Aberg & Nurimen [2025] FedCFamC1F 511 (1 August 2025)

(a) identifies the parties to the proceedings, the ICL, the children and/or any witness in the proceedings including but not limited to images and recordings; and/or

(b) makes reference to these proceedings and/or child protection proceedings relating to the parties, the children, the ICL and/or any witness in the proceedings.

1. Forthwith, Ms Serene Teffaha shall do all acts and things within her power as may be required to cause the removal of all social media posts made by Ms Teffaha and/or any other person at the request of, or on behalf of Ms Teffaha which communicates to the public an account of these proceedings (within the meaning of Part XIVB of the Act), including but not limited to any account which:

(a) identifies the parties to the proceedings, the ICL, the children and/or any witness in the proceedings including but not limited to images and recordings; and/or

(b) makes reference to these proceedings and/or child protection proceedings relating to the parties, the children, the ICL and/or any witness in the proceedings.

1. That within 28 days the mother file an affidavit, detailing:

(a) what she has done to comply with these orders; and

(b) what Facebook or other social media pages she manages or controls, and further, the mother shall annex to that affidavit the last six months of posts that she has made for each of those social media pages.

1. The Court DIRECTS that the Marshal of this Court take all such steps as may be required so as to ensure that any breach of s 121 and/or s 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) by Ms Serene Teffaha is investigated fully and, if appropriate, thereafter prosecuted.
2. IT IS RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED THAT the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police take all such steps as may be reasonably required so as to investigate whether any indictable offence has been committed (as prescribed by s 121 and/or s 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)) by Ms Serene Teffaha in respect of proceedings involving the children X, born 2011 and Y, born 2017, as revealed by or indicated in the documents authorised to be published pursuant to these orders.
3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT pursuant to s 114Q(2)(a) an account of these proceedings is approved for publication to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and all such police officers and persons as the Commissioner might reasonably permit or authorise, including but not limited to the following:

(a) the Application in a Proceeding filed by the father on 9 December 2024;

(b) the affidavit of the father filed 9 December 2024;

(c) the order of 14 February 2025;

(d) the Amended Application in a Proceeding filed 11 March 2025;

(e) the affidavit of the father filed 11 March 2025;

(f) the order of 13 March 2025;

(g) the affidavit of Ms C filed 17 March 2025;

(h) the exhibits received into evidence as referred to in these reasons (Exhibits "B1" to "B14");

(i) these orders; and

(j) the reasons for judgment in respect of these orders.

1. The Principal Registrar of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Divison 1) is DIRECTED to provide the following material to the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner for consideration as to the conduct of Ms Serene Teffaha in these proceedings:

(a) the Application in a Proceeding filed by the father on 9 December 2024;

(b) the affidavit of the father filed 9 December 2024;

(c) the order of 14 February 2025;

(d) the Amended Application in a Proceeding filed 11 March 2025;

(e) the affidavit of the father filed 11 March 2025;

(f) the order of 13 March 2025;

(g) the affidavit of Ms C filed 17 March 2025;

(h) the exhibits received into evidence as referred to in these reasons (Exhibits "B1" to "B14");

(i) these orders; and

(j) the reasons for judgment in respect of these orders.

1. The Amended Application in a Proceeding filed 11 March 2025 is otherwise dismissed save as to any application for costs.

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 the pseudonym Aberg & Nurimen has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. These reasons relate to an interlocutory application made by the father in parenting proceedings seeking orders restraining the mother and the second respondent (who was named as a respondent to the present application) from publishing information relating to these proceedings in any forum including on social media.
2. For the reasons that follow those orders shall be made.
3. Orders shall also be made referring the second respondent for prosecution arising form the publication of that information.
4. In addition, orders shall be made referring the second respondent to the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner in circumstances where the Court is concerned that she is holding herself out to be a practicing lawyer and/or is practicing as a lawyer in circumstances where she has not held a practicing certificate since 15 April 2021.

1. The substantive parenting proceedings concern the parties' two children; X aged 14 and Y aged 8. X has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and he has been assessed as having "complex needs".
2. The parties to the substantive proceedings are the parents of the children, who were in what appears to have been a tumultuous "abusive and dysfunctional" (Family Report dated 26 October 2021, paragraph 137) on-off relationship together between approximately 2010 and their final separation in approximately 2017; albeit that they appear to have continued living together until approximately 2019. At various times throughout the parties' relationship and in the post separation period it appears that there has been police and state child protection involvement with the family, together with earlier parenting proceedings. Both parents have made allegations that they have been subjected to family violence by the other. Concerns have also been raised about the mental health of each parent, together with allegations of illicit substance and excessive alcohol use. On the mother's own evidence, in November 2019 she "suffered a breakdown and self-harmed" (mother's affidavit filed 1 September 2020, paragraph [35]), and she was admitted to hospital following a further episode of self-harm in approximately July 2020 (mother's affidavit filed 1 September 2020, paragraph [40]).
3. The current tranche of proceedings were commenced by the father in late November 2019 when, at around the same time that the mother admits to having suffered a breakdown, the father withheld the children as a result of his concerns regarding their physical safety in the mother's care, allegations that she had physically abused them and allegations of her poor mental health and substance abuse.
4. An Independent Children's Lawyer was appointed in the proceedings on 14 May 2020.
5. At least by the time that orders were made in these proceedings on 11 December 2020, the children were living primarily with the mother and spending time with the father.
6. Significantly, in December 2021 the children were removed from the mother's care by child protection services and ultimately placed in the care of the father. Protection orders were made in relation to the children under the Care and Protection of Children Act 2007 (NT). No protection orders are currently in place for either child, with the child protection proceedings in relation to Y being discontinued and the protection orders in relation to X now having lapsed; X having spent a period of time in foster care as a consequence of his complex behavioural difficulties.
7. Coinciding with all of these events, the mother made allegations that the father and the child X have each sexually abused the child Y. The father vehemently denies those allegations. The allegations were the subject of extensive investigations and forensic interview and physical examination of Y, and no charges were laid.
8. From the time of the children's removal from the mother in December 2021, until events which took place in mid-2022, the children spent professionally supervised time with the mother at a children's contact service.
9. Orders were made in these proceedings on 31 May 2022 (by a judge in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)), providing for both children to live with the father, and for Y to spend professionally supervised time with the mother, with any time between X and the mother "as may be recommended by [X's] treating mental health, medical practitioner or behavioural expert" (Order 6).
10. Neither of the children are currently spending time with the mother, and again, they have not done so since the events which took place in mid-2022. The child Y, however, is currently engaging in supervised telephone communication with the mother once a fortnight.
11. The events which took place in mid-2022 were dramatic and problematic:

(a) In mid-2022, during a period of supervised time at a professional contact service, the mother, with the assistance of her associates, removed and absconded with the child Y and at the same time attempted to remove the child X. These actions of the mother and her associates have been described by the father (who was present) as "very heated, violent and very distressing" (father's affidavit filed 9 August 2022, paragraph 4).

(b) The removal of the child Y resulted in urgent applications in these proceedings, together with the involvement of police, state child protection services, and media reports to try and locate the mother and return Y to the care of the father.

(c) A Recovery Order was made in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) for the return of Y to the father in mid-2022, with Y ultimately recovered from the mother twelve days after the incident, in mid-2022.

(d) In the Family Report dated 24 April 2023, the Court Child Expert surmised the events in the following terms:

1. As indicated in reports this appears to have been a pre-meditated abduction attempt which subjected both children to a highly tense, terrifying, and violent ordeal. It was reported that [X] was highly distressed and desperately resisting the attempts by the mother and others to abduct him and eventually struggled free. [Y] was caught up in a violent tussle between the parents and eventually taken by the mother and her associates in their vehicle. According to the father [Y] was observed to be crying, highly distressed and in pain as a result of the ordeal. [Y] was subject to a missing person and concern for welfare police report for 12 days before the mother surrendered herself and the child to police [in mid-]2022.

1. As a result of the actions of the mother and her associates in mid-2022, the mother was charged, and ultimately convicted in or about late 2024 following a trial in the Northern Territory Supreme Court of abducting the child Y and attempted abduction of the child X. In an email sent from the mother to the ICL in February 2025 the mother indicates that her sentencing was adjourned to early 2025 (Exhibit "B10"). Neither party has put any evidence before the Court regarding the sentencing of the mother and as a result the Court is not aware of the final outcome of the mother's criminal proceedings.
2. The mother's associates were also charged with offences in relation to the events of mid-2022. What has occurred in relation to those charges is also unknown.
3. As a consequence of the events in mid-2022 the substantive proceedings in this Court have stalled, awaiting the outcome of the mother's criminal proceedings.
4. Prior to the events of mid-2022 and following, various expert reports have been prepared in the proceedings, including three separate Family Reports dated 30 November 2021, 9 March 2023 and 31 August 2023.
5. On 8 May 2025 the Court made orders for the preparation of an updated Family Report, which is to be released on 10 October 2025. The proceedings are to return to Court within short compass thereafter for the purpose of scheduling a final hearing.
6. The present application aside, it is abundantly clear that these proceedings must now be brought to a conclusion, particularly in circumstances where the delays occasioned by the criminal proceedings are no longer a factor. It is not in the children's interests that the proceedings be protracted any further.

1. The application which is presently before the Court arises from the father's concerns that the mother, and persons associated with her and/or at her direction have been publishing accounts of these proceedings, and/or information in relation to the father and/or the children across various social media platforms. He seeks orders to address these issues.
2. Leaving aside that the father considers the information being disseminated and published about him is false, the father's principal concerns are that:

(a) The posts are distressing to himself, the children and his wife;

(b) Others might be incited by the publications "to try to harm" the father, "abduct the children, or speak to the children about these matters"; and

(c) His livelihood in being impacted.

1. Significantly, an injunction was made by a Judicial Registrar of this Court on 18 September 2023 (Order 1) in the following terms:

Both parties are restrained from publishing any information or commentary in any forum, including but not limited to all forms of social media, that refers to or identifies the children or the other party to these proceedings and both parties must take all steps possible to ensure that no other person who is known to them to publishes any such information.

1. The events which precipitated the making of this injunction are unclear, as there was no formal application before the Court at that time. However, in the months leading up to the making of the order, various reports were prepared in the proceedings; in particular the Family Reports dated 9 March 2023 and 31 August 2023, together with a psychiatric assessment of the mother by Dr B dated 6 April 2023.
2. In the letter of instruction to Dr B prepared by the ICL, the ICL set out:

... The father alleges he has received threats and his business has suffered as a result social media posts made by [Ms Nurimen's] acquaintances, some of whom, it appears identify as Sovereign Citizens.

[Ms Nurimen] has posted and has engaged with persons who have posted her allegations of [Y's] sexual abuse on social media. An interview of [Ms Nurimen] who relays her concerns about [Y] being sexually abused was also posted...

(As per the original)

1. In assessing the mother, Dr B concluded that the mother's underlying diagnoses are (Psychiatric Report of Dr B dated 6 April 2023, p. 5):
   1. Borderline personality traits in the context of her own childhood sexual abuse and other traumatic experiences.
   2. Chronic adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood continuing to be perpetuated by ongoing court proceedings, both family and criminal. These are however in remission currently.
   3. Alcohol abuse in partial remission currently.
2. Relevantly, on the topic of the mother's allegations that Y was sexually abused by the father, Dr B opined:

The beliefs about the sexual abuse of her daughter are difficult to untangle. She continues to maintain that [Y] told her that she was sexually abused by her father and brother. Her presentation and other aspects of her presentation make it extremely unlikely in my view that clinically she is experiencing psychosis or a delusion. In this situation therefore, it is likely that one party is not telling the truth, be it [Ms Nurimen], [Y] or the alleged perpetrators. It is probable that [Ms Nurimen's] background of her own sexual abuse and experience of sexual abuse perpetrated on her eldest daughter has sensitised her to sexual abuse issues in children. While it appears to me that her belief that [Y] has reported sexual abuse to her is not psychotically driven, if in fact [Y] did not report this to her, the most probable conclusion, taking into account the extensive investigations of the allegations, is that she has generated these concerns herself. As stated before, they do not appear to be generated by a mental illness.

(Psychiatric report of Dr B dated 6 April 2023, p. 6)

1. The present interlocutory proceedings were commenced by the father with the filing of an Application in a Proceeding on 9 December 2024. That application was listed to a hearing on 17 February 2025. By that application the father sought the following orders:

THAT UPON NOTING

1. That on 18 September 2023 the following orders were made by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia under the Family Law Act 1975 ("the Act''): "Both parties are restrained from publishing any information or commentary in any forum, including but not limited to all forms of social media, that refers to or identifies the children or the other party to these proceedings and both parties must take all steps possible to ensure that no other person who is known to them to publishes any such information".
2. That Section 114Q of the Act provides as follows:

"(l) A person commits an indictable offence if:

(a) the person communicates to the public an account of proceedings under this Act; and

(i) a party to the proceedings; or

(ii) a witness in the proceedings; or

(iii) a person who is related to, or is associated with, a party to the proceedings; or

(iv) a person who is, or is alleged to be, in any other way concerned in the matter to which the proceedings relate".

ORDERS SOUGHT

1. That the mother forthwith do all acts and things within her power as may be required to cause all posts in made by Serene Teffaha, [online platforms] to be removed and not repeated (either in their past or alternative form) that identify the parties ([Mr Aberg] and [Ms Nurimen]) or the children ([X] born [...] 2011 and [Y] born [...] 2017) to these proceedings including photographs, and further the mother shall:
   1. within 7 days write (which may be by email or electronic means) to Serene Teffaha and the moderator or controllers of the [online platforms] and request that any such posts be removed immediately, and are not made again either in their past or alternative form, and that Section 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975 is complied with; and
   2. forward a copy of the mother's correspondence to the Independent Children's Lawyer and the father's solicitor forthwith.
2. That the mother shall within 7 days provide a copy of these orders and Section 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975 to Serene Teffaha and the moderator or controller of the [online platform] along with her correspondence in compliance with order 1, and forward that correspondence and any response by them to the Independent Children's Lawyer and the father's solicitor forthwith.
3. That within 14 days the mother shall file an affidavit, detailing:
   1. what she has done to comply with the orders of 18 September 202 particular that "both parties must take all steps possible to ensure person who is known to them to publishes any such information";
   2. detailing what she has done to comply with these orders; and
   3. detailing what Facebook or other social media pages she manages or controls, and further the mother shall annex to that affidavit the last six months of posts that she has made for each of those social media pages.
4. That pursuant to section 102PD of the Family Law Act, a suppression order is made preventing the publication of the names and images of the following, with any reference to family law proceedings: [Mr Aberg] and [Ms Nurimen] or the children [X] born [...] 2011 and [Y].
5. That within 7 days of receiving the psychiatric report being prepared in relation to sentencing following her conviction in [late] 2024, the mother shall provide a copy of that report to the father's solicitor and the ICL, and further that report may be read by the father shall not be provided to any other person without court order.
6. This order authorises all of the parties to these proceedings to obtain from [D Family Services] any records, notes, recordings and communications relevant to family law proceedings involving [Mr Aberg] and [Ms Nurimen] or the children [X] born [...] 2011 and [Y] born [...] 2017.
7. AND IT IS DIRECTED THAT the Marshal of this court take all such steps as may be required so as to ensure that any breach of section 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) is investigated fully and, if appropriate, thereafter prosecuted.
8. AND IT IS RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED THAT the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police take all such steps as may be reasonably required so as to investigate whether any indictable offence prescribed by section l 14Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) in respect of proceedings involving the [X], born [...] 2011 and [Y], born [...] 2017 as revealed by or indicated in the documents authorised to be published by these orders.
9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT pursuant to section 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), an account of these proceedings, namely:

   1. the affidavit of the father filed 9 December 2024;

   2. these orders; and

   3. the reasons for judgment in respect of these orders be approved for publication to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and all such police officers and persons as the Commissioner might reasonably permit or authorise.

(As per the original)

1. As can be seen the orders sought by the father in that application were directed solely to the mother. At the hearing on 17 February 2025, the Court raised concerns with the father's legal representative that the focus of the father's concerns was not just the mother, but Ms Serene Teffaha and an organisation known as "[...]".
2. Significantly, the mother did not attend the hearing on 17 February 2025. She is presently a self-represented litigant, with her former solicitors ceasing to act for her in these proceedings on 3 August 2023.
3. In all of the circumstances, orders were made at the hearing on 17 February 2025 which provided for the father to not only amend his application to include the relevant third parties, but in addition to enable the mother and the third parties to be served with the amended application and the opportunity to be heard on the application. The Court suppressed the publication of the orders made 17 February 2025 to enable service to be effected on the mother and Ms Teffaha, without either of them obfuscating that occurring. The proceedings were otherwise adjourned to a hearing on 8 May 2025.
4. The father filed the Amended Application in a Proceeding on 11 March 2025. By that document, the father now seeks the following:

THAT UPON NOTING

1. That on 18 September 2023 the following orders were made by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia under the Family Law Act 1975 ("the Act"): "Both parties are restrained from publishing any information or commentary in any forum, including but not limited to all forms of social media, that refers to or identifies the children or the other party to these proceedings and both parties must take all steps possible to ensure that no other person who is known to them to publishes any such information".
2. That Section 114Q of the Act provides as follows:

"(l) A person commits an indictable offence if:

(a) the person communicates to the public an account of proceedings under this Act; and

(b) the account identifies:

(i) a party to the proceedings; or

(ii) a witness in the proceedings; or

(iii) a person who is related to, or is associated with, a party to the proceedings; or

(iv) a person who is, or is alleged to be, in any other way concerned in the matter to which the proceedings relate".

ORDERS SOUGHT

1. That the second respondent is joined to this Application in a Proceeding.
2. That the second respondent shall only participate in these proceedings in relation to orders 3, 4, 5 and 6.
3. That the second respondent is restrained by injunction from publishing any images, recordings, information or commentary in any forum, including but not limited to all forms of social media, that refers to or identifies [X] born [...] 2011 and [Y] born [...] 2017 ("the children"), the father [Mr Aberg] and the mother [Ms Nurimen], or related family law or child protection proceedings past or present.
4. That the mother and / or the second respondent shall not do any act or any thing jointly or severally to facilitate any other person publishing any images, recordings, information or commentary in any forum, including but not limited to all forms of social media, that refers to or identifies the children, the father [Mr Aberg] or the mother [Ms Nurimen], or related family law or child protection proceedings past or present.
5. That the mother and the second respondent shall within 14 days do all acts and things within their power as may be required to cause all posts in made by the mother and the second respondent to be removed that:
   1. identify [Mr Aberg] or [Ms Nurimen] or the children including images and recordings; or
   2. which make reference to related family law or child protection proceedings past or present.
6. That within 28 days the mother shall file an affidavit, detailing:
   1. what she has done to comply with the orders of 18 September 2023, in particular that "both parties must take all steps possible to ensure that no other person who is known to them to publishes any such information"; and
   2. detailing what she has done to comply with these orders; and
   3. detailing what Facebook or other social media pages she manages or controls, and further the mother shall annex to that affidavit the last six months of posts that she has made for each of those social media pages.
7. That within 7 days of receiving the psychiatric report being prepared in relation to sentencing following her conviction in [late] 2024, the mother shall provide a copy of that report to the father's solicitor and the ICL, and further that report may be read by the father shall not be provided to any other person without court order.
8. AND IT IS DIRECTED THAT the Marshal of this court take all such steps as may be required so as to ensure that any breach of section 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) is investigated fully and, if appropriate, thereafter prosecuted.
9. AND IT IS RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED THAT the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police take all such steps as may be reasonably required so as to investigate whether any indictable offence prescribed by section 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) in respect of proceedings involving the [X], born [...] 2011 and [Y], born [...] 2017 as revealed by or indicated in the documents authorised to be published by these orders.
10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT an account of these proceedings is approved for publication to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and all such police officers and persons as the Commissioner might reasonably permit or authorise, along with the following:

    1. the affidavit of the father filed 9 December 2024;

    2. these orders; and

    3. the reasons for judgment in respect of these orders.

(As per the original)

1. Within short compass of the filing of that amended application, the Court received multiple email communications from Ms Teffaha, which shall be referred to in more detail later in these reasons. As a consequence of those communications, the Court was satisfied that service had been effected upon Ms Teffaha, and an order was made to that effect on 13 March 2025. The orders of the Court made 17 February 2025 were thereafter unsuppressed.
2. In addition, on 17 March 2025 a paralegal from the father's solicitor's firm filed an affidavit confirming service of the within proceedings had been effected upon the mother and Ms Teffaha. With regard to the same, the Court is satisfied that service upon the mother and Ms Teffaha was effected by email (in accordance with the Orders 2 and 10 of 17 February 2025) at 2.54 pm on 11 March 2025.
3. Neither the mother nor Ms Teffaha attended the hearing on 8 May 2025, and the hearing proceeded in their absence.
4. In addition, the mother did not file any documents. The mother did, however, send communication to the ICL on 15 February 2025, indicating (amongst other things) that she did not intend to attend the hearing scheduled for 17 February 2025, adding "I have asked for adjournments of all matters on foot until I have the emotional and brain capacity to deal with the family court jurisdiction to return my children to me" (Exhibit "B10"). No such application for an adjournment has ever been made by the mother in these proceedings.
5. Ms Teffaha also did not file any documents in response to the application.
6. At the hearing of the application on 8 May 2025, the father relied on the following documents:

(a) His Amended Application in a Proceeding filed 11 March 2025;

(b) His affidavit filed 9 December 2024;

(c) His affidavit filed 11 March 2025;

(d) The Outline of Case document filed 12 February 2025; and

(e) The affidavit of the paralegal from his solicitor's firm filed 17 March 2025.

1. The ICL relied on the Outline of Case document filed 14 February 2025. By that outline the ICL had opposed the orders then sought by the father. However, by the time of the hearing on 8 May 2025, the ICL not only supported the application, but additionally sought an order that the Court refer Ms Teffaha to the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner.
2. During the hearing, the Court received 19 separate exhibits, which included copies of the voluminous communications sent by Ms Teffaha to the Court, the ICL and the father's solicitors, communication from the mother and screenshots of a website seemingly operated by Ms Teffaha, together with a copy of a practitioner search from the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner.

1. First and foremost, and irrespective of the injunction made on 18 September 2023, Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") sets out restrictions on the publication of information arising from proceedings under the Act.
2. Section 114N outlines the purpose of the provisions under Part XIVB and provides:

It is an offence to communicate an account of proceedings under this Act to the public, if the account identifies certain people involved in the proceedings.

It is an offence to communicate a list of proceedings that are to be dealt with under this Act to the public, and that are identified by reference to the names of the parties to those proceedings.

A communication is not made to the public if the communication is made to a person with a significant and legitimate interest in the subject matter of the communication that is greater than the interest of members of the public generally.

(a) It is an indictable offence to communicate to the public an account of proceedings which identifies a party to the proceedings, a witness in the proceedings, a person who is related to, or is associated with, a party to the proceedings, or a person who is, or is alleged to be, in any other way concerned in the matter to which the proceedings relate (s 114Q(1)).

(b) "Communicate" includes communication by "broadcast or publication or other communication by means of the internet" (s 114P(1)(d) (emphasis added).

(c) Examples of material which might be sufficient to identify a person in an account of the proceedings includes (s 114Q(3)):

(a) a picture, recording, or physical description of the person;

(b) a name or title that identifies the person;

(c) an address or location where the person resides or works;

(d) details of the person's employment, paid or voluntary;

(e) the relationship or other connection between the person and an identified person or business;

(f) the person's political, philosophical or religious beliefs;

(g) any real or personal property associated with the person.

(d) A communication is not a communication to the public if the person or body has a "significant and legitimate interest in the subject matter of the communication" and "that interest is substantially greater than, or different from, the interests of members of the public generally" (s 114S).

1. The provisions contained in Part XIVB of the Act came into force on 6 May 2024. Prior to the insertion of those provisions, the Act contained similar restrictions on publication of court proceedings in the former s 121 of the Act. Relevantly, s 121 of the Act then provided:

(a) A restriction on the publication, including by "electronic means, or otherwise disseminat[ion] to the public by any means, any account of any proceedings, or of any part of any proceedings, under this Act that identifies" a party to the proceedings, a person associated with a party to the proceedings or a witness in the proceedings (s 121(1)).

(b) That an "account of proceedings" shall be taken to "identify a person if" (s 121(3)):

(i) the name, title, pseudonym or alias of the person;

(ii) the address of any premises at which the person resides or works, or the locality in which any such premises are situated;

(iii) the physical description or the style of dress of the person;

(iv) any employment or occupation engaged in, profession practised or calling pursued, by the person or any official or honorary position held by the person;

(v) the relationship of the person to identified relatives of the person or the association of the person with identified friends or identified business, official or professional acquaintances of the person;

(vi) the recreational interests, or the political, philosophical or religious beliefs or interests, of the person; or

(vii) any real or personal property in which the person has an interest or with which the person is otherwise associated;

being particulars that are sufficient to identify that person to a member of the public, or to a member of the section of the public to which the account is disseminated, as the case requires;

(b) in the case of a written or televised account or an account by other electronic means - it is accompanied by a picture of the person; or

(c) in the case of a broadcast or televised account or an account by other electronic means - it is spoken in whole or in part by the person and the person's voice is sufficient to identify that person to a member of the public, or to a member of the section of the public to which the account is disseminated, as the case requires.

1. As summarised by Forrest J in Xuarez & Vitela [2012] FamCA 574 (at [35]-[36]), in relation to the former s 121, but equally applicable to the current s 114Q:
   1. Clearly, proceedings for an offence against s 121 must be heard on indictment and tried by a jury and can only be commenced by or with the written consent of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.
   2. This Court does not itself prosecute or try persons who might be considered to have contravened s 121... At best, the Court can direct the Marshall of the Court and/or the Australian Federal Police to investigate and take steps to ensure any breach of s 121 of the Family Law Act is prosecuted. See Prentice & Bellas and Anor [2012] FamCA 108 per Murphy J.
2. Moreover, s 114T of the Act specifically provides that for any offence against s114Q(1) the "written consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions" is required.
3. The power of the Court to make the injunctions sought by the father is sourced from both the Court's general power to make injunctions (s 114) and the Court's power to make injunctions in parenting proceedings (s 68B).
4. Pursuant to s 114 of the Act, the Court has the power to make injunctions. Relevantly s 114(3) provides:

A court exercising jurisdiction under this Act in proceedings other than proceedings to which subsection (1) applies may grant an injunction, by interlocutory order or otherwise (including an injunction in aid of the enforcement of a decree), in any case in which it appears to the court to be just or convenient to do so and either unconditionally or upon such terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate.

1. Pursuant to s 68B, the Court has the power, in parenting proceedings, to make injunctions "as it considers appropriate for the welfare of the child" (s 68B(1)) or in "any case in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so" (s 68B(2)).
2. As can be seen from the injunction made on 18 September 2023, and the orders now sought by the father, there is significant overlap between those injunctions and the provisions of the former s 121 of the Act and the now applicable s 114Q.
3. In Sitwell & Sitwell [2014] FamCAFC 5 ("Sitwell & Sitwell"), the Full Court of the Family Court (as it then was) considered this overlap and the circumstances which might enliven the Court making an injunction to prevent the publication of an account of proceedings as contemplated by the former s 121 of the Act. There, the Full Court authoritatively held (at [65]):

(a) Where the proposed injunction is merely a restatement of the effect of s 121 of the Act it is "unnecessary and undesirable" for the Court to make such injunction, the rationale for this is that it was not intended by Parliament that this Court enforce the provisions of s 121 by way of contempt or otherwise (at [35] and [37] citing Gibb & Gibb [1978] FamCA 8; (1978) FLC 90-405 at 77,083 and Re Schwartzkopff (1993) FLC 92-381 at 79,950);

(b) "Special circumstances" must exist if such an injunction is to be made; and

(c) What might constitute a "special circumstance" is not closed but might include that the feared published material and/or published material being likely to impact the welfare or best interests of children, or being a "scandalous disparagement of courts or judicial officers which is likely to impair their authority, or serious and baseless attacks on the integrity or impartiality of courts or judicial officers".

1. As can be seen, Ms Teffaha was named by the father as a respondent to his Amended Application in a Proceeding filed 11 March 2025 as required by r3.03 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) ("the Rules").
2. Pursuant to r 3.01 of the Rules, "a person whose rights may be directly affected by an issue in a proceeding, and whose participation is necessary for the court to determine all issues in dispute in the proceeding, must be included as a party to the proceeding."
3. Whilst the Court is satisfied that Ms Teffaha's rights may be directly affected by an issue in the proceedings, namely the injunctions that have been sought against her, the Court is not satisfied that her participation beyond the present application is necessary for the Court to determine the issues in dispute in the proceedings.
4. Accordingly, Ms Teffaha shall be joined to the proceedings for the limited purpose of the present application and not otherwise.

1. The father makes allegations that both the mother and Ms Teffaha have made social media posts that publicly identify himself, the mother and the children.
2. Annexed to each of his affidavits filed in support of the application, the father has provided screenshots of the offending social media posts.
3. In summary, in relation to the mother, the father alleges:

(a) In August and September 2022 the mother (under the administrator name "[...]") created at least two separate "[online platform" groups called "[...Y]"(which has since been deleted) and "[...Y] ♥".

(b) The mother additionally has a social media page in her name "[Ms Nurimen]".

(c) Various posts made by the mother across each of the social media sites she has operated between late 2022 and late 2023, variously identify the mother, the father and the children, and include the following assertions by the mother:

• "I'm in Australia and fighting criminal charges against me... charged with kidnapping my own child. I was protecting her from the abuser she was forced to live with by the courts and child protection..."
• "the unfair removal of my children based on false allegations based on me coaching my daughter to make disclosures of abuse"
• "treated like a criminal for taking my child's allegations seriously and punished harshly. I've had enough. I want my babies home. We don't deserve this..."

(d) The mother has additionally made posts on a social media page entitled "[...]" in her name "[Ms Nurimen]", which include the identification of the father as "my children's alleged perpetrator" and as the child Y's father.

1. In summary, so far as Ms Teffaha is concerned the father alleges that:

(a) Ms Teffaha is a former solicitor who was "struck off" in April 2021.

(b) Ms Teffaha has held herself out repeatedly as the mother's "advocate".

(c) Ms Teffaha attended hearings in these proceedings in April 2024 and attempted to represent the mother at those hearings.

(d) On the "Telegram" social media platform, Ms Teffaha operates two separate pages called "[...]" and another called "[...]".

(e) Ms Teffaha has made various posts on "[...]" in about April 2024 (around the same time that she attended hearings in these proceedings as the mother's "advocate"), including:

(i) A post with pictures of the mother and the children;

(ii) A post fundraising for the mother;

(iii) A post which states:

Serene lost her legal licence for exposing collusion among judges police, and prosecutors in concealing child abuse and domestic violence cases, leading to the destruction of biological parenthood. One such victim is [Ms Nurimen] whose story exemplifies this systemic failure. Serene urgently needs your support to advocate for [Ms Nurimen] who is being criminally persecuted for abducting her daughter and son...

(f) In November 2025 Ms Teffaha made a number of posts across "[...]" and "[...]", which identify the father, and one or both of the children, including but not limited to posting:

(i) A number of audio recordings of the child Y;

(ii) Posts which identify workers from child protection services that have worked with the family, including criticisms of the workers for removing one or both of the children from the mother;

(iii) Photographs;

(iv) A post identifying that there are proceedings in this Court, which reads:

NT Police, Territory Families, and the Crown Prosecutors have given themselves permission to publicly terrorise [Ms Nurimen] and Y through the media, the sham trial and through the unlawful and forcible removal of [Ms Nurimen's] children from her. The Family Court Judge who knew how caring [Ms Nurimen] was to her children changed his tune overnight when he was dictated his marching orders. These goons don't hide that they are terrorists trafficking children to out-of-home facilities...

1. The father additionally alleges that the mother has disclosed information to Ms Teffaha in the context of Ms Teffaha acting as the mother's "advocate", including but not limited to communication sent by the father's solicitor to the ICL on 12 April 2024, which the mother was copied into, in which the father's solicitors raised concerns about social media posts made by Ms Teffaha which identify the parents and the children, and in that context possible breaches of the then applicable s 121 of the Act.
2. The father deposes that the mother did not respond to this communication from the father's solicitor, however Ms Teffaha (who was not copied into the communication) did. In Ms Teffaha's response, Ms Teffaha set out (amongst other things) "I am assisting [Ms Nurimen] in all her matters specifically the criminal matter..." and "I have removed the posts giving any factual details of the criminal case. I have however kept my fundraiser poster and some of my commentary about NT Police and Crown Prosecutors...".
3. Having regard to the publications made by the mother and Ms Teffaha across the various social media platforms, produced by the father, I am satisfied that the publications fall within the categories of publications protected by the former s 121 of the Act for those publications pre-dating 6 May 2024 and/or s 114Q of the Act for those publications post-dating 6 May 2024. To varying degrees the publications readily identify the mother, the father, the children, this Court, that there are proceedings before this Court, and possibly witnesses in these proceedings.
4. Accordingly, it appears that there likely has been a breach by each the mother and Ms Teffaha of the former s 121 of the Act for those publications pre-dating 6 May 2024 and/or a breach of s 114Q for those publications post-dating 6 May 2024.
5. In addition, and with regard to the injunction made by the Judicial Registrar on 18 September 2023, it would appear that:

(a) Where the mother is concerned all of the publications appear to pre-date the injunction, and to that extent the combination of the injunction and the restrictions on publication provided for in the Act, appear to have been effective.

(b) Where Ms Teffaha is concerned, however, some of the publications pre-date the injunction and some post-date the injunction. This would suggest that the combination of the injunction directed to the mother and the restrictions on publication in s 121/s 114Q, have not been effective and/or that the mother has no control over the actions of Ms Teffaha and any publication she chooses to make about the proceedings.

1. Whilst the Court does not have the benefit of any reasons for the Judicial Registrar's decision to impose the injunction on 18 September 2023, it is inferred that the Registrar was satisfied that special circumstances existed of the kind discussed in Sitwell & Sitwell for the making of the injunction.
2. Lest there be any doubt however, it is considered that the injunction made 18 September 2023 is one for which I am independently satisfied special circumstances presently exist to warrant its continuation, not only because it has been effective in restraining the mother's publication of any account of the proceedings, but in addition because, as discussed in the reasons that follow, I consider special circumstances exist for the making of such an injunction.
3. It is the father's case that the publications have been particularly damaging. He deposes:

(a) That his business has been impacted by the publications in circumstances where:

(i) He operates a franchise business in a public shopping centre;

(ii) He has seen business decrease and he suspects that customers and potential customers have been dissuaded from attending his business;

(iii) He considers this to be because on at least a weekly basis persons attend his business premises and "say things such as and including "paedophile", and "I hear you like little kids you grub".

(b) His wife has received "abusive Facebook messages which have caused her great distress" including messages referring to the father as her "child molesting husband".

(c) He fears that supporters of the mother who may see the posts may be incited to remove the child Y from his care.

(d) The child Y has returned from school on occasions distressed as "her school friends have made reference to her image being on Facebook and YouTube".

(e) Y has been excluded from social activities by her peers and he fears this is because the parents of her peers have seen the social media posts.

1. As earlier identified, the Court is satisfied that the publications made by the mother and/or Ms Teffaha, annexed to the father's affidavit, appear to contravene the restriction on publication created by s 121/s 114Q.
2. The father, however, has not produced to the Court any of the offending social media posts allegedly seen by the child Y on Facebook and/or YouTube.
3. It is also unclear, taking into account Ms Teffaha's comments in her letter to the father's solicitor referred to earlier, the level to which information about the mother, the father and the children was already in the public domain as a consequence of media interest and publications arising for any information disclosed at around the time of the events in mid-2022, and thereafter as a result of the mother's criminal charges.
4. When taking all of these matters into account, it would appear that the publications that have already been made alert concern that there is:

(a) An appreciable risk of harm to the psychological, emotional and/or physical safety of the children;

(b) A potential risk of the father's livelihood being impacted, which in turn foreseeably might impact his ability to financially meet the needs of the children; and

(c) The risk of a diminishment in public confidence in the Court and court processes, by virtue of the scandalous criticisms made of the Court and judicial officers of the Court.

1. Accordingly, the Court has an overarching concern that, as the situation presently stands, and without more, the provisions in s 121/s 114Q of the Act are and/or have been insufficient to prevent publication of any account of these proceedings where third parties and, in particular, Ms Teffaha are concerned. That is to say, special circumstances exist that warrant the making of injunctions in the present circumstances.
2. Turning to consider the specific injunctions proposed by the father in paragraphs 3 and 4 of his amended application:

(a) Where the mother is concerned, there is some significant repetition and overlap between the injunction made 18 September 2023 and the injunction proposed in paragraph 4 of the application. There is accordingly no need for any further injunction to made in that regard.

(b) The injunction directed to Ms Teffaha as proposed in paragraph 3 shall not be made as it is no more than a restatement on the restriction on publication that already exists pursuant to s 114Q of the Act.

(c) The injunction directed to Ms Teffaha as proposed in paragraph 4 shall be made, as it acts to prevent Ms Teffaha from facilitating, by any means, others making publications about any account of these proceedings, including but not limited to providing documents or information to third parties about these proceedings.

1. The mandatory injunctions proposed by the father at paragraph 5 of the application directed to each the mother and Ms Teffaha fall into a different category. This is because they are injunctions directed to remedying any publications made online which offend the provisions in s 121 and/or s 114Q of the Act. Taking into account the matters discussed throughout these reasons, the Court considers that the balance of convenience speaks in favour of making injunctions directed separately to each the mother and Ms Teffaha to remove social media posts that they have made and/or that they have directed be made on their behalf in the terms proposed by the father.
2. The father additionally asks that the Court make orders referring the mother and Ms Teffaha for possible prosecution arising from the publications that they have each made. For all of the reasons discussed herein, I consider it appropriate to make such a referral in relation to Ms Teffaha.
3. I do not however consider it necessary to make such a referral in relation to the mother, in circumstances where, as I have already outlined in these reasons, it does not appear that the mother has made any publications since the injunction made in September 2023.
4. In making the referral regarding Ms Teffaha the Court is concerned that unless steps are taken to punish Ms Teffaha for any publications she has made which offend s 121/s 114Q of the Act, she will continue make publications about these proceedings in an unbridled manner. These concerns exist as a result of:

(a) Ms Teffaha's recent communication to the Court in which she unequivocally suggests that she considers she is "permitted" to speak about the mother and the children in "open media" (Exhibit "B5"); and

(b) The Court's concerns below that Ms Teffaha has been holding herself out and/or acting as the mother's legal representative without being qualified to do so, which has led her to be in possession of documents in these proceedings which has armed her with information to make the publications earlier identified.

1. As earlier identified, the ICL has sought specific orders providing for the referral of Ms Teffaha to the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner.
2. The circumstances which gave rise to this oral application of the ICL have at its source information the ICL has obtained in relation to Ms Teffaha, as a result of Ms Teffaha holding herself out to be the mother's legal representative in these proceedings; albeit that Ms Teffaha has described herself as the mother's "advocate" and not her legal representative.
3. During the hearing the Court received into evidence a number of exhibits directed to this issue as follows:

(a) Screenshots of internet searches from Ms Teffaha's "AdvocateMe" website downloaded just prior to the hearing on 6 May 2025 (Exhibit "B13");

(b) Screenshots of internet searches regarding Ms Teffaha's practicing certificate (Exhibits "B12" and "B14");

(c) Voluminous communications sent by Ms Teffaha in the lead up to the hearing (Exhibits "B1 - B9"; and

(d) An email from the mother to the ICL dated 15 February 2025 (Exhibit "B10").

1. It would appear from the information contained in the exhibits listed at [81(a)] and [81(b)] above, that Ms Teffaha does not presently hold a practicing certificate and that she is holding herself out as a person qualified to give legal advice and represent "clients".
2. To that end, publicly available information posted by the Victorian Legal Service Board & Commissioner (Exhibit "B14") sets out the following statement regarding Ms Teffaha:

Serene Teffaha and Advocate Me

15 April, 2021

VLSB+C confirms that, from 15 April 2021, lawyer Serene Teffaha no longer has a practising certificate and cannot engage in legal practice.

An independent Manager, [Mr F], has been appointed to take over profession and operational responsibilities for her law practice Advocate Me. This appointment is for 6 months, unless ceased or extended by the VLSB+C.

Queries in relation to professional and operational matters concerning the law practice should be directed to the manager at...

1. Against that backdrop, it is also apparent that Ms Teffaha continues to operate at least a website and make communications with a reference to the name of her former legal practice "AdvocateMe".
2. Firstly, the Court has been provided with screen shots from the "AdvocateMe" website which sets out the following alongside a photograph of a woman (presumably Ms Teffaha) (Exhibit "B13"):

Hello

CEO Serene Teffaha has 15 years experience as a practicing lawyer.

She is now extremely passionate about social justice and human

Rights. Serene is currently under attack by the Victorian Legal Services

Board, for her legal practitioner license. However, this has only

emboldened her will and desire to continue with her advocacy work

and conducting public investigations into corrupt agencies carrying

out state sanctioned violence and crimes against humanity on the

residents of this beautiful country.

1. Under the heading "My Story" on the AdvocateMe website, there is a lengthy narrative about Ms Teffaha, detailing her perspective on a range of matters, including but not limited to the actions taken by the Victorian Legal Services Board ("VLSB") in relation to her practicing certificate, the independent Manager of her former legal practice appointed by the VLSB, judicial officers and a range of others.
2. The relevant portion of that lengthy narrative for present purposes provides:

Serene Teffaha, the founder and Principal of AdvocateMe, has been operating a legal practice and Advocacy service since 2016. Serene provides legal advice for individuals and groups that may need their matter or issues escalated to the Courts, tribunals or commissions.

In her Advocacy capacity, Serene empowers her clients with the knowledge and understanding of their situation in order to de-escalate their issue and attempt to negotiate a resolution. Serene provides legal information to assist her clients, and those who may be unrepresented, may also provide pro-bono support as a 'friend of the court'.

1. Secondly, it is observed that all of the communication Ms Teffaha has sent to the Court and the legal representatives in these proceedings contain an email signature which includes reference to the name of her former legal practice "AdvocateMe", together with her contact details referring to the same.
2. Moreover, and when regard is had to the exhibits identified at [81(c)] and [81(d)] above, the Court has significant concerns that Ms Teffaha is not only holding herself out to be the mother's legal representative, but that, in addition, she is acting in that capacity.
3. In the first instance, it is observed that in communication the mother sent to the ICL on 15 February 2025, the mother herself refers to Ms Teffaha has her "advocate" and throughout the communication makes it clear that Ms Teffaha will be communicating with the ICL on the mother's behalf in these proceedings (Exhibit "B10").
4. Otherwise, examples from the communications which lead the Court to hold these concerns, include the following:

(a) Communication to the Chief Justice of the Court (copying in a number of other recipients including the ICL and the father's solicitor), authored by Ms Teffaha on 13 February 2025 headered "Form 69 Judicial Review of Decision of Justice Anthony (Tony) Young of the FCFCOA - 31 May 2022 amended 9 August 2022", in which she asserts that she is "supporting [Ms Nurimen] in her current matter, DNC 577/2019, before the FCFCOA" and raises a number of issues from the mother's perspective about the proceedings, culminating in the words:

All imminent hearings for the matter DNC577/2019 are to be adjourned. It is obnoxious that the Court thinks it is acceptable to bully [Ms Nurimen] with those dates, given that her sentencing is tomorrow.... This email is invitation to the FCFCOA to correct its harmful position with [Ms Nurimen] and acknowledge that the 31 May 2022 orders are invalid or void ab initio and that she will be given extra time to prepare for all her cases.

(Exhibit "B1")

(b) Communication to the Commonwealth Attorney-General, and the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory (copying in a number of other recipients including the ICL), authored by Ms Teffaha on 13 February 2025 headered "High Court of Australia Lodgment for [Ms Nurimen] - Section 109 Constitutional Matter" in which again Ms Teffaha describes herself as "supporting [Ms Nurimen] in escalating her human rights matter to the High Court of Australia and working on placing an appeal and misfeasance in public office actions against the horrific actions of the NT Supreme Court, NTDPP, NT Police and Territory Families against her..." and finishes with the words "We will advise in due course what the next steps will be but all parties are put on notice that [Ms Nurimen] will not rest until she is fully vindicated..." (Exhibit "B1(a)").

(c) Reference in an email sent by Ms Teffaha to the ICL on 16 February 2025 in which she identifies that she is "supporting [Ms Nurimen], as an unpaid advocate", before proceeding in that email to discuss matters relating to these proceedings including repeating the request for an adjournment "of all FCFCOA proceedings" (Exhibit "B2").

(d) Communication to my chambers from Ms Teffaha sent 11 March 2025 (presumably after Ms Teffaha was served with the proceedings), in which Ms Teffaha sets out:

Dear Associate,

With no disrespect to you and the Court, this application is an insult to human intelligence. Is the FCFCOA now indulging joint applications against members of the public that express their opinion on a matter that has been aired in open trial? Where journalists and police officers and prosecutors have been at liberty to share the pictures of [Ms Nurimen] and her children with no consequence nor punishment and make every statement and innuendo that they feel at liberty to do against her and the children.

This matter needs to be immediately dismissed. I am assisting [Ms Nurimen] in her appeal and preparing a judicial review on the way she has been so heinously treated by the FCFCOA to date. This will take some time.

[Ms Nurimen] and I will not indulge such frivolous applications as the one made by the father and his advisors. Her Honour's findings can be made in the absence of both myself and my client. We have no fear in relation to any intention that this Court may harbour in breaching our human rights and taking personal retaliatory action against us.

The matter can progress without our involvement.

The matter needs to be immediately dismissed.

I do note for the record that all historical content in my [...] Telegram channel has been deleted due to hacking...

(Exhibit "B3")

(e) Communication to my chambers from Ms Teffaha sent 14 March 2025 in a similar vein, in which Ms Teffaha repeats that she and the mother "will not be attending these proceedings" (Exhibit "B5").

1. In addition, the Court observes that Ms Teffaha's email signature on the bottom of all of her email communications to the Court and the parties' legal representatives describes her as an "Advocate", and includes a footer which reads "This communication and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged". In that regard:

(a) The use of those phrases connote the representation that Ms Teffaha is the mother's legal representative in all but formality.

(b) It is difficult to conceive of a circumstance where Ms Teffaha would have "confidential" or "privileged" documents and/or the need to refer to the same in her communications, if she was not acting or purporting to act as the mother's legal representative.

1. For all of these reasons, orders shall be made referring Ms Teffaha to the Victorian Legal Service Board & Commissioner.

I certify that the preceding ninety-three (93) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Kari.