The applicant sought an order for unsupervised access to his child for six hours weekly.
The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the child would be at risk of harm without supervision.
The court found that evidence suggested the applicant had a sexual interest in children and posed a risk of psychotic breakdown.
The court rejected the applicant's expert evidence as lacking independence and objectivity.
Supervised access was continued at two hours weekly.
The court also imputed income to the applicant for child support purposes and ordered monthly support payments.
