Overall Assessment
This affidavit contains significant evidentiary issues across multiple paragraphs. Three critical objections have been identified including triple hearsay, lay opinion used to diagnose a psychological condition, and a legal submission dressed as evidence. The deponent's credibility is at risk from inflammatory language that a judicial officer will discount. Two paragraphs are in proper admissible form.
3
Critical Issues
4
Warnings
2
Clean Paragraphs
Paragraph Analysis — 3 of 10 issues shown free
¶1
Clean
Helps
"I am the applicant in these proceedings. I am 38 years of age and I reside at [address]. I am employed as a registered nurse at St Vincent's Hospital…"
Weight & Credibility Assessment
Proper introductory paragraph. Establishes identity, age, residence and employment clearly within the deponent's direct knowledge. No objection available. Sets a credible, measured foundation for the affidavit.
¶4
Critical
Hurts
s.69ZT
"My mother told me that she had spoken to the children's school teacher, Ms Johnson, who had told her that the respondent had arrived at school smelling strongly of alcohol on three separate occasions…"
Weight & Credibility Assessment
Even if received under s.69ZT in parenting proceedings, triple hearsay carries negligible weight. The deponent has no direct knowledge of the alleged events. This paragraph signals to the court that direct evidence was not obtained. A subpoena to the teacher, or a statutory declaration sworn by the teacher, would be far more persuasive.
Admissibility Issues (2)
Hearsay
s.59 Evidence Act 1995
s.69ZT — may be received in parenting proceedings
Triple hearsay — the deponent repeats what her mother told her, who repeated what the teacher said about her observations of the respondent. Each step is hearsay under s.59. No exception under ss.63–66 applies to rescue this chain.
Improper Form
Compound paragraph containing multiple assertions from multiple sources. Each source should be a separate paragraph.
Suggested Rewrite
On [date] I attended [school] and spoke directly with [teacher's name], class teacher for [child's name]. [Teacher] told me that on three occasions in March 2025 she had observed the respondent arrive at school and that on each occasion he appeared to her to be affected by alcohol. Annexed hereto and marked 'A' is a statutory declaration sworn by [teacher] setting out her observations.
¶7
Critical
Hurts
"The respondent is clearly a narcissist who is incapable of putting the children's needs before his own and has engaged in a sustained campaign of parental alienation against me…"
Weight & Credibility Assessment
This paragraph will actively damage the deponent's credibility. Experienced judicial officers read language like this as a signal that the deponent is more interested in attacking the other party than assisting the court. 'Narcissist' without expert foundation will be ignored. This paragraph should be removed and replaced with specific dated observations of behaviour.
Admissibility Issues (3)
Opinion
s.78, s.79 Evidence Act 1995
Lay opinion — the deponent is not qualified to diagnose narcissistic personality disorder. 'Narcissist' is a clinical diagnosis requiring expert qualification under s.79. This is opinion stated as fact.
Improper Form
'Parental alienation' without expert foundation or supporting particulars is conclusory and argumentative. The court requires specific factual observations, or a single expert report supporting this conclusion.
Improper Form
'Clearly' and 'incapable' are argumentative qualifiers. These are the deponent's characterisations, not evidence of facts.
Suggested Rewrite
On [specific date], the respondent [describe specific observed behaviour]. On [specific date], the respondent [describe specific observed behaviour]. I am concerned about the impact of the respondent's conduct on the children because [specific factual observations]. I refer to the report of Family Consultant [name] dated [date] annexed hereto and marked 'B'.