3. A v A

(a) Approaching within 500 meters of the Mother;

(b) Approaching within 500 meters of the Mother's place of residence or any other place where Mother may reside or work from time to time

1. Pursuant to section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 for the personal protection of the children, X, born in 2016, and Y, born in 2019 the Father, Mr Bustillo (born in 1987) is injuncted from:

(a) Approaching within 500 meters of the children;

(b) Approaching within 500 meters of the children's place of residence or any other place where the children may reside from time to time;

(c) Approaching within 500 meters of the children's educational facility, or any place where the children attend for extra-curricular activities

(d) Contacting, communicating with or attempting to contact or communicate with the children or the Mother in person, through another person, or through any electronic communication or devices including by telephone, text message, social media, written mail and electronic mail or any other form of communication

(e) Removing the children from the Mother's care or from the care of any other person.

1. Pursuant to section 11(1)(b)(ii) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 the Mother is permitted to apply for a passport for each of the children X (born in 2016) and Y (born in 2019) without the consent of the Father.
2. Pursuant to section 65Y(l)(c)(ii) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Mother is permitted to travel to a place outside Australia with the X (born in 2016) and Y (born in 2019) whether or not the Father has consented to such travel.
3. Leave is granted to the mother to provide a copy of these Orders to any school, educational facility, health professional or any other person or institution who reasonably requires a copy of these orders to give effect to the orders and in particular the restrains on the father.
4. Leave is granted to the mother to provide a copy of the Judgement and of the Family Report of Dr Krabman to any treating medical or allied health practitioner treating the children to assist them in treating the children.
5. Leave is granted to the mother to provide to Dr Krabman a copy of the Judgement for his file.
6. Any application for costs be filed in accordance with the Rules.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: This copy of the Court's Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. These are oral reasons for decision in parenting proceedings to determine the final parenting orders pursuant to Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), as currently in force, which are in the best interests of the two subject children, X, born in 2016, aged nine, and Y, born in 2019, aged six (the children). The trial ran before me from 2 to 5 December 2025.
2. The applicant mother is Ms Bustillo, born in 1989, aged 36. The mother currently resides with the children at D Street, Suburb E (D Street), a suburb of City F. This was the former matrimonial home which the mother retained in the parties' property settlement. The mother is employed by G Company. She is now in a relationship with a Mr H. The father accepted that Mr H poses no risk to the children, and although he provided an affidavit, Mr H was not required for cross-examination.
3. The respondent father is Mr Bustillo, born in 1987, aged 38. The father resides at J Street, also in Suburb E (J Street). This is one of the investment properties owned by the parties during their intact marriage. The father's trial affidavit evidence was that he was employed four to five days a week at K Company, Suburb L, however, he resigned that role in about August, in circumstances I will return to, and is now a professional coach. He is single. The two homes are about three kilometres, or approximately five minutes drive, away from each other down N Street.
4. As this is an oral decision, to avoid the stress inherent in the parties listening for an hour or two to learn the result, I will indicate now that, for reasons I will explain, I will make and enter today orders substantially as sought by the mother, with the children to spend no time and to have no communication with the father, to live with the mother who will exercise sole decision-making and parental responsibility, and that she will have the passport authority, and I will also make the restraints and injunctions broadly in terms sought by the mother.
5. The reasons for this, which I will come to, include that that I do not accept the father's case that he has changed from the family violence perpetrator he admits he was throughout the intact relationship. Rather, I find that he poses an unacceptable direct risk of psychological harm to the children of spending any time with them, and for even supervised time, which can never involve perfect supervision, and in which he may say things that undermine their relationship with the mother, and also because I accept that the mother's mental health is likely to suffer even with a minimal amount of supervised time and that this poses a risk to the children's present safe and stable environment, which I also find to be an unacceptable risk.
6. I will note now that, as I previously said, orders will be published today, written reasons will be taken out and settled in accordance with the Rules in due course, noting today is the day before Christmas. I will not be offended if either of the parties and/or their legal practitioners choose to leave the online delivery now.

1. The parties commenced a relationship in 2007 when they were about 18 and 20 years old. After some on again/off again dating, the relationship solidified, and they were engaged in mid-2012. In late 2012, they purchased D Street using equity from the father's investment property, which he had purchased with the help of his parents. His background is described as being from a wealthy Country O/Country M family who migrated to Australia. The parties married in early 2015 and had their two children in 2016 and 2019.

1. The mother's allegations of long-term family violence, which are substantially accepted by the father during the period of the intact relationship, are central to these proceedings. The mother alleges that the father was sexually, financially and verbally abusive towards her throughout the course of their relationship, engaging in a long-term pattern of demeaning coercive control.[1]
2. The mother says the father would require her to undertake all home duties such as cooking, cleaning and caring for the children, and if these tasks were not done to the expected standard, she would be "punished" by the father.[2]
3. The mother alleges that the punishments would include conduct such as the father forcing her to provide him with sexual gratification[3], the father removing the door handle to the parties' bedroom preventing the mother from accessing the room,[4] the father removing the blankets from the mother's side of the bed so that she was forced to sleep without blankets,[5] and the father leaving the bedroom to sleep in the spare room and taking blankets from the parties' bed forcing the mother to sleep without blankets.[6]
4. In his trial affidavit, the father said that he did expect a tidy house, but that this was the norm in his culture. He denies putting pressure on the mother in terms of housework, referring to housework as "teamwork", and denying that he viewed housework as a woman's job.[7] The father says that the parties would jointly contribute to cleaning the house and keeping it clean, neat and tidy, and he would regularly contribute to feeding the children, cleaning and cooking.[8]
5. The mother says that on one occasion in March 2022, early in the process of separating, the father told her to get out of the house after she declined to have sex with him. The mother says that when she asked the father to leave her alone, he threatened her, saying, "Do you want me to fucking rape you?"[9] The father conceded that he asked the mother to get out of the bedroom, though denies he ever threatened to rape her.[10] Audio evidence[11], admitted over objection given it's highly probative nature and the circumstances of its recording, supports the mother's evidence.
6. The mother says the father would call her a "lazy arse", "fucking slut" and a "fucking whore" in front of the children and maternal grandmother.[12] The father admits that he called the mother these things.[13] The father justifies his assertion that the mother was a "fucking whore" on the basis that he called her this after finding out about her infidelity with one of her P Company clients,[14] which I will come to further.
7. In his trial affidavit the father, having disputed many of the specifics, said that he had reflected on his behaviours towards the mother and conceded that his conduct would be seen as emotionally and verbally abusive,[15] although he states that he was unaware at the time that the mother felt pressured by his behaviours and that she was unhappy with the management of the household chores, as he said she never communicated this to him.[16]
8. The mother also says that the father would control her finances,[17] having the mother ask permission to access funds for such things as groceries or clothes for the children,[18] and requiring the mother to provide receipts to prove purchases if she withdrew cash from shared bank accounts.[19] The father denies that he was ever financially abusive towards the mother, stating that, rather, the parties had a mutual agreement that the purchase of larger items would be discussed between them prior to purchase. The father says the mother did not have to ask permission to make everyday purchases, and she would regularly do so using funds from joint accounts that "she had complete control and use over".[20] That was an issue in dispute.
9. The single expert in the case was Dr Krabman, who prepared a report in February of 2024. I will refer extensively to his recordings of what the parties said to him, and opinions, as they form a central part of the case. Dr Krabman noted
   1. The father feels that he did behave towards the mother in a way that was emotionally abuse... he never went out of his way to be emotionally abusive to the mother, but it did work out that way... when you read the definition of emotional abuse.
10. The father's reference to "the definition of emotional abuse" when making that concession to Dr Krabman gives a flavour to the quality of his acknowledgements that his behaviours were family violence.

1. In January 2021, the mother created a P Company Creator account. It is the mother's evidence that she did this as a means of generating her own income. The mother says that the father did not object to her becoming a P Company Creator as it meant that she would not be using joint funds that the father considered his money.[21] The father agrees that the account was created to generate additional income, although he says it was also a tool to "spice up their sex life" due to the parties experiencing a lack of intimacy.[22] It was the mother's evidence that the majority of her work through the site was having video chat calls with men, at times when the children were at day care or spending time with the maternal grandmother.[23]
2. The father gives evidence that on 26 November 2021, while the children were asleep in their bedroom, he walked in on the mother performing sexual acts on herself in the bathtub while streaming live to her online subscribers. The father says the bedroom door was unlocked during this event.[24] Ultimately, no issue of risk to the children of the mother having performed sex work was pressed before me.
3. The mother says that around January or February 2022, the father became unsupportive of the account due to her infidelity with one of her paying customers, and she then discontinued the P Company operation.[25] There was no contest that the mother engaged in a sexual relationship with one of her customers. The mother says that her infidelity was a retaliatory action brought on by the father's infidelity through the use of escort services. The father admits the use of escorts.[26]
4. The father admits that in early 2022, he left Y home alone while she slept and he went to collect X from preschool. The father gives evidence that this was a lapse in judgment and said he deeply regrets leaving the two year old child home by herself.[27] I note that this is an example of the kind of behaviours which support Dr Krabman's opinion that, even apart from family violence, there are serious deficits in the father's general parenting capacities.

1. It is clear that the parties' marriage was in a parlous state by mid-2022. The parties separated on a final basis on or soon after an incident in mid-2022. The mother says that on the evening of the date in question, after the father found out she had received a compliment at work, the father became angry and began driving erratically and speeding, causing the children to cry and scream, which had continued until they reached home where he "slammed on the brakes... in the driveway of [the] home" resulting in the car skidding and gravel and pebbles flicking everywhere.[28]
2. The father says that he was "triggered" and "highly stressed" when the mother relayed to him the compliment she received at work and says this was due to the marriage struggles the parties were having at the time. Additionally, he conceded that he may have been "driving a little more aggressively than usual" but denied he was driving in excess of the speed limit.[29]
3. After dropping the mother and children off, the mother says the father left, sending the mother two text messages with words to the effect of, "I fucking hate you", and, on the father's evidence, "Pack your shit"[30]; on the mother's evidence, "Pack your shit out of the master and set yourself up in the bedroom."[31] The mother says she complied and moved some of her things into the spare bedroom of the house.[32]
4. When the father returned home, the mother was showering. The father entered the bathroom and initiated sex while the mother was showering, saying he thought it was "a way of attempting to reconnect" after the fight.[33] His version of events does not vary significantly from those set out in the police fact sheet, on which he was convicted, although he maintains and maintained at trial that "at the time [he] felt as though everything was consensual", despite the mother being "upset and hyperventilating".[34]
5. The mother points to the fact that, although not convicted on these facts, the father admitted to the expert that he had his hand on her neck during the assault, and put in issue the father's repeated statements that he acted in the intact marriage, and even during this assault, without malice.[35] Further, when speaking with the expert the father stated that he was "pleading not guilty", and implied he eventually pleaded guilty to finalise the matter so the family law case could be heard.[36]
6. The father states that he now concedes that he dominated and forced this sexual interaction on the mother,[37] though maintains, as I said, that it was not with malicious intent nor with an attempt to intimidate or control the mother at the time.[38] In this way, the father confesses the behaviour, but seeks to avoid moral responsibility for the sexual assault. I use the term "sexual assault", although I note the conviction was in fact for "sexual touching".

1. In mid-2022, after the events of the aforementioned previous evening and the mother's reaction, the father says that he felt great depression, was having suicidal ideation and was unable to get out of bed. The father says he organised for a rope in his garage before making a call to Lifeline.[39]
2. The mother had taken the children to a local park when she received a call from a mutual friend sounding worried and asking about the father.[40] The mother says she had promptly left the park and hurried home with the children. When she arrived, she found "a noose tied to the rafters right beside the garage door and found [the father] on the bedroom floor on the phone to Lifeline".[41] An ambulance was called to the home and collected the father, and took him to Q Hospital. He was discharged later that day to the care of his sister.
3. The mother told the expert, that she considered the attempt was manipulative, with a flimsy noose, and done knowing the children would be the first to enter the home on their return.[42] Nevertheless, as she recounted to the expert, it was effective in causing her concern for the father, and she believes in manipulating her into allowing the children to spend time with the father after these events.

1. The mother reported the assault of mid-2022, and the father was charged with three offences.[43]
2. The mother had commenced seeing a Mr R towards the end of the parties' relationship and was subsequently in a romantic relationship with Mr R from about October or November 2022 until February 2024.[44] The father admits that towards the end of the parties' relationship he hired a private investigator to follow the mother.[45] That private investigator followed the mother to a dinner she attended with Mr R and took photographs of the pair. The father admits that he received these photographs from the private investigator and subsequently forwarded them to Mr R's ex-partner "in a fit of anger" on or about mid-August 2022.[46]
3. I also find on balance accepting the mother's evidence, to the extent it may not be admitted, that the father logged into the mother's Snapchat account to monitor her activity on the app in or about August or early to mid-August 2022.[47]

Mid-2022 - report to police AND provisional ADVO

1. In mid-2022, the mother reported her concerns to police that the father was monitoring her electronic devices and had engaged a private investigator to follow her. This report resulted in the police taking out a provisional Apprehended Domestic Violence Order ('ADVO') for the mother's protection.[48]

15 August 2022 father's letter to mother making admissions

1. On 15 August 2022, the mother received a letter from the father.[49] The father made extensive confessions in that letter, which he sought to water down when speaking with Dr Krabman. He made partial admissions in similar terms in his affidavit, although, as I note, whilst admitting family violence, contested many of the specifics.
2. In that letter, while confessing to and apologising for many actions, including "how controlling I have been" and that he "put my needs first the entire time and was unable to see my faults" and "that I didn't have the skills to both show and control my emotions as well as better manage my anger" and that he "scared you and for kicking you out of the house and the recent situation with the kids", he nevertheless excused himself on the basis that:

...emotional neglect I suffered as a child meant my brain was affected and my views about love and relationships, the protection mechanisms within my mind, and how my thoughts are processed was completely different to most people.

1. He also stated "The bottom line is I didn't understand your pain as I truly didn't believe it". The admission that he was aware that the mother was in pain but did not understand it, as he did not believe it, does not sit comfortably with his statements that there was no malice during the relationship. He was aware of the pain he was causing and continued. If not malice, then the father's conduct showed gross indifference, or potentially, as is later discussed, such a significant lack of empathy that even when someone close was in severe pain he was not able to perceive, or believe, it.
2. I note that whilst purporting to apologise, the father also said that he had come to learn that "I can't control if you lie, act out ...", and hoped that moving forward the mother would "be able to identify the differences between right and wrong". It is not clear precisely what he was referring to.

1. In mid-2022, the mother took the children to the paternal aunt's house to celebrate X's birthday with the father in the presence of other family members.[50] She said she did this in part because she felt guilty about the children not spending time with the father. She was also concerned about the suicide attempt, though even not necessarily believing it had been genuine. On collecting the children, she was provided with a box which contained leftover cake for her and the children, but upon opening the box, she found four pieces of cake and a folded up handwritten note from the father. This was a clear and intentional breach of the ADVO.
2. In oral evidence, the mother said she felt sick and anxious, and that she realised that even with supervised time by the father's family and with the benefit of an ADVO to protect her that in effect, there were still ways he was going to get around this, and, this was never going to end.
3. I accept that this experience of the father evading what was meant to be a form of family supervision, and of the fact he was willing to breach the ADVO, has influenced the mother's ongoing fear that even supervised time would not provide adequate protection for the children, or for her through the risk of the father manipulating or acting on her through the children.
4. The mother says that on 7 September 2022 she changed the locks on the family home due to fears of the father.[51] After doing this, the mother says she returned home to all the smart lights in the house being turned off and her being locked out of the application used to manage the lighting in the house.[52] She said that she and the father were the only ones with access to the account, and the account had been changed to prevent her access. She said that she attempted to contact the paternal uncle to obtain his assistance with contacting the father and accessing the account, but no response was received, and in order to render the issue she had to create a new account and reset all the devices in the house.
5. On 11 September 2022, the mother says she woke up to a calendar invitation from the father to "divorce day" in August 2023.[53]
6. In the context of the overall admissions made by the father, which I will come to in more detail, the extent of the father's electronic surveillance or interference at that time, which is in dispute, does not require determination. There is no doubt that the father, through electronic means and through the hiring of a private investigator to follow the mother, engaged in some degree of surveillance of the mother. The fact that he thought this was an appropriate way, at the time, to attempt to repair the relationship is indicative of his lack of understanding of his behaviours on the mother.
7. In late 2022, the father was arrested and charged with contravening the ADVO, to which he pled guilty. He spent 10 nights incarcerated until he was granted Supreme Court bail.[54]
8. The children have not spent any time or communicated with the father since September 2022, except for a chance encounter on 2 October 2023 at a car park, which I will come to later.
9. These proceedings were commenced on 5 October 2022 by the mother's initiating application in respect of both parenting and property final orders. The parties entered into consent parenting orders on 9 November 2022 on a without admissions basis, with the children to live with the mother and spend no time and have no communication with the father, and the matter was listed for interim hearing.
10. On 22 December 2022, the mother says she was using the Spotify application on the television to listen to music when the music began to start and stop independently. The mother says the music then changed on its own and began playing a song called "Fuck Off".[55] She says she changed the music back to her selection, when the music again changed on its own to a song called "I Don't Care", followed by another song of the same title, then finally a song called "Die Stupid Fucking Slut".[56] The mother says after investigating the Spotify issue, she found that the account was connected to the father's account.
11. The father denies "hack[ing] the mother's Spotify account".[57] Rather, the father says he attempted to remove his Spotify account from the lounge room television by changing his password and forcing the device to sign out. It was the father's evidence that this was unsuccessful, so he requested the mother to log out and create her own Spotify account.[58]
12. In the context of the entirety of the evidence and my findings concerning the father's lack of credit, which I will come to, and the fact that I find the mother is a witness of excellent credit and accepting the facts she asserts, accepting her evidence of these fact the only reasonable inference is that in December 2022 the father was still engaged in harassing behaviour of the mother in this way. That is consistent with the kind of behaviours he admits had been occurring during the marriage, and is also consistent with the fact that he says his revelation of the fact that he had been acting inappropriately did not come until after this time period.
13. The mother says that on 26 January 2023 she became aware of the fact that the father was following Mr R's daughter on Instagram.[59] While the father admits to going through Mr R's daughter's Instagram profile, he denies following her.[60] Additionally, the father denies hacking into the mother's Google account, computer, personal calendar and household smart lights.[61] Again, given the extent of the admissions by the father concerning his behaviours, at least up until and during the marriage, it is unnecessary to determine each of these individual issues.
14. An interim hearing was conducted on 6 February 2023, and on 10 February 2023 orders were made for the children to live with the mother, for her to have sole parental responsibility, and additionally, there was a no time and no communication order put in place with regard to the father.

1. In early 2023, there was a final ADVO put in place for a period of two years protecting the mother from the father. The terms of that ADVO include not going within 500 metres of where the mother lives in D Street.

1. It is common ground that the last time the father saw the children was a chance encounter at the S Shopping Centre on 2 October 2023. The father says that he saw the mother and children drive past him outside the centre. The mother parked her car and brought the children over to see the father. He says that he spent time with the children for about 40 minutes with the mother present, although attempted to limit contact with the mother to remain compliant with the ADVO between the parties.
2. Despite this, the father says he spoke with the mother about the Court matters and prospects of settlement.[62] The father acknowledges that this was a breach of the ADVO, though the children's excitement upon spotting him created a sense of conflict in his mind as to the proper course of action.[63] He also gave evidence that it was the mother's choice to stop her car and allow the children to see him and it was clearly well within her discretion to continue driving and not allow the children to see him.[64]
3. The mother agrees that this encounter occurred, however, she says that it induced significant anxiety, that she was checking the positioning of the security cameras in the area and the number of people in the car park, and that she also contacted a friend to alert them of the circumstances, with that friend arranging for her husband to drive to the centre and observe the interaction.[65] It is the evidence of the mother that at the conclusion of the interaction, the father said, "Don't you dare tell the police about this."[66] The father denies this, as with other matters, which I will come to. When there is conflict between the mother and the father on such issues, I prefer the evidence of the mother.

1. In mid-2023, the father's assault charges came before New South Wales Local Court for hearing. The father had pleaded not guilty, but eventually entered a guilty plea to the charge of "sexually touch another person without consent," and the two other charges were dismissed or withdrawn. The father was convicted and sentenced to a 12-month community corrections order with supervision and a $500 fine. The father's comments about that, his reasons for doing so, as said to Dr Krabman, are set out in Dr Krabman's report.

1. In around February 2024, the mother says Mr R contacted her and indicated that someone had contacted his employer on four consecutive days requesting information about his employment history, and whether any disciplinary action had been taken against him. It is alleged the caller was a male who did not identify themselves. The mother says that Mr R alleged that this was the father attempting to threaten his career.[67] The mother says that due to the father's actions, Mr R ended their relationship in February 2021.[68]
2. I cannot make any positive finding about this issue in relation to the father in the absence of Mr R as a witness and further note it was not pressed in cross-examination of the father. However, I accept that the mother was subjectively honest when she gave this evidence, and that this was why, as I will come to shortly, the mother did not disclose to the father or the Court her relationship with her current partner, Mr H, until the first day of the first listing of this matter for trial on 10 February 2025. I also accept that Mr R told the mother that this is why the relationship was ending, and that the mother genuinely believes that this is why that relationship ended.

1. In mid-2025, there was a hearing of the mother's application to the Local Court that, upon expiration of the protection period in the original ADVO, it be extended for a further 12 months with extended distances, that is because of the mother's concern that the father was skirting the 500 metre exclusion zone. Following a contested hearing, the magistrate of the New South Wales Local Court granted the time extension, but not the distance extension.[69]
2. The mother relies on the father's objection to the extension of the ADVO for her protection as recently as July this year as evidence of his ongoing lack of insight into the significant impacts on her mental health of his admitted family violence on her, in circumstances where this Court can make inconsistent orders regarding parenting, and it is not clear that there would have been any significant negative impact on the father of an extension, at least of the time provision, which would have given the mother some more comfort.
3. The mother had filed a personal injury claim in the New South Wales District Court in respect to the assault in mid-2022. The personal injury matter settled in conjunction with the settlement of the property aspect of these proceedings,[70] leaving only these child-related proceedings to be determined. On 19 August 2025, final property orders were made by consent. I note this also determined the then extant issue of whether or not this Court could or should entertain the personal injury action together with the property proceedings.
4. On 10 November 2025, the matter came before the Court for commencement of the final hearing. That same morning, the mother sought leave to file an affidavit indicating she had re-partnered and the affidavit of Mr H. As I said, this was the first time information had been disclosed to the Court or the father. Due to the nature and timing of the disclosure and the unknown background of the mother's new partner, the matter was stood down so information sharing orders could be made to the relevant authorities. Information was provided that day, pursuant to section 67ZBE of the Act, from both the New South Wales Police and the New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice. Both reports were unremarkable. The matter was set to continue on 11 November 2025.
5. On 11 November 2025, counsel for the father was experiencing medical symptoms, which were not in contest. The matter was stood over to continue later that week, but unfortunately his medical condition continued, and the trial was eventually vacated. Given the priority of the matter, it was allocated a judgment writing week in December 2025.

1. The range of issues for determination at trial were narrowed significantly with the filing of the father's trial affidavit in August 2025, in which he broadly accepted the characterisation of his behaviours by the single expert, Dr Krabman, in his report of 29 February 2024.
2. Dr Krabman provided an extremely long and detailed report. In that report, he said, amongst other things -
   1. I observe that the information from these multiple sources is mostly consistent with the maternal narrative, and challenging of the more dismissing or minimising paternal narrative.
   2. My impression is that the father's behaviour towards the mother from early in their relationship to some extent but particularly from 2018/2019 when she was pregnant with [Y], continuing until parental separation in July 2022 and beyond that point until August 2022 and to some extent to the present day, amounted to a pattern of family violence perpetrated by the father against the mother.
   3. It is important to note that in using the term "family violence" I am not suggesting that the father has necessarily been physically violent to the mother, though I note that the mother reports him having held his hand to her throat during the incident leading to the conviction, above, and the father confirmed having done so at interview with myself. I am using this term as it is commonly used in clinical practice and in the clinical and social sciences literature (interchangeably with the terms "domestic violence" or "intimate partner violence") to denote a pattern of behaviour within a family relationship that is coercive, intimidating, disrespectful, and harmful to the other.
   4. My impression is that this pattern of family violence was significant, in terms of the characteristics and persistent/ recurrent nature of the father's behaviour towards the mother, and in terms of the impacts of the same upon the mother.
3. The father addressed Dr Krabman's report and finding in his trial affidavit under the heading "Dr Krabman's report and orders sought" where he said:
   1. I confirm that I have read and understood Dr Krabman's Family Report. Whilst initially this report was hard for me to read and comprehend, I can now see that my actions and attempts to keep the relationship going were controlling. At the time I had no malice in my actions, but I simply wanted to be able to desperately work out our issues and get our relationship back on track. I now realise I was ultimately living in "fairyland".
   2. I have accepted the views of Dr Krabman in terms of my actions and personality during my relationship with [Ms Bustillo], particularly in respect to my limited capacity for empathic attunement with others. This has been something that I have worked hard with through my sessions with [Ms PP].
   3. However as stated above, given the therapy and the passage of time I am now more accepting of my single life and now simply want to move forward so that I can my family are able to see and spend time with the children.
   4. Through my therapy I have really learnt to take the time to consider situation and people before reaction, in this regard learning to take my time and understand that not everyone has the same ideals and values. I am now conscious and understanding of how people behave and react.
   5. I have had numerous discussions with my sister [Ms T] about my time with the children and the need for supervisions. Unfortunately, [Ms T] has indicated that she and [Mr U] would be unable to commit to such a big, regular and on-going commitment. As such I would be seeking that my parents be the ones to supervised or that a professional supervision service is used.
   6. I have proposed that initially I spend professional supervised time with the children for a period of time with the hope that this will better assist the children in the re-introduction period. I am also very conscious that [Ms Bustillo] has concerns and worries about the children spending time with me, and it is hoped that it the time if initially professionally supervised, then her fears could be somewhat ameliorated. I do not want to cause any more stress to [Ms Bustillo] or the children and would be willing to do anything that may help alleviate this.
   7. I also understand that the supervision service will also allow for an easier changeover which would provide for [Ms Bustillo] and myself to not come into contact.
   8. I would then like to progress to time with the children in the presence if my mother after about six months of supervised time. In terms of the logistics with this, I would suggest that changeover occur at the [V Shopping Centre] with my mother or sister [Ms T] undertaking the changeover on my behalf. This will again allow [Ms Bustillo] comfort at not having to be in my presence.
   9. I am then happy to progress the time in accordance with Dr Krabman's Report.
   10. Dr Krabman also recommends Family Therapy when the time commences, which I am willing and able to participate in and believe would be of great benefit for both [Ms Bustillo] and I and the children. In this regard I suggest we engage [Ms W] at [Z Family Services]. Initiating I would also be willing to pay for the first 12 or so sessions.
   11. I also note the recommendation of continuing therapy and family therapy around helping all of adjust to parenting arrangement. I support this.
   12. I also made enquires with [AA Family Services] regarding the [BB Course] as recommended by Dr Krabrnan in July 2024. I have undertaken their initial self-referral over the phone and have now been placed on an 8-12 week wait list to undertake with Intake process for this. However, I have not subsequently been further contacted by them. It is a course however that I am willing to undertake if required or Ordered by the Court.
4. I note in particular the references at paragraph 177 to the fact that, "At the time, I had no malice in my actions", and at 179 to the father's "single life".
5. The father maintained in his oral evidence that he now accepts Dr Krabman's characterisation of his behaviours as family violence, but also that prior to this realisation and gaining of insight occurring, that he had no "malice" in his actions.
6. The father's evidence was that he accepted responsibility for his family violence behaviours, had sought to change, and had in fact changed, and that he does not now pose an unacceptable risk of harm to the children in spending unsupervised time with them. In the alternative only, he says he will accept long-term supervised time with the children, if that is all the Court will permit.
7. The mother's evidence in the case is, firstly, that if the Court looks at how the father has behaved in the period since Dr Krabman's report, rather than what he says, then even if he has tried to engage in change, he has not in fact substantially changed in the period since Dr Krabman's report of February 2024, so that he still poses a significant risk of psychological harm to children, and to the mother through them, and secondly, she says that the long-term and lasting impact on her of the father's family violence means that an order for any time at all, even something as limited as twice annually professionally supervised time, will so negatively impact her mental health as to impair her parenting capacity in a way that will negatively impact on the children, and so constitutes an unacceptable risk of harm given her role as their primary carer, relying on the principles discussed in the line of authorities such as Re Andrew and Keane & Keane which I will return to.

1. The trial commenced on 1 December 2025, with both parties legally represented, including by counsel. The applicant mother read or relied upon the following documents:

(a) Her amended initiating application filed 15 August 2025.

(b) Her affidavits filed 15 August 2025 and 10 November 2025.

(c) The affidavit of the maternal grandmother, Ms DD, filed 15 August 2025.

(d) The affidavit of Mr H filed 10 November 2025.

(e) The mother's submission bundles.

1. The respondent father read or relied upon the following documents:

His further amended response filed 9 September 2025.

(a) His affidavits filed 15 August 2025 and 2 September 2025.

(b) The affidavit of the paternal grandmother, Ms EE, filed 15 August 2025.

(c) The affidavit and report of the father's treating clinical psychologist, Ms PP, filed 16 September 2025.

(d) The father's submission bundles.

1. The parties jointly relied upon the single expert report of Dr Krabman dated 29 February 2024.
2. The mother and the father, Ms PP and Dr Krabman were required for cross-examination. The maternal grandmother, paternal grandmother and Mr H were not required for cross-examination.
3. I note that there are references to a Ms CC in the report of Dr Krabman. Ms CC is a counsellor the father first saw in about 7 April 2022, and who the parties saw from mid-April 2022, and had about 15 sessions with. Dr Krabman spoke with Ms CC, so some of her opinions came in through Dr Krabman in the context of the relevant evidentiary rules under the Act, but she was not a witness, and her opinions, whilst useful in informing Dr Krabman's view, did not form a substantial basis of my findings.
4. Dr Krabman also spoke with Ms C, counsellor, and the mother's psychologist Ms FF, and some material from them entered through Dr Krabman, without objection, on a similar basis. Ms FF provided a report which was part of the mother's case, although on its face contrary to her position on a key issue in the Re Andrew argument, and none of these were witnesses.

1. In line with the second further amended initiating application filed 15 August 2025, the mother seeks orders that she have sole decision-making responsibility, that the children live with her and spend no time and have no communication with the father. She also sought a section 68B order for the personal protection of the children, which extended to not approaching within 500 metres of the children or mother, their place of residence from time to time, to contact the children or mother, or removing the children from any person's care, as well as an international passport order.
2. The mother's proposal, as I have said, is based on her view that the father has not changed, and so poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the children given his acceptance of Dr Krabman's findings.
3. It was also her clear evidence that knowing the children will spend time with the father will significantly impact on her mental health and impair her parenting capacity to the detriment of the children.
4. In addition to the primary, or direct, unacceptable risk of harm the mother says the father poses to the children, in particular, psychological harm of spending any time with them, she also relies, as I have indicated, on the line of authority tracing from B & B [1993] FamCA 143; (1993) FLC 92-357 and R & C [1993] FamCA 62, through Re Andrew [1996] FamCA 43; (1996) FLC 92-692, A v A [1998] FamCA 25; (1998) FLC 92-800, Blinko & Blinko [2015] FamCAFC 146, and of course, Keane & Keane [2021] FamCAFC 1.
5. While the specifics of the legislative scheme in section 60CC, and other sections of Part VII, have been modified by amendments since these decisions, it was not submitted that the principles articulated did not apply to the legislative pathway as it now stands after the various amendments including the recent ones, and I am satisfied that these principles continue to apply, and are merely a specific application of the general principles concerning risk assessment and harm and the children's best interests.
6. In closing oral submissions, the father submitted that the mother's submissions in effect amounted to a claim to "a veto", with particular reference to the summary by the Full Court in Keane & Keane at [78-80]. I note the discussion on the topic from [69] to [85] in Keane & Keane.
7. The father relies on his further amended response filed 9 September 2025. In his case outline at MFI6, he proposes that the mother have sole long-term decision-making responsibility with obligations to notify her intentions, to consider the father's written input and to notify of the decision. He also accepted that the children should live with her.
8. The proposal set out by the father is at paragraph 3 and then paragraph 9 of his amended response. It has three stages, and then, after stage 3, in order 9, additional time.
9. The father's proposal is adopted by him, despite wanting more time with the children, by reference to the opinion of Dr Krabman. It is therefore convenient to now turn to some of Dr Krabman's opinions and recommendations as a starting point, before going to the recommendations.
10. Dr Krabman's central opinion is set out at paragraphs 981 and 982:
    1. If the court finds that it is likely that there is risk to the children in the care of either parent, in particular risk in paternal care of neglect of the children's emotional /relational needs or exposure to paternal coercive behaviour or family violence dynamics, or risk in maternal care of maternal neglect or risks associated with maternal engagement in sex-work, or the risk of either parent undermining the children's respect for or relationship with the other, then that parent's time with the child be limited or constrained sufficiently to manage that risk. The recommendations outlined below seek to address identified risks.

1. If the court finds that the children face indirect risk through maternal wellbeing, security and agency being undermined either by paternal behaviour or by the father-related demands of the parenting arrangements (this is my view), then the management of this risk take priority over paternal freedoms or sensibilities, and even over the promotion of the father-child relationships. The recommendations outlined below seek to address such risks, whilst also considering any benefit to the children that might arise from their having some connection with the father.
2. In cross-examination for the mother, at paragraph 982, Dr Krabman confirmed that in summary he considered there is, firstly, a risk that the father will continue to engage in the same types of coercive, controlling family violence behaviours that he did prior to separation, and that if he did so, these would pose a direct psychological risk to the children by reason of family violence, exposure to family violence themselves, or witnessing it. It is in the context of accepting this opinion, of course, that the father says that he is a changed man who no longer engages in those kinds of behaviours or presents these risks.
3. Dr Krabman said that, secondly, when talking about the indirect risk, although in oral evidence he moved away from the word "indirect", he said there was a risk to the children of their spending time with the father created by the mother having to navigate the time between the father and the children. He said the risk is that the mother would experience such mental stress and burden that her parenting capacity is impaired. In effect, Dr Krabman was articulating the Re Andrew or Keane & Keane issue, ie that the mother's experience of the father's family violence has been such that requiring her to allow the children to spend time with him would have a negative impact on her psychological capacity and parenting capacity.
4. Now, having considered the material and having broadly accepted the mother, Dr Krabman nevertheless recommended, at 983 to 984, that whilst the mother should have sole parental responsibility, subject to not relocating, with an obligation to keep the father informed, with the father able to make his own arrangements with doctors or teachers to ask questions and remain informed, and of course, as he said at 986, with the children to live with the mother, Dr Krabman then, seeking to balance the issues in relation to the children's time with the father, made these recommendations at 987 to 988:
   1. The children spend time with the father that is regular enough to allow maintenance of a connection with the father, his extended family and family friends, and some continuity of shared activity and experience, but not so regular as to intrude upon the children's foundation of being raised in maternal care and in the context of maternal family and friend/ acquaintance connections. An example would be initially one full weekend day each month, extending when the children become a little older to one full weekend per month and some holiday time.
   2. For an initial period, this time occur in the general presence of another adult with experience in raising children, and ideally with extended family, for example that adult might be the paternal aunt [Ms T] and/or her partner [Mr U]. Each child be given some discretion within boundaries at age 14 then 16 about decreasing or increasing this time spent with the father.
5. Dr Krabman provided a detailed example of how that might work in practice. He said at 990 that each child should be given greater flexibility and autonomy as they move into late adolescence, starting from flexibility, from age 14, to vary the time through to age 16, to the exercise of their discretion, probably in collaboration with the mother. He said at 991 that both parents, in particular the mother, should be heard about changeover arrangements so as to minimise parental stress and/or conflict around changeovers, and the risk of perceived or actual paternal disrespectful, intrusive behaviour towards the mother.
6. At 992, he said he would not recommend too frequent telephone contact, in line with the principles set out at 987, and that frequent telephone contact often creates high stress, rather than actual gain.
7. Dr Krabman made recommendations at 993 about therapy, and at 994 that the father be expected to commence and complete an intervention designed to assist men who have been violent in intimate relationships, again setting out details of how that might work.
8. Dr Krabman also said from 996 to 998
   1. 996. If the mother seeks the same (and I feel that the same would be reasonable), enduring and appropriately specific orders be put in place about the father not approaching (for example) the mother's home, or the mother and children in a public place, or the children or the children's school outside of spend time orders, or not harassing/ intimidating the mother.
   2. Each party be restrained from making critical or derogatory remarks about the other in the presence or hearing of the children.
   3. I would not recommend that the father be able to sign up for regular school or sporting email communications. Rather, school reports might be sent to the father by the school or the mother. The mother might inform the father of any sporting fixture occurring on his weekend, as each child grows older. The father not attend any events at a child's school or extracurricular activities that is outside the children's time with him, unless by invitation in writing (e.g. email or SMS) from the mother, and confirmation in reply that he will attend.

1. The mother, as the applicant, was cross-examined first, and then the father, and I will deal first with the mother's evidence, then the father's before moving to Ms PP. I will consider the affidavits read, then coming to Dr Krabman and my findings.

1. In cross-examination, the mother said she takes Pristiq for anxiety, as well as dexamphetamines. She sees a psychiatrist, Dr GG, who she has been seeing for about a year, and sees every three to six months in Sydney. No report was provided from Dr GG. However, as I will come to, I have a report from Ms FF.
2. Although the father said that broadly he accepted Dr Krabman's views in terms of his "actions and personality during my relationship with the mother, particularly in respect to my limited capacity for empathic attunement with others", which view was premised by Dr Krabman in part on the fact that the evidence tended to support the mother's, rather than the father's, factual account of the relationship as relayed to him, the father in his trial affidavit contested many aspects of the mother's specific evidence of the specific family violence in the relationship. In doing this his affidavit sought to minimise them, characterise them as not malicious on his part, and to provide explanations for these actions.
3. In consider there is a dissonance between the father's statement that he accepts Dr Krabman's characterisation of his behaviours as family violence, which were based upon the mother's evidence, with his not accepting many of the specific allegations made.
4. The mother was cross-examined on many of the specific allegations she made in her trial affidavit, necessarily on the father's instructions, which were the foundations of her allegations of family violence in the relationship, and the foundation therefore, of Dr Krabman's opinion that there was family violence in the relationship, which the father says he accepts.
5. The mother was cross-examined to the effect that her allegations were not correct in her trial affidavit at various points. At 53, that she was forced to hang up laundry and etcetera; at 60 about the removal of the door handle; at 64 that she was not allowed to sleep on more than one occasion - I emphasise one occasion; at 65, that she held out from going to the bathroom more than once. The mother maintained her evidence under cross examination.
6. In relation to the issue at 49 of love-bombing, which was suggested to her as the father's "language in love", she maintained her evidence that his gifts came with terms and conditions, with him telling her that if she left him, no-one else would ever give her gifts, which she found confusing.
7. In relation to her evidence, at 91, concerning work, she maintained that he controlled her availability to work and where she was permitted to work, although agreeing that she did work.
8. In relation to her evidence about financial control, she maintained that although there was a joint bank account, the father maintained control over what he permitted her to spend through his general control over her. In relation to paragraphs 80 and 88, she maintained that she was forced to sign documents by reason of the nature of the relationship. The mother admitted using the father's power of attorney post-separation to access his accounts, but said this was to ensure they would not fall into arrears, which would have been bad for both of them. She said she did not access his money and it was not suggested otherwise to her.
9. The mother maintained that her signature had been forged. I found her evidence concerning the loop persuasive, however, it is not sufficiently clear who might have forged the signature, given people other than the father may have had an interest. In any event, it is not necessary to make a finding either way on that significant allegation of fraud.
10. Given the father's various concessions, and the conviction, and the father's dishonesty in his evidence to me about not having had relationships, which I will come to, as well as his propensity for casual dishonesty which caused him to be sacked from K Company, which I will come to, and noting the absence of any similar evidence of dishonesty on the part of the mother, and taking into account the opinion by Dr Krabman that the mother's history to him, which is substantially as in her affidavit, seemed to be more consistent with the causality of what he was doing, noting the ability of an expert to give evidence on issues of credibility within their expertise even where the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) applies, I am comfortably satisfied that where the mother's evidence contradicts the father's evidence on specific issues of family violence during the relationship prior to separation, unless I have said I cannot make a finding, the mother's evidence should be preferred over the father's evidence, and I do prefer it.
11. The mother was extensively cross-examined on her reports to police concerning various incidents which she believed constituted breaches of the ADVO. One of them was an incident in mid-2024 when the parties were attending this Court, for a mention or interim hearing, and the mother parked her vehicle on Church Street, just up from the Court, and began walking down to the crossing at Bolton Street, which this Court is on, and walking towards the Court.
12. At the same time, the father was driving his vehicle down Church Street and turned left onto Bolton Street. The mother went to police and told police she believed he sped up towards her. She asked police to access CCTV from the local pub on the corner and the university. The police did that, and the COPS reports, part of exhibit F6, noted that having viewed that video, it seemed to contradict the mother's version.
13. Now, I accept the mother was clearly genuine at the time, otherwise she might have made the complaint but not asked the police to search for the objective video evidence. However, as a matter of fact, it appears there was no intentional driving at her, and no breach of the ADVO, or other evidence of malicious act. Nevertheless, I do consider this to be relevant evidence from the mother, noting as I've said that if the mother was acting maliciously, she would not have said to police "get the video." So, clearly, she, having seen the father in a car, subjectively genuinely experienced such fear that she subjectively believed he was speeding towards her to the point where she took those fears to the police, and had them seek out what she believed would be the objective evidence which would support her fears.
14. Whilst it may be difficult to understand by those who have not dealt with victims of long-term intensive psychological family violence, I am comfortably satisfied that this is evidence of the extent of the fear which the mother feels for the father. I accept that she was genuine in her perception, albeit entirely wrong, that when she saw him in a car, he was driving maliciously towards her. That weighs heavily, in my view, towards acceptance of the mother's subjective evidence of the fear she suffers when she comes into any contact with the father.
15. The father, as I said, lives in J Street. However, prior to that, he lived in the parties' other property at Suburb HH, which was more like 25 to 30 minutes away from the mother's residence. The father said in his affidavit he moved into J Street around February 2025, but he was completing renovations work around April 2024, and it is not entirely clear to me whether he moved in in late 2024 or early 2025.[71]
16. The father said he moved into J Street for financial reasons, and as he had lost his licence, which I will come to, and had to ride a pushbike to work, and also, that although having three properties in addition to D Street, the father said it was financially necessary to move into J Street. His evidence of that is very slim, and in my view does not meet the evidentiary burden of establishing that it was not feasible for him to rent out the three properties the mother was not living in and to then rent a different property for himself, rather than renting two and living in the one which was three minutes drive from the mother, and even closer to the children's school, and doing so over her specific objection, which I will come to.
17. I note the father was riding his bicycle along N Street, the main road connecting his place of work, at K Company, to his residence. However, that main road passed by D Street, where the mother lived with the children.
18. In terms of the mother seeing the father riding along N Street on his bike and her report on, for example, late 2024 the mother, when asked about this[72], maintained her belief that the father was doing this to skirt the ADVO by living and riding as close as possible to her house as he could without breaching the ADVO.
19. The mother maintained that the father could have ridden another path to work without much difficulty, which is obvious with any knowledge of the local area. Whilst N Street is the main road, the father could clearly have taken a slightly longer route along other roads if he had wished to. I note the mother also had made reports of possibly seeing the father riding on that route on two occasions in early 2025[73] and again, she went to the police, and on each occasion sought the police to look at CCTV footage. Her complaints were not substantiated.
20. I do not believe that the mother was acting maliciously in making these complaints, again noting that she clearly wanted the police to get the objective CCTV evidence which she believed would support her. I do not think she acted maliciously. I think that these were events of extreme hypervigilance, which are consistent with what the mother says about her own mental state and consistent with any reasonable experience of someone who had suffered the long-term level of family violence the mother says she suffered, which Dr Krabman accepted she suffered, which the father substantially accepted she suffered, and which I find she suffered.
21. The mother's complaint of 1 April 2025, arising from the solicitor for the father tendering the father's bank accounts[74] and his attendance at restaurants near her place of work was, I find, not evidence of the father skirting the ADVO, given that that is one of the two main streets of restaurants in the area, and also it just seems unlikely. Again, I consider the mother was bona fide concerned, and I consider this is another example of the hypervigilance she developed when the father chose to move within three minutes' drive of her and the children.
22. There was another incident, which was the father sending an email to the parties' real estate agent on 26 August 2024 about the J Street property, noting that the bathroom had been completed, the house was rentable, and concluding, in effect, please let Ms Bustillo know. The father said this was merely keeping the mother informed without contacting her. The mother said it was something that, when passed on to her, left her fearful and trembling as he chose to contact her. Now, of course, in that regard, it becomes more complicated, as the mother admitted in cross-examination that she too had communicated with the father through his bank accounts by making transfers of one and 10 cents, with messages as follows[75]

26/11/24 tfer 1C and include "Where is the rent$" - y

4/3/25 tfer 10c - y / descript "Gaveauth2 se3nd 2 loan

1. Although the mother said the email from the real estate agent caused her fear, it was put to her that she was willing and able to communicate with the father in writing, and that she did it through his bank accounts rather than through the solicitors, whilst criticising him for sending a message through the real estate agent. The mother said she was panicking due to the extent of debt and acted in desperation due to the father's failure to engage with the issue of the impending financial problems. I accept the submission for the father that this evidence does tend to suggest the mother's capacity to engage directly with the father may be greater than she was willing to admit, although I also accept the mother's oral evidence that doing this caused her significant stress and was motivated by a fear of an impending financial disaster.
2. I will note that the mother in submissions relied on the view of the learned magistrate in relation to the mother's concerns about the father's potentially breaching the AVDO where that magistrate said:[76]

I note that there is some contact which is specifically said "Can be passed on

to [Ms Bustillo]", which is a breach of the AVO. [Mr Bustillo] would know that only

can be done in line with conditions 6(a) to (d), and that reference in the email to the

real estate agent would not be covered by that. I can understand perhaps why

the police have not proceeded with any charges, given the borderline nature of

it, but in the Court's view, I am satisfied that some of what I have read today

and heard and accept skirts around the boundaries of the AVO such that in the

context of the background and what is impending between the parties and the

high stakes when you are dealing with Family Law Court proceedings, custody

arrangements and property disputes, is likely to form a reasonable fear which

is ongoing of intimidation.

1. That was, of course, as noted by the magistrate earlier in the judgment, to be a finding made in the context of the father having moved into the suburb in which the mother lived.
2. While I am not bound by the finding of the magistrate, having considered similar evidence, I also consider the father's move into the same suburb, and his decision to take a path to work likely to bring him near the street in which the mother and children lived, albeit more than 500 metres from the house, and so not in breach of the ADVO orders, to have been a decision which did form the basis of the mother's reasonable maintenance of fear that the father was continuing to engage in intimidating and stalking type behaviour of the kind which she had experienced through the relationship, including as discussed and found with private investigators, and stalking with her electronic devices, and I find that it was entirely reasonable for her to have that fear, in the context of her experience with the father's family violence. As I will come to, at the very least the father's actions in moving there over the mother's objection showed significant lack of insight, and I will come to this more.
3. In relation to the chance meeting at S Shopping Centre with the father, it was also suggested to the mother in cross examination that this showed she would cope with the children spending time with the father, and even in her presence, and in fact she consented to it. She agreed the children enjoyed this, but she maintained that she was in fear. She was she said, in effect, acting, as she had indicated later to Dr Krabman, which was with concern and some shame about the fact the children were not spending time with the father, a matter that clearly conflicted her. To the mother's credit, the mother agreed that she had done this and did not dispute the facts.
4. The mother also agreed in cross examination that she has been speaking positively about the father with the children, as set out in her trial affidavit, that she has framed photographs of him in their bedrooms, but she says not in the rest of the house, that there is a photo album of the children's early years which includes the father, and which she goes through with the children.
5. She further agreed the children buy Christmas presents and Father's Day presents for the father, and that she stores these at the family home in a brown paper bag near the TV, waiting for the children to have a chance to give them to the father. She said the children's presents had not been passed on to the father, as the children did not want them given to him through a lawyer, but will wait till they see him next, even though they do not know when that will happen.
6. When asked to concede that the father was conducting this case solely to see the ,children and not to spite her, the mother said she believed he had both motives, and had intentionally dragged her through the courts.
7. The mother was asked about her statements to Dr Krabman which indicated a possible willingness for the children to spend time with the father. She was asked in particular about paragraph 759 of the report where Dr Krabman said:
   1. Because of how the marriage had ended... the sexual assault... the mother carries trepidation and concern for herself. But, she has also commented that whatever the court decides, she will need to do. She doesn't want a situation where the kids would not see their dad, but also feels worried about the father's future behaviour towards herself, and about his parenting of the children.

1. She was also asked about Dr Krabman's encapsulation of what he understood her position to be at the time of the report where he said:
   1. The mother does feel torn... the mother supports the children having a relationship with the father when it's safe, but, she doesn't want such statements to be taken out of context... that would be only if it's safe.
   2. I asked the mother about her comment that the children need a relationship with their father.
   3. That is more the mother's own stuff... the mother was raised by a single mum, and had no contact with her dad... and, when times were good in the past, it made the kids happy, being with Dad... the mother doesn't want to paint the father in a bad light to the children, though they do have some bad stuff... some bad memories of their dad.
   4. I asked the mother about her own growing up without contact with her dad, and what she drew from that in terms of these children's needs.
   5. Your dad is another person, with a set of personality strengths and weaknesses... and your dad has a family... the kids have known the father's side of the family... at family Christmases... the cousins... The father has some strengths... in fixing things... in maths...
   6. I asked about particular areas where the father would make the children happy. The mother appeared to stop to think. To be honest, she doesn't think that there were particular things... it was more just the children enjoying generic being with the family.
   7. I asked what the mother would fear, if the children commenced unsupervised time in paternal care.
   8. The mother would be concerned about the children's safety... their immediate safety... their needs being met, and... danger... keeping them away from danger... knowing their abilities...not pushing them too far... an example would be at the playground, there is a high retaining well... the father does not know the children's abilities as well as the mother does... she does not see danger as well as the mother does. The mother presented as reflective, specific, and child-focussed in her responses regarding risk in paternal care, not stereotyped or globally dismissing.
   9. The mother carries some concern that the father may do things maliciously, against the mother.
   10. An example would be what the father might say to the children, undoing the work that the mother is trying to do with the children, at home and adapting to the parental separation.
   11. The mother is concerned about the father planting things such as listening devices in things that the children take back with them from the father, such as toys... the mother commented that she had her own car swept for listening devices at one stage, because of such concerns.

1. The mother said she did not consider paragraph 759 to be an accurate recitation of the positional statements of Dr Krabman at the time, but did not dispute the other material I've just referred to. I think this is an area where the mother, although generally a witness of truth, verged into advocacy for her case through her fear of being forced to continue to have to engage with and think about the father.
2. In relation to her psychologist Ms FF's report, which I will come to later, the mother agreed she had spoken with Ms FF about how she might be able to manage contact arrangements. When asked direct questions by counsel for the father, and by me, the mother repeatedly stated she could not cope psychologically with knowing the children would spend time with the father, not even two times a year and professionally supervised. Although disavowing paragraph 759 in particular in oral evidence, the mother did agree in oral evidence that her position at trial had changed since she spoke with Dr Krabman. She said this was because a lot had taken place between then and now, and because the father has continued to tiptoe the line of the ADVO, and she believes it is clear he has not developed any insight.
3. In relation to her affidavit evidence with, again, Dr Krabman, she said she believed that if the father had in fact gained insight and changed, then she would agree to supervised time, but she does not believe he has, including for the reasons about facts on which the father was cross-examined by her counsel, which I will come to in due course.
4. In a similar vein, the mother agreed she had discussed with her the counsellor at Activated Concepts in November 2022, the children having time with the father, and I note that at the time she said she felt bad removing the children from him[77] but again she said she does not think the father has changed in the meantime.
5. The mother's evidence, in broad summary, was that since her statements to Dr Krabman and to the time of this trial, she does not consider the father's behaviours show that he has learned or gained any insight into his behaviours, and in particular how his behaviours impact on her or others, and that she is not satisfied he had changed or grown, and she did not consider he would be likely to do so in the future given that he has not to date, and on that basis, she did not believe that either the children, or she, would be safe from his ongoing psychological and intimidatory behaviours and coercive control.
6. The mother believes the father is a highly skilled manipulator who excels at deceiving people and presenting himself positively whilst acting in a violent manner, and she clearly believes that this is what he is attempting to do in these proceedings, including by making concessions of the, frankly unarguable, family violence in the relationship as a way to confess the past and then avoid the consequences of his actions by claiming that, firstly, there was no malice and so no moral culpability, merely ignorance based on his own neglected childhood, and then secondly claiming to have gained insight and changed, which she believes he is saying only to obtain the orders he seeks.
7. I note the mother's characterisation of the father as a highly skilled manipulator of other people's perceptions of him as a good person while committing long-term family violence was consistent with Dr Krabman's opinion on that topic, both in his report and in his oral evidence, which I will come to, and which Dr Krabman considered presented a major problem to the mother as the father's victim, in circumstances where it was apparent to her that no-one else could see what was actually going on. I accept that is her bona fide opinion, and for reasons I will continue to go through, I have come to the same conclusion.

1. The father was given leave to adduce short oral evidence on the issue of long-term, recognition-type time. He said it was not ideal, but he would take whatever time with the children the Court considered appropriate. He said he would use a service such as JJ Children's Services, and in terms of fees that it would be ideal if they were split between the parties, but he would be willing to be solely responsible if that was what was required to see the children.
2. The father was extensively cross-examined on Dr Krabman's report. In some cases it is not appropriate to allow cross-examination on an expert's report, but where the father's case was premised on personal revelations based substantially on reading Dr Krabman's report, and acceptance of Dr Krabman's report and conclusions, and where he then in his affidavit nevertheless sought to avoid and minimise and dispute much of what the mother said, it was appropriate that he be tested on what he did and did not in fact concede, and this approach was not challenged.
3. In these circumstances, much of Dr Krabman's report will need to be treated as read onto the record when discussing the father's cross-examination on each paragraph, and I will do that, and it will then be already read onto the record when I come to consider Dr Krabman's evidence.
4. Before coming to the cross-examination, there were some other foundational paragraphs not specifically cross-examined on, but which were picked up again by Dr Krabman in his oral evidence, and which it is appropriate, given the father's acceptance of the opinion, to consider now. One of Dr Krabman's foundational findings was that
   1. The mother's narrative of her stress and distress during this process is consistent with my impression of the father that he lacks capacity for empathic attunement with the other, and did not understand the mother's basic needs for respect, agency, and a voice during the process.
5. The finding that the father lacks, or at least at that time lacked, "the capacity for empathic attunement with the other and did not understand the mother's basic needs for respect, agency and a voice" was a critical aspect of Dr Krabman's opinion.
6. The father said, in his paragraph 178 referred to previously, that he accepted Dr Krabman's views, both in terms of his actions and personality during the relationship with the mother, and in particular with respect to his limited capacity for empathic attunement with others.
7. The question of whether or not his capacity for empathic attunement has improved, and whether he had a prior understanding of the mother's, and indeed other people's basic need for respect, agency and a voice, and has so changed his behaviours and is likely to act differently in future in spending time with the children, or engaging with the mother, so that neither the children nor the mother will be exposed to these family violence behaviours in the future, is, of course, central to these proceedings.
8. In that context, Dr Krabman also said -
   1. In a broader sense, the mother's narrative is that the father during the parental relationship was demanding, expectant and critical, about broader life matters, for example about housework, or about daily routines such as exercise regimes, or about finances. If the mother did not meet his expectations, there would be "payback". This could include the father not speaking to the mother.
   2. The father at interview and in his documents agreed that he had been emotionally abusive to the mother by giving her "the silent treatment", and linked this to his own childhood adverse experience of how his parents raised him, and related to each other.
   3. The father admitted to some critical or verbally abusive behaviour towards the mother, but denied that it was extreme or ongoing.

1. I note that, even in speaking with Dr Krabman, the father was taking a position, at 815, that he made some admissions of being critically or verbally abusive, but denied it was extreme or ongoing, seeking to minimise and avoid whilst admitting that level which seemed likely to be found.
2. The father was taken to Dr Krabman's report at 994:
   1. The father be expected to commence and complete an intervention designed to assist men who have been violent in intimate relationships. such as the [AA Family Services] "[BB]" course, or the [OO Organisation] "[RR]" course. Such interventions are most effective in group rather than individual delivery, and I feel that the father would be capable of taking part in the same, with preparation and discussion/assistance provided by his individual therapist Ms PP.
3. The father said in cross-examination that he had done nothing to follow up on his inquiry from July 2024. He did not accept this was indicative of his attitude or his behaviours, nor did he accept his evidence at 188 that he would do the course if required or ordered, was evidence that he did not really believe he needed such a course. He has done a Men's Behaviour course, just not the one recommended by Dr Krabman. He said the last three years have been a roller coaster, and while he was not saying the course was not important, he was dealing with life and life got away from him. This is a relatively minor matter, in my view.
4. The father was taken to Dr Krabman's opinion at 785 to 788.
   1. I observe that the information from these multiple sources is mostly consistent with the maternal narrative, and challenging of the more dismissing or minimising paternal narrative.
   2. My impression is that the father's behaviour towards the mother from early in their relationship to some extent but particularly from 2018/2019 when she was pregnant with [Y], continuing until parental separation in July 2022 and beyond that point until August 2022 and to some extent to the present day, amounted to a pattern of family violence perpetrated by the father against the mother.
   3. It is important to note that in using the term "family violence" I am not suggesting that the father has necessarily been physically violent to the mother, though I note that the mother reports him having held his hand to her throat during the incident leading to the conviction, above, and the father confirmed having done so at interview with myself. I am using this term as it is commonly used in clinical practice and in the clinical and social sciences literature (interchangeably with the terms "domestic violence" or "intimate partner violence") to denote a pattern of behaviour within a family relationship that is coercive, intimidating, disrespectful, and harmful to the other.
   4. My impression is that this pattern of family violence was significant, in terms of the characteristics and persistent/ recurrent nature of the father's behaviour towards the mother, and in terms of the impacts of the same upon the mother.

1. The father initially said in cross examination simply that he accepted Dr Krabman's opinions, particularly at 786 and 788. When this acceptance was explored, the father then cavilled with the words "persistent and recurrent", saying he "partially accepted" this, and the father also said he accepted the opinion that there were impacts on the mother, but did not accept it was persistent.
2. He was then asked what impact there might be on the mother, and he said he could not comment as the impact is personal to the person. Whilst that much is true, and different people may experience and respond subjectively to similar traumas in different ways, having lived with the mother for that period of time, the father's inability to have a view on what the impacts on the mother would have been would reflect very poorly on his ongoing capacity to have empathy, or else it indicates that the father was not being honest. Either answer, or result, does not assist the father.
3. There is a real possibility, given the other evidence in the case, that the father genuinely lacks the ability to understand, even having read everything the mother has written, and what she said to Dr Krabman, and what Dr Krabman said about it, he still lacks the ability to understand the impact of that long-term family violence on the mother, and that is a very concerning matter. That would indicate the father has not had the insight or growth the father claims, and I take that into consideration.
4. The father was taken to Dr Krabman's report at 790 and 791
   1. The father at interview described the sexual activities on that day as consensual, including the mother masturbating him and him putting his hand to her throat.
   2. My impression is that the father did intrude upon the mother sexually on this occasion, and that this was the culmination of a pattern of sexually coercive and manipulative behaviour over time.

791.10 In my view, the father hanging up the noose and ringing lifeline on the morning after the alleged sexual assault in the shower is consistent with him having crossed a further line sexually, than he had prior. These suicidal gestures were in my view a coercive and manipulative act, making use of the mother's fear of the father harming himself should she leave him (which she had expressed in couple therapy with [Ms C], four months prior), so as to try to maintain her connection and compliance.

791.12 The father in his letter to the mother of 13th August 2022 [at Annex [MB]3 to the mother's affidavit of October 2022] identified that he needed to "respect [the mother's] sex boundary", and referenced "how fucked up and skewed up the picture in my head of how sex, affection and love played in a relationship". In wanting to recommence some physical affection such as a kiss goodnight, the father added "I PROMISE YOU there will not be any pressure". In my view, these words demonstrate that up to that point the father had been aware that the mother had experienced him to be coercive and disrespectful sexually, but had persisted with such behaviour despite the same.

1. I am concerned by the father referring to this encounter as "make up sex", and his comment that the mother's emotional reaction at the end of the "make up sex" was different from previous such occasions. This paternal incidental equating of the events of this day with previous such encounters in my view lends weight to the mother's narrative that the father's approach to their sexual relationship had been coercive, manipulative and abusive in the long term.

1. The father agreed he did say the things to Dr Krabman recorded in 790. He agreed he did intrude sexually on the mother on that occasion, and that it was a culmination of a pattern of sexually coercive and manipulative behaviour over time. He did not, however, accept that his suicide attempt was a manipulative act. In that regard, I prefer the mother's evidence that there were no rope burns, and that the rope was poorly tied even though the father is a handyman. I note that he called Lifeline and made sure that the mother and children had time to get home. I am comfortably satisfied, taking into account all the surrounding evidence and all the other evidence, that this was purely a manipulative act. It concerns me that the father was not able or willing to admit that, even in the context of saying that he has gained insight.
2. The father also maintained that he was not aware of the mother's experience of family violence during the relationship prior to writing the letter on 13 August 2022. He said it was only after having had some sessions with Ms PP that his knowledge and understanding started to develop.
3. In relation to Dr Krabman's opinion at 807, the father said that he accepted Dr Krabman's opinion and agreed this was the case but did not recognise it until after the fact. He said that at the time he did not understand his behaviour to be coercive, but he does now.
4. The father was then taken to the recording referred to in the family report at 823[78] and in evidence before me as an exhibit.
   1. At Annex [MB]-1 to this affidavit and referenced in the above paragraph 24 is an audio recording of a conversation between the parents. The mother reports that the father asked her to record this conversation on 22nd October 2021 [Y aged 2 years] so that she could play it for her psychologist so that the father could explain why the mother was lazy, and how if she did things "his way" she could get more done. I requested and was sent a copy of this audio file, and have listened to the same.
   2. This is a 35 second file, which I transcribe as follows. In my view, the content and tone of this recording is consistent with the mother's narrative that it was recorded with parental shared knowledge and intention.

Mother: Go

Father: At ten past nine I asked [Ms Bustillo] to go to the gym, and she refused to go

Mother: Why?

Father: Because you've got an appointment with [Mr KK] at eleven...

Mother: ... and because I'm sick and I can't [indistinct word] properly...

Father: ... and gym classes finish at ten, gives her plenty of time to have a shower, go come go [indistinct word/s] [Mr KK], and... [non-distressed incidental baby noises] get on with the rest of the day...

Mother: OK (pause)

Mother: And why have I said that I'm not going?

Father: Because (matter of fact tone) you're a lazy ass [non-distressed incidental baby noises] (pause)

Mother: OK... [indistinct word spoken to child in kind tone, responsive baby noise, then recording ends]

1. The father agreed in oral evidence that he asked the mother to record this in order to play it for his psychologist so the father could explain why the mother was lazy and that if she only did things his way that she would get things done.
2. In relation to Dr Krabman's opinion:
   1. But, I feel that this recording is also consistent with [Ms CC]'s observation that the father lacks capacity for empathy and [Ms PP]'s observation that he has difficulty with understanding and expressing emotions. The father has been happy for his advice and his appraisal of the mother as a "lazy ass" to be recorded and passed on to her therapist, perhaps hoping for the therapist's support of his stance, without understanding the significant emotional and relational damage that a denigrating appraisal from one's partner can have upon a person, as well as the secondary impact upon a very young child, who can be heard engaging with the parent or parents during the adult verbal exchange. He has also failed to grasp the mother's emotional and interpersonal need for warmth and encouragement, as a more effective interpersonal method to motivate action in another person (including a partner or child).
   2. An occasional such "put-down" between partners is common. But, my impression is that this was an ongoing part of the father's relating to the mother, and that he did not understand its cumulative impact. In a similar way, the father had not understood the cumulative and lasting impact of his verbal abuse of the mother during his "rage"'s, expecting her to dismiss them afterwards as spoken "in the heat of the moment". He had not understood the mother's need for warmth and encouragement.
   3. The mother states in her affidavit of January 2023 [para 24] that the father's verbal aggression and name-calling during this period had "a debilitating effect on [her] mental health and self esteem", and I feel that this likely was the case.

1. The father was taken to that, and the father firstly accepted this. However, he then said that this was before he knew about the mother's ADHD diagnosis and the effects of ADHD on adults. When asked why that was relevant, he said that if he had known about the ADHD, he may have been able to understand the mother's inability to focus on tasks.
2. This answer in no way addressed the relevant issue, and further suggested inferentially that if the mother had not had ADHD, then the father's behaviour in making a recording for her to give to her psychologist to explain why she was lazy might somehow have been acceptable.
3. This was, I find, an aspect of the father's oral evidence in which he inadvertently revealed that his views or understandings about the appropriateness of his demeaning conduct have not in fact changed.
4. The father was asked about paragraph 829, and said he accepted that it had had a "debilitating effect on the mother", but when asked if he accepted his past behaviours continued to have an effect on her today, he said, similar to his earlier answer, that he could not comment on that because some words and comments stick and some do not, and he does not know what she holds on to or what she does not hold on to.
5. While one person can never know for certain what is in the mind of another, I was again deeply troubled by this answer, which seemed to me a further expression of the father's fundamental lack of ability to have empathy, and to understand that his past family violence conduct could, and in this case, I find, does continue to have an ongoing effect. It is clear that Dr Krabman accepted it did, and the father said he accepted what Dr Krabman concluded, but the father would not concede that his behaviours past behaviours have an ongoing effect on the mother.
6. In that regard, I also note Dr Krabman's statement in his report that despite the father's apparent acceptance of some faults, the degree to which the father has gained an insight into the impact of his behaviours on the mother was limited, and unfortunately I find it clear from his oral evidence, and other matters I will come to, that despite his work with Ms PP, the father's insight into the impact on his behaviour on the mother, and on others, which is relevant to any time he might spend with the children, remains extremely limited.
7. The father maintains that, in particular as a consequence of his own upbringing, he did not know what he was doing in the marriage was bad. He said he did not think he was doing anything wrong, but now learnt his behaviours were "not great" and "not the best". I found that his choice of language was in effect a minimisation, given what occurred. This again speaks against the genuineness of the father's evidence that he has gained substantial insight into his conduct, why it was wrong, how it impacted negatively on others, and on the issue of his change.
8. The father then gave evidence that he accepted Dr Krabman's opinions on his past behaviours, that he had learnt and grown, that he had seen what not being a good dad can do to children, and that he had no interest in creating trauma for the mother or the children, and if permitted any time with the children, he would not denigrate the mother or speak to the children about the mother, or do anything to interfere with that time continuing.
9. The father was taken to Dr Krabman's significant opinion at 842.
   1. In my view, the risk of future recurrent coercive/ aggressive/ retributive behaviour towards the mother, possibly involving the children, or of family violence dynamics in future paternal partner relationships is significant.

1. The father said he agreed with that assessment, at the time, but it was not accurate now as he has changed, and I accept Dr Krabman's view as at the time of the report.
2. The question of whether or not the father has in fact gained insight, learnt empathy, or at least to think through matters to the point where he can intellectually understand the impact of his behaviours on others, and whether he has in fact changed his behaviours and is likely to behave differently in the future, is therefore critical to the determination of the proceedings.
3. Whilst Dr Krabman recommended time with the father, the identified risk of coercive, aggressive, retributive behaviour towards the mother, and possibly not only involving the children but towards the children with a similar family violence dynamic in the future as they grow if they spend time with him, would be, in my view, an unacceptable psychological risk to the children. If the father is in fact the same person now in terms of his behaviours as he was during the relationship up to separation, then, in my view, any time with the children will pose an unacceptable risk.
4. The father was also taken to Dr Krabman's opinion at 882 and the father accepted this.
   1. To date, it does not appear that the mother's adverse experiences within the parental relationship or post-separation and her associated experience of stress, distress, apprehension and fear have disrupted the basic adequacy of her parenting capacity.

1. The father said he had changed, and would not try and hurt the mother, so that the mother's good parenting capacity would not change.
2. When asked why, given his view that he had changed, he had sought only time proposed by Dr Krabman, he said he wanted more time, but accepted Dr Krabman was the expert. He said he wanted to minimise the impacts on the mother, and that he was not seeking to push the boundaries by going beyond Dr Krabman's recommendations, particularly as given pushing boundaries was an issue the mother had raised. This was why he said he sought the orders effectively as recommended by Dr Krabman as being in the children's best interests.
3. I then come to some matters, unrelated to the mother, which were raised in cross-examination going to the father's behaviours, and the question of whether or not his behaviours generally have changed.

1. The father was asked about his loss of driver licence in late 2024, which he said was one of the relevant factors to his decision to move to the J Street property. He said he had lost his licence due to accumulated demerit points, which were mostly for one point, and he thought involved being fined about 12 or 13 times for going a bit over the speed limit.
2. Everyone drifts over the speed limit a bit from time to time, but to be caught 12 or 13 times suggests that the father is either incredibly unlucky, or, more likely, that speeding at a low level is a persistent habit, and that despite being fined repeatedly, those sanctions had no impact on his behaviour as late as September 2024.
3. Whilst low-level speeding may be seen as a minor matter, in the context of the evidence in this case, this is some evidence that despite his alleged gaining of insight in early 2024, the father remained a person who, at heart, did not believe that social conventions and norms, and even laws which require people to behave in a certain way as part of living in a community, which means driving at the speed limit and not speeding just because you want to, did not apply to him. I give weight to this as it has nothing to do with the mother or her subjective perceptions, or possibly misperceptions.

1. This is another piece of evidence that, together with others, indicates that the father maintains the view that he has a right to do as he pleases. In the father's trial affidavit of 15 August 2025 at paragraph 160, the father said
   1. I am currently work as a team member at [K Company] at [Suburb L]. My work shifts are flexible, and I generally work 4-5 days a week, earning an income of approximately $50,000.00 per annum. I have held this position for nearly 12 months. I made the decision to have this career change as a result of losing my licence as well as I was finding it difficult to undertake my stressful position at [MM Company], when going through these family law proceedings. It has also allowed for a better work-life balance and for me to have the time and energy to be able to focus on things that are facilitating my personal growth and assists with maintaining my mental health and be better equipped to be present for the children if I am able to see and spend time with me.

1. The father made no reference to employment in his updating affidavit. However, it eventuated in cross-examination that between the two affidavits, he had ceased employment at K Company. He said he resigned because he had been called into a meeting 12 months ago to address a complaint he had taken food from the staff's snack bar without paying and given a first and final warning, and that when there was a second complaint, and he was notified of it, he resigned. He said, however, he did not know what the further recent complaint was about, but that he was leaving anyway, and did not want to go through the rigmarole.
2. The documents from K Company[79] show complaints of "theft from the culture club". They were recorded on 9 July, 8 July and 11 July 2025. The father's evidence that he did not know what the further complaint was, and merely resigned anyway without knowing what it was about was, I find, inherently incredible, and I find it was a frank lie where the father did not want to admit to very recent dishonesty.
3. Again, even though it is petty theft, it is a matter which, in the context of all of the evidence, I give weight to as part of a constellation of recent facts, unrelated to the mother, occurring after the father's alleged gaining of insight and change of behaviour, which indicate that the father has a fundamental belief that he is entitled to act as he wants, regardless not only of social conventions but the law, and that this belief continues to drive his actual actions as recently as July of this year. As recently as July of this year, the father went into his employer's staff room and, having been told that if he did it again he would be sacked, on three occasions stole food. There is no suggestion he didn't have the petty cash required to pay for small items. He clearly just did not think that he should have to pay, even though everyone else does.
4. I also find that this is evidence that the father was willing to lie on oath, and was not a witness whose evidence can be unhesitatingly believed. Again, I give particular weight to this as it has nothing to do with the mother and indicates that the father has a particular view of his right to do whatever he pleases with regards to anyone he wants.
5. Even more significantly, in my view, the father told Dr Krabman about his relationship history:
   1. The father has discussed the issue of dating with his psychologist. The father has not initiated in any formal relationships... that would not be fair... with something as serious as this lingering. The father wants to understand himself better... to learn about himself... he doesn't want to be blindsided by love... lust... if he doesn't love himself.
6. In his trial affidavit, the father said:
   1. However as stated about, given the therapy and the passage of time I am more more accepting of my single life and now simply want to move forward so that I, along with my family are able to see and spend time with the children. I am grateful for the journey that I have taken over the past three (3) years.
7. In his supplementary affidavit, even more close to trial, he said:
   1. I say the relationship, our separation and these lengthy and costly proceedings have also impacted me and my life, which included a period of incarceration prior to be granted bail, and constant calls from the Police regarding alleged breaches of ADVO and not being able to see or spend time with the children for over three (3) years. Further I dispute [Ms Bustillo]'s comment of "He carries on living his life as normal, whilst I continue to live in a 'bubble ' .... In this regard, I note the following:

64(a). [Ms Bustillo] was able to re-partner with [Mr R], several months after separation, whilst I have been too scared and traumatised to enter into another relationship.

1. Now, the father said in cross-examination he is not in a relationship now, but accepted he was in a relationship with a lady named Ms LL at the time he spoke to Dr Krabman, but said it was "not a formal relationship".
2. However, the notes of Dr PP, in particular of 20 January 2025, read:

[Ms LL]'s parents don't want to know [Mr Bustillo]

[Ms LL] & [Mr Bustillo] have discussed future of their rel'ship - may not be L.T

1. The father then accepted he had been in a relationship with Ms LL for 18 months, and a "romantic relationship" with Ms LL for more than a year, but said he did not deem it either important or serious or lengthy, although she had met his parents, spent Christmas with them, he had met her children one or two occasions, and accepted he was devastated when it ended and suffered suicidal thoughts which he reported to Ms PP on 25 February 2025. I find that his answers that he did not deem it important, serious or lengthy, to be lies.
2. The father also admitted that he commenced another romantic relationship with Ms NN in 2025, which lasted for two or three months and ended in July 2025.
3. I consider the father's oral evidence to the effect that his trial and supplementary affidavits concerning relationship status, and the unfairness of his position compared to that of the mother's, was honest, because he did not consider these relationships to be relevant, was a frank lie designed to avoid admitting that he had lied on oath in his affidavits to attempt to manipulate the Court into a position of sympathy for him. I will come to what Dr Krabman says about this lie in due course, and note I accept Dr Krabman's opinion.
4. Arguably, whilst a relatively small matter, in the context of the father's admitted history of manipulative and coercive conduct during the relationship with the mother, and the mother's allegation, and Dr Krabman's concern that the father is a manipulator who holds an aggrieved stance against the mother, and that his aggrievement may drive his ongoing engagement in coercive and controlling behaviour towards the mother, in particular through the children, the father's lie to the court about his relationship history is something I give particular significance to, as it evidences that as late as September 2025 the father was willing to tell a bald and frank and significant lie on oath about a matter, which I find he must have known was significant, to try and paint himself as the victim compared to the mother, and he did this in order to seek the Court's sympathy, and to show that she was not the only victim in this relationship, but that he too had suffered, even if from his own behaviours.
5. This gross and manipulative dishonesty is akin to, if not identical to, the behaviours described by the mother, and accepted by Dr Krabman, and indeed accepted by the father, as having happened during the relationship, and as being coercive and controlling and manipulative family violence.
6. The fact that the father would attempt, as recently as the months before trial, and at trial, to engage in similar emotional manipulation of the Court, weighs heavily, in my view, against any possibility of accepting the father's evidence that he is in fact a changed man, and as with other matters, shows he has been more than happy to lie on oath in an attempt to deceive this Court.
7. This evidence, together with other matters where I find the father has lied, persuades me that the father is one of those witnesses whose evidence must be treated as so unreliable, that unless clearly true or supported by other surrounding circumstances, any of his evidence must be treated with great caution.

1. Then, turning to another matter unrelated to the mother, as set out earlier, the father said in his trial affidavit at 181, and I think that paragraph is also repeated at 166 in his affidavit, that his sister Ms T would not supervise.
2. In cross-examination the father confirmed he was currently not on talking terms with his sister. He said this was because the stress of being locked up in September had had a massive impact on Ms T's mental health, and on the ongoing proceedings and the dispute or disagreement about supervised care for the children as far as her capacity. He said he had never had a conversation with her about her decision not to assist with supervision. He said that they had no direct contact, and when they both attended family gatherings, they would just not speak.
3. The father agreed he spoke with Dr PP about this and was taken to the notes of his consultation with Dr PP on 20 January 2025

Discussion re repairing the falling-out

[Mr Bustillo] doesn't want to repair

1. It was put to him that he was not repairing the relationship as a "point of principle" and was not willing to let it go, and that this was behaviour similar to his behaviour towards the mother, and that he had not changed, to which he said words to the effect that "it's not about me not letting go, I don't know how to deal to move forward with it". This behaviour is strikingly similar behaviour to the silent treatment the father admitted he used throughout the relationship with the mother, and which he accepted was coercive family violence.
2. Even if it is not a stubborn point of principle, the fact that the father does not know how to move forward by having a conversation with his sister, who, the evidence of Dr Krabman indicates is a very reasonable and supportive person, does not suggest that the father has in fact changed and gained the skills necessary to have proper relationships with other people, including family members.
3. Again, I find this is a further piece of evidence that suggests that the fundamental patterns of behaviour identified by Dr Krabman, and accepted by the father as evidencing his family violence behaviours, are still evident in his actual conduct of interpersonal relationships with other family members outside the mother and the children. Yet again, I give particular weight to this evidence as it has nothing to do with the mother and does not involve her subjective perception or assessment.

1. As I previously indicated, the father was living in Suburb HH, about 25 or 30 minutes drive from the mother's home, until late 2024 or early 2025. On 2 October 2024, the mother's solicitor wrote a letter to the father's solicitor[80] about the real estate agent contacting her with information about J Street, including that the father intended to reside there, and including that:
   1. Our client is highly concerned that your client intends to reside three kilometres from her home and one kilometre from the children's school.

6. Our client does not agree with your client to reside in the [J Street] property.

...

1. If it was your client's intention all along to reside in the [J Street] property, our client would not have agreed to pay for renovations. Again, this goes again to the constant undermining behaviour that your client displays in this matter.

1. On 22 October 2024, the father's solicitor replied to the letter, in part:[81]

In terms of the schedule of works, as you can see, our client has kept the real estate abreast of what is happening, and this has been relayed to your client. Our client has subsequently received a call from the Police as outlined above due to his request to the real estate agent to "let [Ms Bustillo] know".

Ultimately, it is our client's intention to eventually reside in the [J Street] property. This is a decision he is looking at making for financial reasons. If or when our client relocates to the [J Street] property, your client will be notified, and our client's details will be updated with the NSW Police.

With all due respect, your client has no control over if our client resides in the [J Street] property. Our client did not expressly agree for your client to reside in the [D Street] property but felt as though he had no option. As such our client finds it rather ironic that your client is now indicating an objection as to where our client can and can not live.

Until our client relocates into the [J Street] property, we expect your client to continue her financial commitments towards the property. Again, in this regard, we note your client is now two (2) months behind in repayments and this has now affected both our respective client's credit rating. Please ensure your client rectifies this issue immediately.

It is our client's intention to ultimately sell the [Suburb HH] property if or when he relocates into the [J Street] property. In terms of your client's complaint about the payment of the renovations, your client will ultimately benefit with the increase in value of the property.

1. In his affidavit, the father said:
   1. The decision to relocate into the [J Street] property was purely for financial reasons, as these proceedings were looking to drag out. The mortgage repayments at the [Suburb HH] unit where I was living, is also a lot more than the repayments of the [J Street] property. I needed to be able to reduce my own personal expenditure. Further, [J Street] property has a tenanted granny flat which assists with the overall associated expenses such as water and rates.
   2. The financial situation which [Ms Bustillo] and I were in at the time was the only reason why I decided to relocate into the [J Street] property. Whilst I understand that the [J Street] property is in [Suburb E], the same suburb that [Ms Bustillo] and the children reside, the property is well outside the 500-metre exclusion zone. My relocation was purely for financial reasons, and was not an attempt to intimidate [Ms Bustillo].
   3. My initial idea was to sell the [Suburb HH] property, and I requested agreement from [Ms Bustillo] to do so in October 2024 and again in November 2024 through correspondence between our solicitors. We never received any response to this request from [Ms Bustillo]'s solicitors. However, as part of our recently agreed property settlement, I will retain this property. I will then tenant the [Suburb HH] property and the income received should cover the majority of the expenses for that property.
2. In cross-examination, the father agreed he still owns Suburb HH. He obtained it in the property settlement. It has not been sold. He said of the language in the letter, that he did not write the letter, and I note that solicitors in this jurisdiction should be cautious with their use of language and attempt to convey their instructions without resorting to language of the kind the Court instructs the parties to try and avoid. Nevertheless, the father confirmed that the substance of what was conveyed reflected his intentions and instructions.
3. He denied that he did not care about the mother's feelings, but said, again concerningly, he just did not consider them. That is inconsistent with his alleged new insight into and consideration of the impacts of his behaviour on others, in particular the mother.
4. He said that in addition to the financial reasons, he took into account the fact that he had to use a pushbike due to having no licence. He denied that he was acting maliciously or seeking to put pressure on the mother. In terms of his capacity to return to the Suburb HH residence now, which could reduce the mother's stress, the father said that he had made a home in Suburb E at J Street. That was a particularly unpersuasive answer.
5. The father denied that he knew moving to J Street would significantly increase the prospects of crossing paths with the mother and with the children, even given the experiences at S Shopping Centre on 2 October 2023. I do not accept that evidence as being honest.
6. It was put to the father that his decision to continue living in J Street when he could move to Suburb HH was an indication that he had not in fact grown over the last three years, and that he still does not consider the mother's emotions or accept the long-term impact his admitted family violence had on her. After a substantial pause, the father disagreed. I find, on balance, taking into account all the evidence, that the father's move to J Street was motivated by being closer to the children and undertaken despite his knowledge of the mother's objections, because her fears or concerns which were expressed to him meant nothing to him. That is inconsistent with his alleged gaining of insight and changing of behaviours and admission of responsibility for his past behaviours.

1. I also note that the father was questioned about the extension of the ADVO.
2. As to the time extension, it was put to the father that his refusal to consent was an expression of the father, again, as noted elsewhere, taking a "pointed principle", and the father denied this. But it's not clear why the father would not agree to a one-year extension to staying 500 metres away from the mother's residence and etcetera, noting that any ADVO could be subject to specific orders of this court in regards to time with the children. It would have cost the father nothing to agree.
3. If he had in fact gained any of the insight he claims, surely he would have realised that the appropriate course of action would be to recognise the trauma he had caused the mother, to give her something which would cost him nothing, at least in terms of the time extension, if not the distance.
4. And again, that speaks to me against the father having substantially changed, and is again just one small piece of the constellation of evidence, which comfortably and overwhelmingly, in my view, establishes that the father is not substantially different now than he was in terms of his behaviours and beliefs during the relationship.

1. The father's treating psychologist, Dr PP, provided an affidavit, annexing a two-page report outlining the father's three-year engagement in psychological therapy, and the therapeutic approach undertaken across his time. Ms PP said:

[The father] presented with an insecure attachment style and limited emotional language due to early developmental experiences, and in particular identified that anger reactivity was a significant issue for him. Through therapy, [the father] has gained and [sic] understanding of emotions, greater awareness of his emotional responses and has shown commitment to practicing new coping strategies.

... With this new learning has come noticeable changes in the way [the father] relates to others, including greater awareness and more respectful interactions ...

1. Dr PP was a frank witness who, though supporting the father, as was appropriate for a treating practitioner, was nevertheless candid about the extent of work the father still needs to do.
2. While I accept Dr PP was a fundamentally honest witness and was seeking to assist the court as best she could, and gave honest evidence, she was acting in a therapeutic and not a forensic role. While I accept her evidence that she does challenge the father in the context of therapy, her role is not to try and work out whether or not the father has, in fact, changed or whether he has been honest with her, but is to assist him to change, taking into account and broadly accepting what he tells her.
3. Ultimately, as Dr Krabman later said, the question of whether or not the father has changed is dependent upon the court's findings of fact about his behaviours over the last two years, and whether that demonstrates that the father has gained insights, has changed his behaviours, and is likely to continue with changed behaviours without relapse, or whether he is, in fact, still someone who is likely to commit acts of family violence if given time with children.

1. Mr H is 35. In his short affidavit, he described a relationship from about mid-2024, which he said was "more like a boyfriend and girlfriend type relationship"[82]
2. They do not live together, share finances, and he has only general involvement with the children and does not take decisions for them. He sometimes stays the night after dinner but sometimes returns home. He disclosed certain medical conditions but not a diagnosis. He takes medication for depression and anxiety and says he lives a normal life. His medical records were returned, and no issues were raised. Information sharing from police and The Department of Communities and Justice showed no issues.
3. I do not consider Mr H's evidence relevant except to inform the Court, and the father, of the mother's present domestic circumstances, which was appropriate, and to allow the appropriate investigations to satisfy the Court that Mr H does not pose any risk to the children.
4. To the extent the mother was criticised about the late timing, I accept that the mother had genuine fears that the father would seek to interfere with her relationship with Mr H if he became aware of it earlier.

1. Since March 2023, the maternal grandmother has lived with the children and the mother, providing assistance for the care of the children on a day-to-day basis.[83] To the extent that she gave corroborative evidence of the father's denigration of the mother from about paragraph 10 of her affidavit, under the general heading Domestic Violence, for a specific example, about Halloween 2021 and July 2022, there was substantial accord by the father's admissions, and her evidence adds nothing substantial to the mother's and Dr Krabman's evidence.
2. Her evidence, from paragraph 40 "concerns for [Ms Bustillo]", supports the mother's subjective statements of her mental state. Her evidence of the children's views adds nothing to the independent opinion of Dr Krabman, and her opinion of the paternal grandparents, from 73, does not go to any relevant issue other than perhaps, interestingly, to support the father's evidence that he suffered a level of emotional neglect at his own parents' hands which may explain his behaviours.
3. Given the father's admissions and other evidence referred to, this evidence was of marginal relevance, and, quite appropriately, the maternal grandmother was not required for cross-examination.

1. The paternal grandmother, known as Ms EE, gave affidavit evidence about the father's improvements in health, both physical and mental, in recent times,[84] as well as indicating her willingness to assist with the children should orders be made for time with the father.[85] Additionally, she conveyed a desire to reintegrate the children with the extended paternal family and reacquaint the children with their cultural heritage.[86]
2. Given the father's admissions and other evidence, as with the maternal grandmother, this did not add significantly to the case, although it does confirm, as expected and as supported by Dr Krabman, that the paternal family would like to maintain a relationship with the children.
3. There was no application for orders that the children spend time with the paternal family separate to the father, although there was some indication on the mother's behalf that she would be willing to facilitate time between the children and their cousins. I will just indicate, to the extent that the mother may wish to consider this, that if it can be safely done without the involvement of the father, it would certainly, I think, be, as Dr Krabman has said, a benefit to the children if they could maintain a level of relationship with their cousins, who can be as important as siblings.
4. The evidence concerning the father's sister also suggests that she is a positive person, and a positive force, and that she may be a person with whom the children, together with her husband Mr U, can also safely have a relationship with.
5. To the extent it would assist them to understand their cultural heritage, coming from Country M people who lived in Country O, and have the benefits of access to a broader familial structure, I would encourage that, but I will not make any orders as none were sought.
6. Again, the paternal grandmother was not cross-examined, and that was appropriate.

1. Dr Krabman spoke with the mother's treating psychologist, Ms FF, as noted in his report. The mother agreed she would discuss with Ms FF how she might be able to manage contact arrangements between the children and the father. The mother included as annexure [MB]14 to her affidavit a treating report dated 23 May 2024, which she was cross-examined on.
2. I note that the questions and answers in paragraph 4 of that report do not tend to support the mother's case that she could not cope with any time at all. However, they were given at a time close to Dr Krabman's report and largely were effect consistent with the mother's statements to Dr Krabman at that time. Her position is that these were at a time when she may have been open to supervised contact if the father changed. No affidavit was obtained, and Ms FF was not a witness.

1. Much of the opinion expressed in Dr Krabman's report, adopted by the mother and admitted by the father, had already been discussed and read onto the record.
2. Dr Krabman considered some time would probably be appropriate, even having made many adverse comments about the father.
3. Dr Krabman was called and was provided with the relevant updated information and informed of the key aspects of the evidence, including the father's acceptance of his opinions as at the date of the report, and of the father's evidence that he has now changed and gained insight, and of the mother's contention that the father has not, in fact, changed or grown. Dr Kraman was also informed of the mother's evidence that she does not believe she could cope with even twice a year supervised contact, and that even that level of contact would so negatively impact her mental health and impair her parenting capacity.
4. Dr Krabman was asked about his opinion, at paragraph 994, with regards to the Men's Behaviour Change Program, namely, the father had a program but not a group program. Dr Krabman thought a group program will be better. I give little weight to that particular issue.
5. In relation to the move to the J Street property, and the AVO time extension, Dr Krabman was taken to his key paragraph, 482, and to the significant future risks noted by reference to his comments at 812 regarding the father "lacks capacity for empathic attunement with others". He confirmed his view that the father had difficulty with empathic attunement and connecting the impacts of his behaviours on others to his own behaviours and responsibility.
6. Dr Krabman said that it is hard for humans to change their behaviours, and prior enduring behaviours even when stopped, tend to recur. He said that is true of many habits and noted that if, as it seems to be the case, there were elements of coercive behaviours from the very beginning of the relationship at the time of dating, that would show a long-established pattern of behaviour in the father. Dr Krabman said that even if there were changes to the father's behaviours that, similar to addictions such as drug and alcohol issues, he considered that even if the father had changed the risk of relapse was significant, and that maintaining the changes would be made more difficult if the father still, in fact, lacks empathic attunement.
7. In relation to Ms PP's statements to Dr Krabman, and in her recent affidavit, Dr Krabman accepted the father was genuinely seeking to improve himself, but said that personality vulnerabilities of the type identified by him Krabman in his report are really hard to shift, and that his impression of the father was that it was not appropriate to expect therapy to fundamentally alter the difficulty the father has with empathic attunement. He said the father can definitely learn to relate better, and to manage his emotions better, but there will always be some deficits there.
8. Dr Krabman said what continued to concern him was the profound lack of connection in the father's mind between his behaviours towards the mother and the lasting impacts his behaviours had had upon her. And I note his report at paragraphs 14, 441 to 443, in particular at 918 to 923. He said at 922-923:
   1. My impression is that the father was speaking with earnest and genuine positive and indeed idealised and altruistic intention regarding his current desire to move forward to a mutually respectful, ordered and efficient 50/50 care arrangement.
   2. But, in my view, his pleasant and generic focus upon the pragmatics of such arrangements shows a profound lack of insight into the cumulative impact upon the mother of his past coercive, manipulative, threatening, intrusive, emotionally and sexually abusive behaviour towards her over time, as well as a failure to appreciate the risk of future recurrence of such patterns of behaviour within himself.

1. In this regard, Dr Krabman considered the fact the father said he regretted treating the mother as he did, then expected to have a pleasant fifty-fifty arrangement, suggested no understanding of the lasting impacts of his behaviour on the mother, and was profoundly out of place in context with the mother's experience.
2. Dr Krabman stated that the main reason for the significant risk was what he called the banal and non-psychological one, which was that, if anyone has an established problem behaviour, even if they change it, they have a risk of relapse. He agreed the father's difficulty with empathy is relevant to that risk of relapse.
3. I note in his report Dr Krabman also said,
   1. Just as the father lacked insight at the time and still lacks insight now regarding the profound negative effects that his behaviour and the patterns of relating within the parental relationship had up on the mother, he would be likely to lack insight into any negative effects upon the children, over time. This lack of insight can disrupt the effectiveness of therapy, as was the case (regarding the parental relationship) with regard to the therapy with [Ms C] and [Ms CC].
   2. As the children get older, these relational/ emotional/ developmental risks become more prominent, as the more practical risks associated with proper parental monitoring, boundary-setting and judgement reduce.
4. The uncontested evidence of Dr Krabman was that if the father was to behave towards the children in a way he behaved towards the mother prior to separation, then that would constitute family violence towards the children, and that his patterns of behaviour, if not changed, would mean that this would place the children at a significant risk of being exposed to family violence.
5. I note that the question of whether that risk would be unacceptable, and how it could be managed, is a matter for me, as Dr Krabman said, and my firm view, having considered the father's behaviours, is that if the father has not changed, which I find he has not, that spending any time, certainly unsupervised, with the children would expose the children to an unacceptable risk. I will come later to whether that could be ameliorated by supervision.
6. Dr Krabman was asked about the evidence concerning the father's current relationship with his sister, Ms T, and whether it could be an indication of a pattern of use of silent treatment as a coercive response continuing in the father. He said that whilst adult siblings falling-outs are relatively common, he did think it was a matter of concern, and again said that if the father had really come to a fundamentally different understanding of the contributions of his behaviours, and their impacts on others, that he might be understanding of the impact of his behaviours on his sister. Which is to say that, the responsibility or need for supervision, which would put Ms T in an awkward position, was a result of his behaviours, so that you would not expect his reaction, his indignant reaction, to exist and continue if he had changed.
7. And Dr Krabman considered that this suggested the father was still not connecting the impacts of his behaviours in others, which, in this case, is on Ms T, and accepted that it was potentially the same silent treatment the father admitted to, which was, he considered, if found to be the case, evidence of an ongoing disrespectful pattern of relating to people, including people other than the mother.
8. Dr Krabman was taken to his report, paragraphs 398 to 400.

389. I asked about new romantic relationships, post-separation.

1. The father has discussed the issue of dating with his psychologist. The father has not initiated in any formal relationships... that would not be fair... with something as serious as this lingering. The father wants to understand himself better... to learn about himself... he doesn't want to be blindsided by love... lust... if he doesn't love himself.

2. I asked the father whether he feels restless for a relationship. No... he is traumatised by that thought... to be serious

1. He was taken to Ms PP's notes, and the concessions, including his downplaying of the relationship in his oral evidence, and the evidence that the father was not, single.
2. Dr Krabman expressed concern. He said that it was also an example of what he had discussed in the report of the difficult situation for the mother, in that at the same time the father was perpetrating very significant family violence against her, he presented not just averagely but very positively to the community outside, and this was a complex thing for the mother, as she finds it difficult to express her degree of unease about the father because he can be so charming.
3. He also referred back to Ms CC, who Dr Krabman had consulted, and who had earnestly challenged the father about sexual matters, but who nevertheless thought that the relationship was symmetrical,[87] even though it is now clear the father was being sexually coercive. Dr Krabman emphasised that the father's ability to portray himself positively makes it extremely difficult for the mother to act and to be safe.
4. In relation to the father's lies about being single, Dr Krabman said that he was also concerned, given the father did not just say "I'm not dating anyone", but that the father presented quite a complex, but apparently false, narrative that presented himself in a positive light, both in terms of insight about family violence and parenting. At 399, which I've referred to earlier, the father was suggesting insight and learning, noting that the father did refer to "formal relationships", and at 400, that the father said he was "traumatised".
5. Dr Krabman considered that an example of how skilled the father is at, falsely, presenting himself in a positive light.
6. Dr Krabman said the takeaway was that he considered this lie was consistent with the comments in his report about the father's personality functioning and, again, about the difficulties for the mother, as a victim of family violence, when the father, who is the perpetrator, presents so well externally. He also noted the capacity for denial, as well as what he called the father's " capacity for smooth disregard for the truth", which he considered particularly concerning.
7. I give significant weight to the evidence that the father sought to manipulate not only Dr Krabman, but this Court by continuing, up to trial, to present himself in this regard as a victim too, who has been unable to have relationships due to the trauma of the separation, in contrast to the mother, who has been able to move on and had subsequent relationships, when that was patently untrue.
8. It is evidence that the father maintains and continues to exercise, without regard for his obligations, including the legal obligations on oath, a "capacity for smooth disregard for the truth", and a personality focused on lying to and manipulating all around him, including, in this, this Court, to achieve his goals.
9. The evidence of the father's lie, and the concern raised by Dr Krabman, is a factor that weighs very heavily, in my assessment, to a finding that the father has not, in fact, experienced significant personality function change, and that his behaviours have not changed, and that he continues to lie and manipulate to achieve his goals, his goal in this case being to try and paint himself as the victim compared to the mother.
10. That shows that as recently as the months before the trial, and up to the trial, the same personality functioning that was identified in the family report remains present. It also shows that the father is still aggrieved, and seeking to present a picture of aggrievement of himself as the victim and to paint the mother as, in this case perhaps indirectly, someone who has harmed him.
11. In relation to the father's express suicidal ideation at the end of the relationship disclosed, Dr Krabman was not able to say whether that was similar to what occurred at the end of the mother's relationship. It is not clear whether the father had told his then partner. I can say nothing about that, nor could Dr Krabman.
12. Dr Krabman was taken to his paragraph 982, already referred to, and maintained the view that management of the indirect risks through maternal wellbeing, security and agency, should be given a priority. Dr Krabman brought to the Court's attention to his 767:
    1. An additional reason that the protection of maternal wellbeing, security and thus parenting capacity is a priority is my impression that the mother does have more demonstrated and stronger parenting capacity than does the father, linked to stronger personality functioning.

1. Dr Krabman said that the mother is clearly the "best bet: for the children in the broader sense, even separate from the issue of family violence, as the mother has a much stronger parenting capacity than the father. and that the Court should not burden the mother's capacity for the sake of time with the father, if there is that dynamic. I give significant weight to this opinion, in view of my finding that the father has not, in fact, changed.
2. Dr Krabman then referred to paragraph 872, and said that the mother presented as very strong in terms of being child-focused about the children's headspace about their father. So that even though they have not seen him for quite a long time, they appear unburdened by fears of him and able to chat in front of the mother about him, and it is not a case where the children are being burdened or poisoned toward their father.
3. Dr Krabman was asked about the evidence the mother had communicated with the father through his bank transactions, but said that the impact on the mother of something outside her control, which is to say court-ordered time and which involves children, which would be outside her control, will be significantly greater than the impact on her of her own decision to communicate with the father in that way, and I accept that opinion.
4. Dr Krabman said that although there were some indicia the father was seeking to progress, things such as the move to J Street indicated that, at worst, the father was still engaged in skirting the AVO, but that even if he was not intentionally, Dr Krabman was still deeply concerned that his insight had not progressed to the point that the father had understood the impact of his behaviours. Dr Krabman said he would have liked to have seen the mother's letter taken seriously, and the father finding a way to live away from her, if that was possible financially.
5. Dr Krabman also noted that in his letter regarding J Street, the father did what he called the "comparison thing", noting that the mother got to stay at one property, so why couldn't the father stay at the other property? He said that also tied in with the idea "Well, she gets a new partner" and "why don't I?" in his evidence.
6. Dr Krabman said that this might go to a finding that there is an aggrieved stance by the father against the mother that he has maintained, and that he feels he is being treated unfairly. He said if that is the case, that's very concerning, because that belief might drive him to act in ways that are negative and, in respect of that move, there was a concern that the father was not acting to protect the children from the impacts of his behaviours on the mother.
7. Dr Krabman said that even if the father was genuinely wanting to improve, and even if he had improved as he says, the father could slip into old patterns of being aggrieved and vengeful, and that was not positive or hopeful.
8. The father's lie about being the victim, in terms of relationships and being single, is I find, strong evidence of the fact that the father is still aggrieved, and seeking to present himself as the victim.
9. In terms of his opinion at 982, when cross-examined Dr Krabman said that he was putting forth that the primary concern, dependent on the Court's findings, is the protection of the mother. He said it is for the Court to protect the mother. He said he put forth an opinion as to where the balance may lay at that time, and at the time he did not think that time would be so deleterious to the mother that she would no longer be able to properly parent, but again said that he wished to emphasise his opinion that the protection of the mother's headspace was the priority.
10. Dr Krabman accepted that there might be some benefit to the children of professionally supervised time, even as little as twice a year.
11. In relation to paragraph 760:
    1. The children would grieve a total separation from either parent. They would experience disruption of attachment continuity with that parent, which can disrupt future emotional and relational wellbeing.

1. Dr Krabman said that if the children have no time they will grieve in two ways, especially the older child. They will miss the idealised father, and the children will miss having the father around in a societal way that other kids do and they don't. He pointed out that they have inherited his DNA, and heritage, and in adolescence there is a risk that it can be difficult for them. He went through the risks to children of having no time with a parent who they want to spend time with.
2. However, he said, in this particular case, he considered the risks of no time to be significantly mitigated by how good the mother is at that bit. He says that the mother has shown strong self-other boundaries and, even though physiologically wracked by the impacts of the father's family violence, has shielded the children from that, so that the negatives of no time with the father are significantly mitigated by the mother's capacity to help the children.
3. He said that while anything could happen, the father could pass away quite young etc, at adulthood at 18, they would have the foundation to be cautious about the father but seek him out, and these days, he says, most children do, given how easy it is to reconnect.
4. There obviously are risks of no time, but that was his view which I give weight to.
5. He confirmed the cultural benefits the children have been able to understand and identify with the Country M-Country O culture, but again felt the mother was a pretty strong mitigating force. Dr Krabman said that the best result, in terms of the children and the father would be to have lived experience with the father. The second best, supervised time. The third best, no time. But, he said, the worst outcome would be a dose of time that enduringly disrupted the mother's well-being, security, and function as a parent.
6. I note the children's views were dealt with by Dr Krabman in his report at 560 to 564, at 634 and following, and at 798, in terms of X, and that given Y' young age the expert did not inquire. But I also note what he said at 977:
   1. Considering the serious matters of parenting capacity and risk addressed in this report, and the relatively young age of the children, I feel that adult appraisal of child needs and risk management should be given more weight than the child's wishes. An addition factor supporting such a stance is the fact that the mother has mostly shielded the children from knowledge of the more significant paternal aberrant behaviours towards her.

1. I note it appears clear that the children want to see and spend time with the father but, given the significant issues, accept Dr Krabman's opinion and consider it is a matter for the Court.

1. The critical question is whether the father has fundamentally changed.
2. I find that while the father has engaged in counselling in an apparent genuine desire to change, a careful consideration of his actual behaviours shows that he has not substantially changed his behaviours, noting to the material I have already referred to.
3. Given that finding, and accepting Dr Krabman's opinion's, I find and that any unsupervised time with the children would expose them to a high risk of exposure to the same kinds of highly manipulative, coercive, intimidating, disrespectful, and ultimately harmful, behaviours the father engaged in with the mother during the relationship. I find this would expose the children to an unacceptable risk of psychological harm.
4. Given the father's manipulative skills, and apparent indifference to complying with rules, and noting he sent a message home through a cake box, and noting his non-compliance with speeding rules, and theft laws around stealing from his employer, I find, on balance, that these risks could not be adequately ameliorated even by professional supervision. The risk that the father would persuade the professional supervisors that he is a great guy and the victim of circumstance is high, given his skills; the possibility that he would manage to convince the children of this as well, and in doing so undermine their relationship with the mother, is high.
5. The consequences of that, in terms of the risk of undermining the children's relationship with the their mother who is the person primarily responsible for their care, and the only competent parent they have, are so grave that I find any time at all with the father, or any communication with the father, would present the children with an unacceptable risk of psychological harm.
6. Although perhaps not strictly necessary given that finding, I find that the mother's evidence that she would be unable to cope with the knowledge that the father is spending time with the children, even professionally supervised, and even twice a year, was subjectively honest, even though at times her evidence veered into advocacy for her position. I find it was an honestly held subjective belief, and a belief motivated by her experience of long-term family violence at the father's hands.
7. I find she holds an entirely reasonable, and I find a proven belief, that the father has not substantially changed and that he still maintains an aggrieved stance towards her. That is clearly proven by his lies, as recently as up trial, about being single where she has not been single.
8. While it is possible that the mother could cope with occasional supervised visits on a long-term basis, I find there is a risk she might not, and that over time that it could wear her down and impair her present excellent parenting capacity. I accept and agree with Dr Krabman's opinion that the most important thing for these children is to protect the mother's parenting capacity, as that is the foundation to the children's wellbeing and the children's best interests.
9. At the moment the children are safe, secure, and are doing well. They will, in part because of the mother's excellent parenting skills, cope with the long term loss of any relationship with the father.
10. In my view, the benefit to the children of having occasional supervised time with the father, even if it was safe to do so which it is not, is greatly outweighed by the risk that the mother's parenting capacity might be substantially impaired over time, leaving them without a competent carer.
11. In consequence, I find that both of the risks identified by Dr Krabman at the time of his report continue unchanged, as the father has not, in fact, substantially changed.
12. I find that both risks arise through the father spending any time, or having any communication, with the children, and contrary to Dr Krabman's recommendations, I find that both risks, on balance, noting that the children will definitely suffer a loss in not having a relationship with the father and, unfortunately, there is a risk they will not have a relationship with the parental family, but overall I find those risks are unacceptable.

1. These findings are made in the context of the legislation, which is, of course, what has guided what I have said so far.
2. I note the objects of part VII of The Act are set out in (a) to ensure that the best interests of the children are met, including by ensuring their safety, and (b) to give effects to the Convention on the Rights of the Child done at New York on 20 November 1989.
3. I will deal with best interests first. The general considerations include the arrangements which would promote the safety, including safety from being subjected to or exposed to family violence, abuse, neglect or harm of the children in each person's care for the child or children.
4. For reasons I have set out, this is the essential issue: the father is a long-term family violence perpetrator. Psychological violence can be as harmful as physical violence. The father, although he admitted it, did not admit all of it. I found that he was evasive. I also find that all the evidence makes it clear that he has not, in fact, changed. I find that he is an unacceptable risk, for reasons I have set out. And in context where safety is a primary consideration, a core consideration in legislation, and on the facts I have found, that must result in the orders the mother proposes.
5. I note that the views of the children as set out by the expert but that, given the safety issues, their views can be given little relative weight.
6. In terms of the needs of the children, their developmental, psychological, emotional, cultural needs, these are normal needs of children and can be comfortably met by the mother and not the father. That goes to parental capacity, and when one considers the capacity of both the mother and the father to provide for the children's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs the mother has excellent capacity, and the father, because of the personality deficits and his family violence behaviours, has little or no current capacity.
7. There are no doubts there would be benefits to the children of having a relationship with the father if it was safe to do so, and also with their aunt and uncle and their cousins. Unfortunately, by reason of the father's actions, it is not safe for them to have a relationship with their father and their safety, in my view, outweighs the benefits of any relationship with the father.
8. I have considered family violence to the children.
9. The children are not Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander children.
10. There is a risk that they may lose access to the extended paternal family and the Country M-Country O culture. I accept the expert's opinion that the mother will do her best to mitigate that issue but it is still a loss.
11. In terms of parental and long term decision making responsibility I note in particular ss 64B, 65D, 61B and 61C of the Act. In the circumstances, the only realistic prospect is for the mother to have sole long-term decision-making responsibility. I am also going to allocate sole parental responsibility in the context of the family violence orders. I do not see that consultation is appropriate on my findings as it would involve the mother dealing with the father.
12. I do consider that the restraints the mother proposes are appropriate in that context for those reasons, fundamentally around family violence, which I find is likely to occur if the father spends any time or has any communication with the children.

1. Those are my reasons.
2. I will read out my orders.
3. Those orders will be entered.
4. If there is going to be a costs-application it can be made according to the rules.
5. I will remove the matter from the list of matters awaiting final hearing.

I certify that the preceding three hundred and four (304) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Smith.

[1] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 48.

[2] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 50-64.

[3] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 63.

[4] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 60.

[5] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 60.

[6] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 64.

[7] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraphs 74-75.

[8] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraphs 76-77.

[9] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 66.

[10] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 107.

[12] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraphs 69-70.

[13] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraphs 70 and 80.

[14] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 70.

[15] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 69.

[16] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 81.

[17] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 71-75.

[18] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 91.

[19] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 73.

[20] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 93.

[21] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 91.

[22] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 46.

[23] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 93.

[24] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 104.

[25] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 94.

[26] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 94; Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 106.

[27] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 44.

[28] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 102.

[29] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 111.

[30] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 111.

[31] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 103.

[32] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 103.

[33] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 112.

[34] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 112.

[35] Family Report Dr Krabman dated 29 February 2024 paragraph 354.

[36] Family Report Dr Krabman dated 29 February 2024 paragraphs 365-367.

[37] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 113.

[38] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 114.

[39] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 54.

[40] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 107.

[41] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 109.

[42] Family Report Dr Krabman dated 29 February 2024 paragraphs 87-89.

[43] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 16.

[44] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 112.

[45] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 83.

[46] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 119; Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 111.

[47] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 111; Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 83.

[48] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 19; 121.

[50] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 122.

[51] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 123.

[52] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 123.

[53] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 124.

[54] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 23.

[55] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 131.

[56] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 131.

[57] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 88.

[58] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 89.

[59] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 135.

[60] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 86.

[61] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 88.

[62] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 146.

[63] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 147.

[64] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 147.

[65] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 145.

[66] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 148.

[67] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraphs 154-155.

[68] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 283.

[69] Mother's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraphs 24-26.

[70] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 15.

[71] Father's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025. Paragraph 156.

[78] see also the mother's evidence at her trial affidavit paragraph 70 and the audio exhibit

[82] Affidavit of Mr H filed 10 November 2025, paragraph 4.

[83] Mothers Affidavit filed 15 August 2025 paragraph 27.

[84] Affidavit of Paternal Grandmother filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 48.

[85] Affidavit of Paternal Grandmother filed 15 August 2025paragraph 54-56.

[86] Affidavit of Paternal Grandmother filed 15 August 2025 paragraph 52-53.