s sister.
    
18. Sefulu Hermanns lives in Wellington, New Zealand and has been a teacher for over 50 years.
    
19. Sefulu gave evidence that last year some time when she was visiting Samoa, Vaa took S to visit her at Fasitoo. When Vaa was not around, Sefulu said she spoke to S and S told her that ‘ga kakala e Vaa lou ofu vae tago i lau pi ma etoeto’. Sefulu got scared as Vaa had a history of sexual abuse of younger girls. So when she got back to New Zealand, she sought help from the New Zealand Police and was told to call SVSG.
    
20. Sefulu disclosed that Vaa had a long history of sexually abusing family members. Their 15 year old niece, also named Sefulu had a baby to him as well as his own daughter who had four children to him. Furthermore, he was imprisoned for the rape of his other daughter, Julie.
    
21. Sefulu produced a print out of California Sex Offender Archive Record for Vaa Asotasi Falealili with a photo of Vaa. The record listed his offence as Rape by Force/Fear/Etc.
    
22. Sootuli Ulugia is a counsellor and is also Vaa’s sister. She supported Sefulu’s testimony. She testified as to his history with young girls and pleaded with the Court not to release S. She said that as a counsellor she determines Vaa is a paedophile. She said S needs to be protected from Vaa.
    
23. Naitua Tupuola Sanerivi is Vaa’s cousin. She has lived at Tanugamanono opposite Vaa with her brother Tavita since coming to Samoa in April 2014. However when she travelled over early in 2013, she observed while living with Tavita, Fetu, Sofara and S how Fetu sends S to Vaa’s house every day for money or food. She spoke to Fetu about sending S to Vaa alone for food or money.
    
24. Naitua’s concern is because Vaa raped Sefulu who is her sister and Sefulu gave birth to Vaa’s child at 14 years old. She says S needs protection from Vaa as he is sick.
    
25. Constable Kuinisitivi Tofaeono took S’s statement on 23 July 2013. Fetu was present at the interview as evidenced by her signature at the bottom of the statement. The pertinent parts of the statement are as follows:
    

24. F: Na fai atu se isi ia oe aua nei taua le mean a fai e Vaa ia oe?

T: I

25. F:O ai na fai atu ia oe e aua nei taua i leoleo le mean a tupu ia oe ma Vaa?

T: O lou kiga o Fetu

28. F:O lea le mean a tupu ia oe ma Vaa?

T: Ga kago Vaa kakala lalo lou panty ma le ofuae au ma kilokilo i le pi a au ma kago loa oloolo laga lima e kasii le pi a au, uma loa kago mikimiki laga lima ma koe oloolo i le pi a au

31: F:O le a le mea a Vaa na fai i lau pi?

T: Na tano lana lima e kasi oloolo i le pi a au koe kago mikimiki lana lima e kasi ma koe kuu ma ii lau pi

34. F: O lea la le mea a oe na fai i le taimi na fai e Vaa le mea ia oe?

T: Ga kagi au ga fefe ia Vaa

38. F: Na ita la oe ia Vaa i le tago i lau pi?

T: I laga ua kiga le pi a au

43. F: O fea le mea ga kagokago ai Vaa i lau pi?

T: O laga fale

44. F: o laga fale if ea?

T: O laga fale gakai kaunamanono

45. F: Aisea le mea e ita ai oe ia Vaa?

T: Laga e kago fua kago i lau pi

46. F: E toe fia alu la oe ui le fale o Vaa?

T: Leai, soia

47. F: E soia e a?

T: Ua ou ika ai

51. F: O ai na e taua iai le mea a Vaa na fai ia oe?

T: O Feku

52. F: Na faamasino la oe e Fetu i le mea a Vaa na fai ia oe?

T: I

26. Constable Tofaeono said that her concern was the safety of S and supported her being kept away from the Respondents at SVSG shelter. However she did admit that S’s relationship with her mother Fetu is close.
    
27. Constable Vitolina Niko also interviewed S on 31 July 2014. Fetu was also present at that interview as evidenced by her signature at the bottom of the statement as well as Tugaga Stowers, a police officer. The pertinent parts of the interview are as follows:

F: O e manatua se mea na tupu ia te oe?

T: Ia, luelue mai le ulu

F: Tago e faamatala mai le mean a tupu?

T: Ga kago ia Vaa, kakala lou ofuvae, kago laia kakala ma lou panty, ga kago loa laia i lalo o lou pi ma kago ai loa mikimiki.

F: Ia ona a laia?

T: Ga foi ia Vaa ma kuu mai loga laulaufaiva i ou susu

F: Baby o lea sa fai mai sa kago ia Vaa kakala lou ofuae. E faafefea ga kakala e Vaa lou ofuae?

T: Ga kago oga lima e lua koso i lalo lou ofuae ma lou panty.

F:Baby o lea sa e fai main a tago ia Vaa i lau pi ma tago foi mitimiti. E faafefea na fai e Vaa lea mea ia te oe?

T: Ga kago mai le lima kusi o Vaa oloolo lau pi, uma loa kago e kuu i loga guku

F:Fina, o lea sa e fai mai sa kago ia Vaa mikimiki lau pi, e faafefea na fai lena mea?

T: E lei kago kuu le guku i lau pi ae kago loga lima oloolo lau pi, kago loa i le kuu i loga guku

F: O lea le la taimi na tago ai ia Vaa i ou susu?

T: Uma loa kago i lau pi, kago loa ua kakala lou ofualuga, kago loa ekoeko solo ou susu

F: E faafefea na tago ia Vaa etoeto ou susu?

T: Ga pugou mai loga guku i luma i ou susu ae faifai i loga laulaufaiva.

F: E iai la se isi mea na fai?

T: Ga kago loa laia kuu i luga ou lima ae sogisogi mai ou aoao

F: Ao fea na tago ai Vaa ia oe?

T: O le fale

F: O le fale if ea?

T: Tanugamanono

F: O Tanugamanono ia ai?

T: O le fale o Vaa

F: Ao lea le mean a le tautala ai oe ina ua fesili atu le Fa’amasino ia te oe?

T:Laga o lae sa iai Vaa i kokogu o le poku sa fai ai le Faamasigoga

F: E iai se isi mean a le tautala ai oe?

T: Laga o lae sa faasa au e lale ia

F: O ai lale ia lea e fai mai ai oe?

T: O Sofala

F: Sa fai mai e a Sofala ia oe?

T: Fai mai e aua gei kaua le mea valea a Vaa sa fai mai ia au pe a fesili mai le Faamasigo

F: E isi se isi tala na fai atu ai Sofala ia oe?

T: Fai mai e aua gei ou kaukala, ao lou kiga e lei fai mai ia ke au.

F: O le a le tala a lou tina na fai atu ia oe?

T: Fai mai e aua gei ou usikai i lou kama

28. Constable Niko is in the Sexual Crimes Squad of Police. Her evidence is that S needs to remain with SVSG for her safety from Vaa, as her parents are living with Vaa.
    
29. The President of SVSG Lina Chang gave evidence that S was referred to her by the Police for S’s protection. S is a happy child and loves her mother. She said that over 200 children have been through SVSG and it is a safe and happy environment for them. She is concerned about the family environment into which S will be returned. For the foreseeable future, S will be sheltered at SVSG and attend school.
    

Evidence of the Respondents

Asotasi Vaa Falealili

30. Vaa gave evidence that the charge of indecent assault against him was dismissed in the Supreme Court and denies sexually abusing S. His firm belief is that this application has arisen as a result of his differences with his sister and S is caught in the middle.
    
31. He admits he was imprisoned in the USA but says it was for 6 months. He said the reason for the imprisonment was irrelevant. He says he loves S and is concerned that she looked skinny and scared when he saw her from outside the SVSG gate.
    
32. His evidence was a blanket denial of everything we heard in Court today, from his previous history of sexual offending as told by his sisters and cousin to what he is alleged to have done to S.
    
33. His evidence is that his sisters and cousin have fabricated this story and his bad reputation because they want to be ‘matai’ of their family. He says that the Sex Offenders record was created by Sefulu and/or her children.
    

Sofara Finau

34. Sofara is S’s stepfather. He married Fetu when S was 9 months old and says that he loves her truly as his own daughter.
    
35. Sofara said that this matter arose from a dispute between Vaa and his sisters. Once he heard about what the sisters were saying about Vaa, he encouraged Vaa to take S alone so that he could provoke Vaa’s sisters. He always sends S and her little cousin William to Vaa and allowed Vaa to take S with him in the car alone.
    
36. He said that he smacks S when she is naughty and hits Fetu when she nags him.
    

Fetu Tavita

37. Fetu was clearly emotional and wants her daughter home with her. She is the one who stayed home with S while Sofara went to work. She says that nothing happened between Vaa and S and she can see clearly into Vaa’s house when S and her cousin go to visit Vaa.
    
38. 38. Fetu believes S should be at home with her.
    
39. In relation to being at the interviews of S by the Police, she says she signed the statements but was not present.
    
40. She says she does not know of Vaa’s history of sexual offending and her intention is that they will live with Vaa indefinitely as she cannot move back to her father Tavita’s home as her aunty Naitua chased them away.
    

Interview with S F.

41. On 20 August 2014 I spoke to S in chambers in the presence of Court Registrar Sini Leaupepe and Deputy Registrar Faatasi Puleiata. She was active and a very happy child. She asked about all the photos I had and she told me about her school and what she did today.
    
42. We spoke at length about her school and she told me that she liked being with Lina. She liked her school at SVSG and did fun things at school. She liked staying at SVSG and had nice food there. She also had many friends who she named.
    
43. S told me that she loved her mother but that she did not like Vaa because he was a bad man who should be locked up. When I asked her further she confirmed her statements to the Police namely that he opened her panty and touched her vagina. Then he licked his fingers. Vaa told her not to tell anyone what he did or else he would call the Police. She told her mother what Vaa did and her mother told her not to go to Vaa anymore. She said she did not tell the Supreme Judge what had happened because she was afraid of Vaa as he was in the courtroom. She also told Sofara her step father and he told her not to tell anyone.

The Law and Legal Principles

44. Under section 4 of the Family Safety Act 2013 (FSA), an application for a protection order can be brought on behalf of a child complainant by any person without the written consent of the child provided he or she is under 18 years old.
    
45. Once an interim protection order is granted under section 5 of the FSA, a return date is specified in the order served on the Respondent/s for the Respondent/s to appear and show cause why a protection order (final) should not be issued.
    
46. Where the Respondent appears on the return date required under section 5(3)(b), in order to oppose the issuing of a protection order, the Court shall:

(a) Proceed to hear the matter and consider any evidence previously received in relation to the application made under section 4; and

(b) Consider further evidence as it may direct to any party of the proceedings. (s7(1) FSA).

47. The grounds for making a Protection Order final are if the Court after hearing all the evidence regarding an application under this Act finds on a balance of probabilities that the respondent has committed or is committing an act of domestic violence. (Section 7(2) FSA)
    
48. Clearly the reference to the respondent ‘has committed an act of domestic violence’ deals with acts of domestic violence in the past. The most logical way then to interpret the term ‘is committing’ an act of domestic violence is that it deals with present and future acts of domestic violence. That inevitably involves an assessment of ongoing risk to the Applicant or complainant. If the Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities of the risk, a final Protection Order can be granted.
    
49. A protection order when issued remains in force until it is set aside. (Section 7(4) FSA).
    
50. Under section 2 of FSA, ‘domestic violence’ means:

(i) Physical abuse;

(ii) Sexual abuse;

(iii) Emotional, verbal and psychological abuse;

(iv) Intimidation;

(v) Harassment;

(vi) Stalking;

(vii) Any other controlling or abusive behaviour towards a complainant where such conduct harms, or may cause imminent harm to, the safety, health or wellbeing of the complainant.

51. ‘Sexual abuse” means any conduct that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the sexual integrity and privacy of the complainant without his or her free will or consent.(s2 FSA)
    
52. ‘Intimidation’ means uttering or conveying a threat, or causing the complainant to receive a threat which induces fear (s2 FSA)
    

Findings

53. It is beyond dispute that S is in a domestic relationship with each of the Respondents.
    
54. The critical issue in this case is whether or not I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Respondents have committed an act or acts of domestic violence against S.
    
55. I will deal with each of the Respondents separately.
    

Vaa

56. With regards to the disputed incident as described by S to Constables Tofaeono and Niko, and vehemently denied by Vaa, I believe the evidence of S.
    
57. I spoke to S and her account of what Vaa had done to her was largely consistent with what she had previously told the Constables, that is, Vaa pulled down her panty, touched her vagina with his fingers and then licked his fingers.
    
58. I find S to be a brave, confident child who is believable and above all her evidence is consistent with Vaa’s history of sexual offending against young girls.
    
59. I place significant weight on the testimony of Vaa’s sisters, one who has been a teacher for over 50 years and the other who is a counsellor. Their concerns are well founded and I find that their motive is to protect this young child from Vaa, nothing else.
60. Vaa has suggested that S has been coached in her evidence by the Police and SVSG. I do not accept this. In this case S has retold what Vaa had done to her three times and she has told the same story on each of these occasions.
    
61. I do not find any collusion between Vaa’s sisters and cousin nor do I find that S has been coached by Vaa’s sisters, the Police or SVSG.
    
62. I draw from S’s consistent evidence that she is telling the truth of what Vaa did to her.
    
63. Vaa’s denial of his history of sexual offending and ever sexually abusing S is wholly inconsistent with what his sisters and cousin have told the Court. The evidence of his sisters and cousins about his history of sexual offending on young girls in their family is consistent.
    
64. Vaa is not credible. His blanket denial of everything said by S is not credible and I do not believe him. He used this case to accuse his sisters of adultery, abortion, and wanting to be ‘matai’ of their family.
    
65. I find that Vaa pulled down S’s panty, touched her vagina with his fingers and then licked his fingers. This constitutes sexual abuse within the meaning of domestic violence. It is humiliating, degrading and has violated the integrity and privacy of this child.
    
66. I also accept that S is scared of Vaa as I find that he threatened to call the Police if she tells anyone what he did to her. This constitutes intimidation within the definition of domestic violence.
    
67. I find that Vaa’s threats have induced fear in S. This is why she did not tell the Judge in the Supreme Court what had happened. She says Vaa was in the same room so she was scared. I also accept that she still fears Vaa because she says he is bad and should be locked up.
    
68. I accept Vaa is on the sex offenders register in California, USA. This is information that I was able to confirm on the internet by typing his name into a search. This is a serious matter. I find it implausible that one of his sisters and/or her family created that record on the internet as he suggested.
    
69. I accept what Vaa’s sisters have told to Court about the risk that Vaa poses to S in light of his history of sexual offending which is widely known among their family. I have accepted the evidence of Sefulu, Sootuli and Naitua and can do so under section 19 of FSA which states that despite any other law, the Court may receive any evidence which the Court considers necessary for it to make a decision, determination or direction for the granting or refusal of a protection order under the provisions of the FSA whether the evidence is admissible or not by law.
    
70. I conclude from the evidence of Sefulu, Sootuli and Naitua that Vaa preys on young girls and has a reputation for sexual abuse on young girls in their family. This is evidence which is relevant to the issue before the Court as it determines an environment which is safe for S. I accept that Vaa poses an ongoing risk not only to S but also to her baby sister who is currently living with Vaa.
    
71. Vaa pleaded guilty to assaulting S in the Supreme Court so there is no question that he has physically abused S. He admitted that he hit her on the leg.

Sofara

72. I find that Sofara’s loyalty to Vaa stems from Vaa being the provider of shelter, food and money for Sofara and his family. This is misplaced loyalty which has taken the form of Sofara threatening S not to say anything about what Vaa had done to her.
    
73. I find that S’s account of what Sofara said to her is accurate. He told her not to tell anyone including the Judge what Vaa did to her. If anyone coached S it was Sofara.
    
74. I find it deplorable that Sofara would encourage Vaa to take S alone just to provoke and tease Vaa’s sisters . These are not the actions of a loving and protective father and I hasten to say that it stems from S not being his biological daughter.
    
75. By telling S not to tell anyone about what Vaa did to her, Sofara has engaged in intimidation of S. Rather than allaying her fears, he induced more fear in such a young child by telling her not to tell anyone and even went as far as telling her not to tell the Judge in the case. I accept that this Judge was Justice Nelson in the Supreme Court case.
    
76. Furthermore I accept that Sofara has physically assaulted both S and Fetu and he has admitted to this under oath. The proud way in which he told the Court that he slaps Fetu, a member of the weaker sex, when she nags is deplorable.
    
77. I consider him to be an unfit father, and not worthy of the privilege of raising this child.

Fetu

78. I find that Fetu is caught in the middle of her fear of Sofara who hits her, her dependence on Vaa for money and food and her love for her daughter.
    
79. I do not doubt that Fetu loves S and all who gave evidence for the applicant accepted that fact.
    
80. I do find however that she has not provided a safe and secure environment for S, and still refuses to see that her daughter is at risk from Vaa and Sofara.
    
81. I do not accept that she does not know about Vaa’s history of sexual offending within the family. Her husband Sofara had heard about Vaa’s reputation. I am convinced that she also knew about Vaa’s reputation within the family.
    
82. I find that she was at both interviews of S by the Police whereby S spoke about what Vaa and Sofara did to her. This signals to me that Fetu refuses to accept what Vaa and Sofara did to her daughter.
    
83. This complacency exhibited by Fetu is dangerous behaviour which poses ongoing risk to S. If she refuses to see that her child is at risk and wants to take her back to the same environment within which the domestic violence occurred, she is unfit to have the custody of S.
    
84. Therefore although I find that Fetu has not perpetrated any domestic violence on S, she has ignored that her daughter has been the subject of sexual and physical abuse and intimidation by Vaa and Sofara. This ignorance is extremely harmful to this child as her mother who should protect her has done nothing to protect her.
    
85. In this regard, I find that Fetu is unfit to have the custody of S.
    

Decision

86. Given the findings I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that a protection order is necessary for the protection of S against all Respondents.
    
87. I find the Respondent Vaa has sexually and physically abused S and has intimidated her.
    
88. I am satisfied that he poses an ongoing risk to S given what I believe he did to S, his history of sexual offending and her fear of him. S must be protected from Vaa and Vaa should never be allowed near her again. S cannot go back to the home which Vaa shares with her parents.
    
89. I consider that Sofara has intimidated S into not telling anyone about what Vaa had done to her. This amounts to an act of domestic violence. There is a risk that Sofara will continue to intimidate S in trying to protect Vaa. S is not safe with Sofara, and as such Sofara should not be allowed near S again.
    
90. Fetu’s case is not as straight forward. Her love for her daughter cannot be doubted. But she has stood by and allowed Vaa and Sofara to dictate what has eventuated up to this point in time. There is no doubt that despite all this, S loves her mother.
    
91. Whilst I believe that allowing S to go back to her mother will pose a risk to S, because she lives with Vaa and Sofara, Fetu should be able to see her daughter in a controlled environment, without Vaa and Sofara and within the safety of SVSG.
    
92. SVSG is currently the safest environment for S. She enjoys her school and is happy with her friends. She likes Lina and is comfortable and SVSG shelter provides her with stability. SVSG are the proper guardians for S at this time as Fetu and Sofara are unfit to make decisions which are in her best interests.

Orders

93. For all of the above reasons I now make the following orders:
    

(i) A protection order (final for all intents and purposes) for the benefit of S against all three Respondents.

(ii) I make the following additional condition in the protection order to protect and provide for the safety, health and wellbeing of S;

Fetu is allowed to visit her daughter twice a month at SVSG. These visits are to be supervised at all times by a member of SVSG. The times for those visits are to be approved by SVSG.

(iii) Given that there is now a protection order against S’s parents, she cannot return to their home. Interim custody and guardianship of S is granted to SVSG. It is in her best interests that she remain with SVSG as there has been physical and sexual abuse, and intimidation against her by the Respondents Vaa and Sofara. Furthermore the environment within which her mother lives, is not safe for S.

(iv) I will review this interim order for custody and guardianship in 3 months and ask that SVSG provide a written plan detailing S’s transition to a home for life, if in fact that is to be the plan for her. I accept that there is a possibility she might remain with SVSG for quite some time.

(v) The review date is 22 December 2014.

................................................
Judge Tuala-Warren