Abraham & Abraham (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1F 8 (13 January 2026)

(a) The father is to leave the court room and Garfield Barwick Commonwealth Law Courts Building, 1-3 George Street, Parramatta NSW 2150 within 30 minutes and is to remain at least 500 metres away from the court building, until 4.00 pm on the day Judgment is delivered; and

(b) The father is to cause any person with him to immediately leave the court room and court building and to remain at least 500 metres away from the court building until 4.00 pm on the day Judgment is delivered.

1. The child Y born 2015 ('the child') be released from Court Children's Services to the mother.

1. The mother shall have sole decision making for all major long-term decisions for the child.
2. The parties shall communicate concerning the child using a parenting app, and failing agreement as to which app, using the AppClose app.
3. The mother shall consult with the father in writing using the parenting app at least seven days prior to making any major long-term decisions concerning the child and the father provide any response in writing using the parenting app.
4. The mother shall notify the father of any decisions made about major long-term issues using the parenting app within seven days of a decision being made.

1. The child shall live with the mother.
2. For a consecutive period of four months following the date of these Orders the child have no contact or time with the father AND FURTHER, should the father, or X born 2008 initiate or accept contact from the child, the period of four months recommence on the date that the father or X initiates or accepts contact from the child.
3. Following the expiration of the time provided for in Order 9, the father (and X, if he chooses to do so) be permitted to have supervised telephone contact with the child once each week on a day and time agreed by the parties in writing (and failing agreement at a time nominated by the supervisor) for a period of two months, provided that the father engages and pays for the supervisor, that the supervisor is from a professional contact centre, and that the supervisor has been provided with a copy of these orders, the reports of Dr C, Mr FF, and the Reasons for Judgment, prior to any supervised contact.
4. Upon the expiry of the period in Order 10, the child spend supervised time with the father (and X, if he chooses to attend) once each fortnight for a period of three months, under the supervision of M Contact Centre Contact Service or such other contact centre agreed by the parties in writing:

(a) The time be supervised by M Contact Centre, or such contact centre as agreed between the parties in writing;

(b) For times as agreed, and failing agreement, for four hours;

(c) At all other times as agreed between the parties in writing;

(d) The father shall arrange the visit with the contact centre and meet the costs of the supervision and time with the child;

(e) Each party shall meet the costs of their individual intake with any contact centre.

1. Following the period of supervised time referred to in Order 11, the child spend time with the father for a period of three months as follows:

(i) Each Wednesday from the conclusion of school, or 3.00 pm until 7.00 pm;

(ii) Each alternate Saturday from 9.00 am until 5.00 pm; and

(iii) Any other time as agreed between the parties in writing.

1. From the conclusion of the period referred to in Order 12, the child spend time with the father as follows:

(a) Each alternate weekend:

(i) Commencing Friday (or in the event the Friday is a public holiday, Thursday) from the earlier of the conclusion of school, or 3.00 pm; and

(ii) Ending Monday (or Tuesday if Monday is a public holiday) at the earlier of the commencement of school, or 9.00 am.

(b) On Father's Day from 10.00 am Sunday until the commencement of school on Monday.

(c) For one half of school holiday periods (the first half in odd numbered years and the second half in even numbered years), AND FURTHER that:

(i) In the 2026/2027 Christmas school holidays, the father's time be taken in blocks of no more than one week at a time.

(ii) In each odd-numbered year, from 10.00 am Boxing Day to 10.00 am on 27 December; and

(iii) In each even-numbered year, from 12.00 pm Christmas Eve until 10.00 am Boxing Day.

(d) Any other time as agreed between the parties in writing.

(a) The collection and return of the child shall be at the school on school days unless otherwise as agreed between the parties in writing; and

(b) The collection and return of the child on non-school days shall be at a location as nominated by the supervisor (where one is required by these Orders) and otherwise as agreed between the parties in writing and failing agreement at the contact changeover centre located closest to the wife's residence.

1. Notwithstanding anything else contained in these Orders, and unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing, the child shall spend time with the mother as follows:

(a) On Mother's Day from 10.00 am Sunday until the earlier of the commencement of school, or 9.00 am on Monday;

(b) During the Christmas period from 12.00 pm on Christmas Eve until 10.00 am Boxing Day in odd-numbered years; and from 10.00 am Boxing Day to 10.00 am on 27 December in even-numbered years;

(c) At all other times are agreed between the parties in writing.

1. To give effect to Order 9 hereof, pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) unless expressly provided for in these Orders the father, Mr Abraham is hereby restrained during the period referred to in Order 9 from contacting, approaching or attempting to contact or approach the child by any means whatsoever, including through any third party and the father is restrained from attending or being within 300 metres of the ordinary place of residence of the mother and child and attending or being within 300 metres of any school or activities that the child attends.

AND IT IS NOTED THAT each subparagraph pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) are injunctions to which s 68C would apply and accordingly, any Police Officer made aware of these Orders and whom on reasonable grounds believes that such Orders and injunctions have been breached by the father, may arrest the father without warrant.

1. The mother shall notify the father immediately if the child is seriously ill or is to be admitted into hospital and provide the father with details of the injury or illness and the treating practitioners.
2. The schools that the child attends be authorised to provide the father with copies of the child's school reports, school photos and any other information parents receive AND IT IS NOTED that nothing in these Orders requires the school to take any step or action.

1. The parties are each restrained by injunction from denigrating the other parent or members of the other parent's family to the child or in the presence or hearing of the child or allowing anyone else to do so.
2. The parties are each restrained by injunction from discussing these proceedings with or in the presence of the child or showing to the child any document connected with these proceedings.

1. Within 14 days from the date of these Orders the parties shall direct the solicitor holding the settlement monies in trust and/or a controlled monies account from the sale of the Town E property to pay the sum of $415,510.00 to the wife and the balance to the husband.
2. From the date of these Orders:

(a) the wife shall be solely responsible for all liabilities in her sole name and shall indemnify the husband against same; and

(b) the husband shall be solely responsible for all liabilities in his sole name and shall indemnify the wife against same.

1. Within 14 days from the date of these Orders the parties shall do all acts and things and sign all documents to close any joint bank accounts and transfer any balances to a bank account in the husband's sole name, and thereafter the husband shall indemnify the wife against any claim arising from same.
2. As between the husband and wife, and subject to these Orders, each party retain all interests and entitlements in their respective possession or held in their name as at the date of these Orders free of any right, claim or interest by the other party.

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 Abraham & Abraham (No 2) has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. The applicant wife and the respondent husband are seeking both parenting and property orders following the breakdown of their marriage.
2. The husband was born in 1974 and was 51 years of age at the time of trial. The wife was born in 1982 and was 43 years of age at the time of trial.
3. The wife seeks a change in the primary care of the parties' youngest child, who has not seen the wife since 15 May 2025 (Progress Report of Mr FF dated 30 July 2025) and has refused to engage with her since separation. Whilst the wife sought a relationship with the eldest child she did not press for orders in that respect, given his age and reluctance to see her.
4. The wife seeks orders for the youngest child to live with her and a moratorium on the husband's time with the child. The husband seeks sole parental responsibility, that the children live with him and that spend time arrangements for the child with the wife begin with supervised phone calls, and face-to-face time be considered only after further family therapy.
5. The wife alleges the husband was verbally and emotionally abusive throughout their marriage and has poisoned the children against her. The husband claims that the wife's conduct has resulted in the children rejecting her.
6. The wife also sought, in her amended application, the totality of the sale proceeds from the former matrimonial home at F Street Town E, NSW (the "[Town E] property"). The husband sought 70 per cent of the proceeds of sale, with the wife to receive the remaining 30 per cent, a cash payment from the wife in the sum of $53,651 for a variety of debts and fees including school fees and ATO debt and 50 per cent of the wife's superannuation entitlements from her Super Fund 1 account.
7. For the reasons that follow orders will be made for the child to live with the wife and for the wife to receive 60 per cent of the remaining assets (including superannuation).

1. In 1996 the husband started a business.
2. The parties met in 2000 and commenced living together in February 2001.
3. In 2003 they purchased land in Town G for $175,000 and built a house.
4. In late 2005 the parties married.
5. It appears clear that there was tension from early in the marriage around the extent of intimacy that the parties engaged in, which was insufficient from the wife's perspective. Beyond noting that the marriage had not been a contented one for the parties, even from earliest days, there is little relevance in traversing the details of their intimate relationship.
6. In 2005 or 2006 the parties sold the Town G property for $465,000 and purchased land at Suburb H for $210,000 and built a house. They moved into the Suburb H property at the start of 2007.
7. In 2008 X was born. He is now 17 years of age.
8. In 2009 the parties subdivided the Suburb H property and sold part of the land to a neighbour for $190,000.
9. In around early 2010 the wife had a brief affair with a man from her workplace. She said that she was remorseful, disclosed the affair to the husband, and resigned from the employment. The husband slept in X's room for a period. However the parties did not separate but persevered with their relationship.
10. In October 2011, the husband applied for an ADVO against the wife for an incident where the wife was alleged to have kicked the husband in the back as the husband was lying down while in the presence of X (see husband's affidavit filed 16 July 2025, p.10 paragraph 41 and p.81). The wife denies that the incident occurred. The wife says that the following day the paternal grandmother told her that if she ever left the husband she should not think that she would "get custody of [X]" (wife's affidavit filed 23 June 2025, p.30 paragraph 236).
11. In April 2012 there was an incident where the wife says that the husband threw a full container of washing liquid at her when swearing at her in front of X (wife's affidavit filed 23 June 2025, p.30 paragraph 238). She says that she suffered significant bruising. The police became involved and the husband later obtained a letter from his GP, Dr B (Exhibit 5) where the GP said that the husband "has mentioned to me over the past few years that [the wife] has been coming out with bruising to different areas of her body. he has been concerned as to the cause of this. I have not seen this myself" (sic).
12. In September 2012 the parties sold the Suburb H property for $720,000 and purchased a property at Town J. The following year they sold the Town J property and purchased the former matrimonial home located at Town E for $762,000.
13. In 2015 Y was born. He is now 10 years of age.
14. In March 2016 the husband had an accident. He suffered significant injuries to his leg. Following surgery, the husband was in hospital for a month. Thereafter he was unable to walk for six months, and then needed crutches for some time after that. Fortunately he is now able to walk without crutches, but still suffers disabilities as a result of his injuries. He is unable to work and now receives income protection payments. The husband received a compensation payment of $1,038,000 from a medical negligence claim that arose from an operation the husband underwent for his injured leg. The husband closed his business as a result of his injuries.
15. In October 2016 the wife returned to full time employment.
16. From 2017 the husband says that he took greater responsibility for the day-to-day care of the children. The wife joined a gym and became more focused upon her health and fitness, engaging in running events. It seems that by this point the marriage had not continued to be a satisfactory one for the parties, as the husband recounts that X had told him of a love letter that he found in the wife's car, in the wife's handwriting, addressed to another man sometime in 2018.
17. During 2018 the wife went on holiday to India with a friend.
18. In January 2019 the husband says that X reported that he had seen the wife taking photos of herself naked, which the husband said left X distressed.
19. In 2021, X commenced high school. The husband recounts that he regularly took him to sports around 3 to 4 nights per week (with Y accompanying them) and the wife attended on Friday nights. The husband says that in 2021 or 2022, the wife began to have increasingly noticeable mood swings, although in the context of the case as a whole, it seems more likely that this reflects the breakdown of their relationship during this period. In late 2021, the husband was assessed by an occupational therapist in the home, as a result of his ongoing impairment due to the injuries from the accident some years earlier.
20. By 2022 the relationships within the family had broken down considerably, as is apparent from a number of incidents that were the focal points of evidence at trial:

(a) In 2022 (the year after X commenced high school) X alleges that the wife sprayed oil in his face in the presence of Y (the "Cooking Spray Incident"). The wife denies the allegations.

(b) On 6 April 2022 a further incident occurred where it is alleged that the wife hit X with a plastic serving spoon of mashed potato (the "Mashed Potato Incident") after he swore at the wife when she was attempting to serve him mashed potato at the dinner table. The husband says that the wife was insisting that X have mashed potato and he was refusing, and that the force broke the spoon and left mild burns from the potato. The wife denies the incident occurred as alleged.

(c) The husband alleges that on 29 July 2022 the wife attempted to push him down the stairs and that X intervened. The husband says that Y was present.

(d) The paternal grandmother says that she saw the wife strike the husband in the arm with a closed fist when preparing dinner sometime in 2022.

1. The husband says that on 12 August 2022 the parental grandmother lent him $28,000 and that he repaid $25,000 the following month.
2. In early 2023 the husband says he considered moving out of the home but couldn't find a suitable rental property.
3. The parties took a family holiday to City K in mid-January 2023 however it was marked by many disputes between the wife and X.
4. In February 2023 the parties separated, but lived separately under the one roof at the Town E property. By this time, X was aligned with the husband, ignoring the wife or telling her "fuck off. Go away. We don't want you here" (wife's affidavit filed 23 June 2025, p.11 paragraph 55). The wife says that X's behaviour toward her was worse when the husband was present.
5. Both parties set out the interactions at the end of the relationship, although in different terms. The wife recounts telling the husband she was ending the relationship, and him pleading with her to stay, offering to make changes and even offering her an "open" relationship. The husband describes the wife saying she didn't want to be stuck with him and referring to his leg injury, and alleges that the wife raised the idea of an open relationship. I prefer the wife's version of these events. I accept that the husband pressed the wife to move out once it was clear that the relationship had ended and that he started taking on all of the child-caring duties, at times excluding the wife.
6. In early March 2023 the husband says that Y overheard the wife talking about another man and a couple of weeks later, when playing on the wife's phone with X, saw sexual messages between the wife and another man in her Snapchat app. The husband says that on one occasion when X and Y were looking at the wife's phone, they found conversations between her and others that included intimate messages and a photograph of the wife topless. The husband also says that the wife called the husband a "fat fucking cunt".
7. From this point on it appears that the husband intervened when the wife wished to engage Y in activities, telling her that Y didn't want to participate, or asking Y a leading question to elicit Y's acquiescence to claims that he did not want to go with the wife.
8. In April 2023 the wife engaged a Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner, Mr GG. A s 60I certificate was issued in May 2023 as the husband refused to attend mediation.
9. The last time that either of the children spent time with the wife was on 9 May 2023. She says that on that date she told the husband that she had secured alternative accommodation and was moving out from the Town E property that weekend.
10. On 10 May 2023 the husband took the children to stay at the paternal grandmother's home in Town L. Y was not sent to school on the Friday (which was the Friday of the Mother's Day weekend when there was an event for mothers and children at the school). The wife had sent texts saying that the children should come home (wife's affidavit filed 23 June 2025, p.16 at paragraph 86)
11. The husband took the children to the police station where X made a complaint about the wife, which led to ADVO proceedings and charges concerning the Mashed Potato Incident, the Cooking Spray Incident, and claims she attempted to push the husband down the stairs. The husband was quite firm that "ultimately" it was X who "decided to report the assaults to police" (husband's affidavit filed 16 July 2025, p.19 paragraph 93).
12. On [...] May 2023 the wife was served with a provisional ADVO and charged with three counts in respect to alleged incidents that occurred in 2022.
13. On 25 May 2023 the wife commenced proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), seeking an urgent interim hearing for parenting orders. The application for urgency was refused by a registrar and the matter was listed for a first directions hearing on 3 July 2023.
14. In the meantime, on 7 June 2023, the husband completed a Parenting After Separation course.
15. On 3 July 2023 interim orders were made for the wife to spend time with Y supervised by M Contact Centre, and have telephone time once a week on a Wednesday between 5.00 pm and 5.30 pm. Arrangements were put in place to obtain a short form child impact report from Dr C.
16. On 8 August 2023 the wife completed the Parenting After Separation course.
17. On 12 August 2023, at the first supervised visit that was scheduled after the interim orders were made, Y refused to get out of the car. Y refused to get out of the car on the second visit on 26 August 2023. On 1 September 2023 M Contact Centre suspended the supervised time arrangements.
18. The parties attended interviews with Dr C, who was jointly appointed to undertake a Child Impact Report, on 21 September 2023.
19. In the interim the husband had made arrangements for Y to attend upon Dr B, a psychologist. In October 2023 the wife telephoned Dr B however, the psychologist declined to see the wife. Soon after, on 23 November 2023 the wife's solicitor received a letter from Dr B stating that in her opinion, it was not in Y and X's best interests to see the wife (even though Dr B had not seen the wife or spoken to her).
20. On 10 November 2023 the wife attended one of X's sports games. She says that she was standing at the rear of the field to watch (not having told the husband she was attending). When the husband and Y came close by she said hello to Y, or on the husband's version called out to him. It appears that X spoke to the team manager who then approached the wife to ask her to leave, which she did after some discussion. The husband says that X told him that he did not want anyone at sports to know about the ADVO.
21. On 23 November 2023 the Child Impact Report by Dr C was released and the parties had an interim hearing before a registrar on 29 November 2023. On 8 December 2023 the registrar ordered the parties to attend family therapy with Ms D (who was to determine when and how supervised visits should recommence), and for the parties to attend mediation in relation to financial matters.
22. On 19 December 2023 Dr C informed the ICL that interviews were tentatively booked for 2 April 2024, however, the husband's then-solicitor was unable obtain the husband's instructions on the draft letter of instructions prepared by the ICL. The ICL sought that the matter be listed before a registrar, which resulted in consent for the appointment of Dr C to prepare a Full Expert Report being made on 22 December 2023. By this point there had been 10 court orders issued in the matter.
23. On 23 January 2024 an application was filed by the wife to review the registrar's decision to suspend Y's supervised time with the wife and for time to resume if recommended by Ms D. Judge Vasta made orders by consent for supervised visits to be reinstated between Y and the wife. Another three sets of orders were made by a registrar in February, March and May 2024, prior to the wife's criminal proceedings being adjourned part-heard in the Local Court on [...] May 2024.
24. Unfortunately, the criminal charges against the wife were not listed for hearing until [...] March 2024. The hearing was not completed and had to be stood over part-heard to [...] May 2024.
25. Despite the apparently implacable refusal of Y to spend even supervised time with the wife, the husband offered time supervised by the child's aunt.
26. In March 2024 the parties attended a property mediation. Given the parenting issues it was a pointless process, as the care of Y would inevitably be significant to any property settlement.
27. On 26 March 2024 the wife completed the Tuning into Teens course and the husband completed it on 28 March 2024.
28. The preparation of the proceedings was further delayed when the husband sought to have interviews with Dr C deferred until after the criminal proceedings and did not pay the invoice. The interviews scheduled for 23 April 2024 did not take place.
29. On 16 May 2024 the wife filed an application seeking orders for the husband to comply with the orders made on 22 December 2023 for payment of Dr C's invoice and various financial orders. On 20 May 2024 Orders were made for the parties to attend interviews at a time and place as scheduled by Dr C. Interviews were then rescheduled for 9 July 2024.
30. On [...] May 2024 the Local Court magistrate was not available to continue hearing the criminal proceedings and the matter was stood over to [...] November 2024.
31. Soon after the adjournment of the criminal proceedings, on [...] July 2024, the husband's solicitor informed Dr C that husband's mother was in hospital and the children were unwell. This resulted in the interviews being rescheduled to 30 July 2024 (a delay of over three months from the original interview appointments). Fortunately, the parties attended their interviews on 30 July 2024 with Dr C.
32. On 22 July 2024 Orders were made by consent restraining the husband from removing Y from his primary school and restraining him from changing the children's residence to a place more than 50 kilometres from Y's school. The registrar also made orders on 19 July 2024 for the sale of the Town E property, a partial property settlement to the wife of $150,000 and for a payment to N Company of $88,172.28 to discharge their caveat on the Town E property (securing litigation funding for the wife).
33. On 28 August 2024 the wife completed the Circle of Security course.
34. The Town E property sold for $1,844,000 in September 2024 with a settlement date of [...] December 2024.
35. The wife received a partial property settlement in the sum of $238,000. The balance of the funds from the sale of the home were deposited into a Controlled Monies Account (CMA) pending final order (and are currently in a controlled monies account with the husband's present solicitors).
36. A further three sets of court orders were made by a registrar prior to the matter being listed for a Compliance and Readiness Hearing on 22 November 2024.
37. On 24 October 2024 Dr C's report was released to the parties.
38. The family law proceedings were then listed on 22 November 2024 for a Compliance and Readiness Hearing. In the 19 months that the matter had been pending there were 20 court orders, however the wife had not yet had any supervised time with the child Y. At the Compliance and Readiness Hearing, the matter was transferred to Division 1. Notations were made that the husband refused to attend family therapy with Ms D.
39. On 5 December 2024 the wife filed a further Application in a Proceeding seeking orders for the re-engagement of Ms D for family therapy. Despite the matter having been transferred to Division 1 on 22 November 2024, a Division 2 registrar listed this application before another registrar for interim hearing on 22 January 2025. The listing in Division 2 was then vacated and the matter listed before me on 10 February 2025 for interim hearing and directions.
40. In late 2024 the wife was found guilty of three assault charges and the ADVO was ordered to remain in place until May 2025.
41. In late 2024 the wife appealed against the decision.
42. By late 2024, the husband sought the discharge of the single expert whose report was not favourable to his case.
43. On 10 February 2025 the matter was listed before me for an interlocutory hearing. I dismissed the husband's application to discharge Dr C as the single expert, restrained the parties from having Y further attend upon Dr B (given that her involvement had not led to any changes in Y's attitude towards the wife), and required the parties to provide Dr C's report to both Dr B and Ms D to enable them to provide advice or reports to assist in the management of the proceedings, and for the parties to make enquiries as to the availability of Mr FF to undertake family therapy. On 17 February 2025 I made orders for the parties to attend upon Mr FF for family therapy commencing on [...] April 2025.
44. On 10 March 2025 final hearing dates were fixed for 4 August 2025, and orders made for the husband to facilitate and encourage the child, Y, to attend upon Mr FF for family therapy in accordance the Orders of 17 February 2025. The parties provided agreed Trial Directions which were made by consent (in chambers) on 10 March 2025.
45. On 18 March 2025 the husband completed a Positive Parenting Program and on 4 June 2025 completed the Circle of Security Parenting program.
46. Dr C enquired of the court as to the appropriate approach to be taken with respect to answers to questions that he had been sent by the husband's solicitors in his capacity as the single expert witness. The matter came back before on 25 March 2025 and I ordered that the answers be provided to all of the parties, and that Dr C's reports be provided to Mr FF together with a report that had then been prepared by Dr B.
47. Despite the extensive litigation and orders with respect to the wife's time with Y being supervised, on [...] May 2025 the husband returned to the Local Court seeking a variation of the AVO, which was granted on an interim basis.
48. On [...] May 2025 at a Local Court mention the police informed the wife that they were not seeking to extend the AVO. However, the husband sought to file additional evidence, and orders were made for filing and serving evidence.
49. In mid-2025 the wife's appeal against the convictions was heard in the District Court at Suburb O. The appeal was allowed on all grounds and the wife acquitted.
50. On 13 June 2025 the husband filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking that the hearing scheduled for August 2025 (some 27 months since the wife had filed the proceedings) be adjourned to permit more time for family therapy to occur. I heard this application on 30 June 2025 and declined to change the trial dates. I also made orders by consent for the purposes of ensuring that the husband arrange for Y to attend upon Mr FF for joint sessions with the wife on dates specified in the order (10, 17 and 24 July 2025) and at all other times as directed by Mr FF. An order was also made for Mr FF to provide a short progress report for the final hearing.
51. On 4 July 2025 I made orders in chambers releasing the District Court file for inspection by the parties. On 7 July 2025, again in chambers, I released Dr C's addendum report to the parties.
52. On 8 July 2025 I made orders for the release of $50,000 to the husband by way of partial property settlement from the controlled monies account.
53. The first joint session between Y and the wife with Mr FF was scheduled for 10 July 2025: Y refused to participate in the joint session. The same thing occurred on 17 July 2025. The joint session scheduled for 24 July 2025 was cancelled by Mr FF. On 31 July 2025 Mr FF released a Progress Report.

1. The wife gave some brief evidence in chief to confirm that she had moved to a new home closer to Y's school, with the home having four bedrooms. She believes the home is an appropriate residence in an estate with bike paths. She explained that her current partner is not living with her but has gone back to his home for six months to see how the relationships develop.
2. The wife works in a managerial position, and her employer has assisted with her moving regions to place her in a better position for these proceedings. She currently leases the property she is in for 12 months.
3. The wife said that if Y was placed with her, she would take four weeks off work, and later in the trial confirmed that she would book accommodation for a holiday location where they had previously had positive experiences for the first period of time that Y was staying with her. She understood that Y is likely to be distressed if a change of care was ordered, and believes she is able to care for him and comfort him.
4. It seems that the closest the wife has been to Y (physically) was two weeks before the trial, where she was sitting on the couch in the family therapist's office and Y came to the doorway.
5. The wife doesn't believe that Y is likely to run away once he is with her but is alive to this as an issue. She is also alive to the proposition that Y will likely be upset to be separated from X. Although, I note that the age difference is such that X is likely to be spending much less time with Y at this point in their lives.
6. The wife accepted that she no longer has any communication with X, but said that she hopes this will change as time passes.
7. The wife was cross-examined about her relationship with her new partner, Mr P, and said that she was expecting him to come and eventually live with her, although this was, in her view, many months away. She agreed that she hadn't spoken to Y about her partner Mr P, although this is hardly surprising given the nature of the relationship between her and Y at present. Indeed, had she raised it, it seems it may well have been an inappropriate time, given the circumstances.
8. I formed the view that she had a reasonable level of insight into the difficulties she is likely to confront if Y is placed in her care and that she has taken active steps to make preparations to facilitate any change in care arrangements as best as might reasonably be expected. I accept that her and her current partner have considered the circumstances and are mindful of the child's needs if a change in care were to be ordered.
9. She explained the difficulties that the parties had confronted following the husband's injuries, pointing out that he had struggled to scale the stairs and said that he only cooked if she was unable to, for example, when she was sick or had her period. Clearly two of the disputed incidents (the Cooking Spray Incident and the Mashed Potato Incident) occurred when she was in the process of preparing meals.
10. She said that in 2022 the sports training was only two nights per week and that the game was on Friday night. She said she would attend although it would be late for Y. She accepted that the husband had taken the children for haircuts during this period.
11. The wife maintained that she had attended all of the parent-teacher nights and that she later had her access to the school portal removed as a result of steps taken by the husband.
12. In the period from 2017 to 2019, she explained that she was struggling with the relationship between her and the husband which had led her to become more involved in sport. She disputed that this may have led the husband to think that she was moving away from the family, explaining that she saw it more as him becoming increasingly depressed due to the disabilities following his injuries. She thought that the children were proud of her when she competed in sporting events and that they were happy to see the medallions that she won. However, this was not a happy time for her as there were arguments with the husband, sometimes in front of X. She said that, at times she would get upset and cry, and the husband would get angry.
13. She said that she has spoken to Y on the telephone but assumed that he was in the presence of others as there were often long pauses.
14. She denied having longstanding mental health issues, saying that she cannot think of anything bad or traumatic that occurred in childhood. However, close to the wedding, she had a falling‑out with her family and had had some anxiety at the time of the wedding.
15. She said that when she is upset, she gets emotional. Her view of the husband was that he could not accept things that she was telling him, and she believed he was acting inappropriately. She denied ever saying "I wonder if [X] loves me". She was unaware that the husband had spoken to the GP about her potentially having post-natal depression. She said that she had always been threatened by the husband that, if they separated, their children would not live with her.
16. It seems that the marriage had not been a happy one for a long time. She had had an affair in 2009, which she had disclosed to the husband the next day; however, their marriage had continued for some time after that.
17. Her evidence concerning her relationship with her parents was vague to the point of evasiveness. When asked about whether her parents had brought court proceedings against her, the precise details never became clear, although it seems to have involved a claim concerning furniture and $12,000. Around 2009, it seems the police took out an apprehended violence order against her father.
18. She denied she had kicked the husband in the back when they were walking with X on one occasion and denied that she had put petrol in the fuel tank of the husband's diesel vehicle. It appears that there was an argument in October 2011 when she threw her ring over a fence and off a cliff. She also recalled a time when she became panicked when X had locked himself in the car when he was younger, but did not recall the husband coming to assist, nor feeling that her anxiety had been at a point where she needed to attend upon a doctor for assistance.
19. She was cross-examined about a friendship she had with a woman referred to as "[Ms Q]" and whether she had told Ms Q that she was terminating their friendship. She explained that she did not think that Ms Q was a positive person but said that she could not recall if she had told Ms Q that their friendship was over.
20. She accepted that she had written the letter that X had found in the car to a gentleman friend and that X may have seen it as a love letter; although she said the first she knew of this was reading the husband's affidavit, as X did not speak to her about it. Whilst she trusted the husband not to cheat upon her, she accepted that the husband may not have trusted her in that regard, given the events that had taken place.
21. She agreed that in 2018, and after she had been on a trip to India, she had told the husband she was staying with a friend in Sydney when she in fact went to visit someone in Melbourne.
22. She accepted that, in 2019, she had left her phone with X during a running event but said that the husband would encourage X to view her phone whenever he could. She said there were no photographs on the phone that were not on Instagram and that she had a friend, Mr R, at that time when she was running in events described as "[T Race]". She did not recall X ever bringing any of these issues up with her.
23. It is apparent that when X was behaving badly towards her, for example swearing at her, the husband would never intervene or chastise X for his behaviour. By 2021/2022, she said the situation in the home had become quite tense and she began to resent the husband for his conduct, causing her to remain at the home only for the benefit of the children. She denied smacking the children but accepted that they would have seen her upset and arguing with the husband quite a lot towards the end, sometimes crying. She denied the minor allegation of having bumped a shopping trolley into X's heels and denied any significant use of sleeping tablets (saying that she may have consumed in total two boxes of sleeping tablets over the whole of the relationship, those tablets being available for purchase over the counter without a script).
24. She believes that the difficulties of her relationship with X are entirely the husband's fault. This belief appears to me to be somewhat lacking in insight: it is not surprising that a teenager would react badly to discovering that a parent was having affairs, particularly in circumstances where neither parent had discussed the difficulties that confronted the family at that point with the children.
25. The allegations concerning the Cooking Spray Incident are a claim that she turned and sprayed cooking oil in X's eyes when he spoke to her in the kitchen. She said that X complained immediately and that the husband then stormed in. In evidence, she denied having sprayed cooking oil at X at all, however this varied slightly from her version given to the family report writer that the oil nozzle had become stuck.
26. The Mashed Potato Incident involved a time when she was serving mashed potato to the other family members at the table, when X was insolent, telling her that he did not "fucking want any". This led her to throw the spoon, and some mashed potato hit X's neck. She said she did not know that the spoon had broken. She was aware that X became upset, said she felt bad and went around to cuddle him. She denies the claim that she responded by saying "fuck this family" before going to her bedroom. She accepts that the incident would have been upsetting for X but thinks that it was built up into an incident of greater significance than it was in context. She is of the belief that the husband had done something to X to make the red mark that appears in a photograph, as in her view the mark was on X's back and under his shirt.
27. She denied that she had attempted to push the husband down the stairs, but agreed that they were at times in arguments and argued when she was in bed. She knew that he had mobility difficulties but said that he could walk, but not bend or run, nor could he get up if he fell on the ground or sat down.
28. The wife recounted that, on occasions, the husband would recount discussions between the husband and wife to X.
29. She explained that an argument in City K had developed because she wanted pictures with both of the children, and X did not want pictures taken.
30. Towards the end of the relationship it appears that there was an upper body shot on the wife's phone that one of the children may have seen, and she was unsure whether there may have been some conversations with respect to relationships and intimate messages. She accepted that this would have been confronting for the children. She denied taking any partial or wholly naked photos of herself in front of X.
31. She accepted that when supervised time was attempted at M Contact Centre in 2023, Y would not get out of the car when brought there by the husband.
32. When cross-examined by the ICL, the wife said that there had been no intimacy between the parties for some time and that the husband became jealous of X's relationship with her.
33. The wife presented as neatly dressed and cooperative although slightly nervous witness. She was clearly concerned about the outcome of the proceedings, and very distressed about the lack of relationship with the children.
34. During the course of the wife giving evidence, she appeared somewhat emotionally labile, quickly becoming distressed and quickly recovering and at times engaging in significant hand gestures. When discussing the incidents with X I formed the impression that she was minimising the events to some extent. However, I also bear in mind that giving evidence in a proceeding such as this is particularly stressful, and that to date, the impact of the relationship breakdown and subsequent separation has been overwhelmingly negative for her.

1. The wife's current partner, Mr P, presented as a reliable witness who was clearly supportive of the wife and prepared to adjust his relationship with her as may be required to best enable Y to renew his relationship with the wife.
2. Mr P is currently living with her. He plans to return to his father's home if the wife has Y living with her, at least for the initial period. He said that he planned to come over on weekends from around a month after any change of care arrangements and probably not see the wife during the first month. He said that they had not discussed the detail as yet. He also confirmed that he had lent $50,000 to the wife for legal expenses.

1. Ms S, a therapist on whom the wife has been attending, diagnosed the wife with PTSD. It seems she concluded the wife had an adjustment disorder on the first session, and then PTSD by the third session. The diagnosis appears to be based upon the proposition that the wife has difficulty with day-to-day functioning with respect to concentration, attention and memory. Ms S was not able to identify Criterion A factors from the DSM-5 to support the PTSD diagnosis, and said that she relied only upon traits.
2. She purported to venture a diagnosis for the husband, although maintained it was not an official diagnosis and that she had simply given the wife material about narcissistic personality disorder. She had never seen the husband or the children. Remarkably, she did not have all of her notes with her when she came to give evidence.
3. It is unfortunate that she did not undertake a thorough assessment of the wife and explore the wife's perceptions of the family dynamics so as to be in a position to provide evidence as to the likely capacity of the wife to parent Y if he was placed in her care.
4. I found the wife's therapist a less than helpful witness. I did not have the impression that she had brought a critical mind to her therapy with the wife. I found her evidence of no real assistance at all in assessing the parties or determining the issues in dispute in this case. The wife was fortunate that Dr C had spent some time interrogating the parties as to the steps they had taken to improve their parenting and that Mr FF had made some observations in this regard.

1. The husband was cross-examined at length. He accepted that the wife can be protective of the children. He believes that the children look up to him and see him as a role model.
2. He said that he cannot recall if he saw lawyers after the wife's first affair many years ago. He said that he was not angry about her having an affair but more so "disappointed." He denied that he had gone about building a case against the wife since 2010, although accepted that he had obtained a referral to U Mental Health Services and Professor V for both him and the wife to be assessed but that only he attended upon Professor V. Medical records from 2010 indicated that the wife had wanted another child but he was concerned about having another child due to her having had an affair. The GP's notes from 2011 indicated the wife reporting that she was missing affection from the husband and that the husband was drinking.
3. Notes from 2019 indicated that the husband told the doctor that his solicitor had advised him to drag out the family law proceedings on the basis that once X is 11 or 12 he will have his say, however the husband denied deciding to drag out the proceedings, although he has made numerous application (around ten) and has not been expeditious in his compliance with some of the orders.
4. He started a diary in 2023, although it was not immediately discovered in the disclosure process. He said that he was advised it would be good to keep a diary of what he had done for the children and of the events that took place. He said he started it during the holiday in City K and he was not sure whether the marriage was coming to an end.
5. He accepted that he had told the wife that it was better that she move out of the home. He also said that he had tried to find another home, but it did not suit him.
6. By May 2023 he declined to allow the wife to take Y to school, which he explained on the basis that he thought that the wife was "building a platform again", even though at this point she was still residing in the same home. He denied that the wife was cooking and making lunches, and alleged that she was lying in bed a lot during this period. He said that he made breakfast in bed for the wife a lot of the time.
7. He said in his affidavit that X called the wife a slut and that he did reprimand X for this and X did not use the word "slut" again after that. However, it seems clear that the husband did not attempt to contextualise with X that the relationship of the parties had broken down.
8. He said that X had only recorded one telephone call with the wife. He accepted that one of the diary entries set out in his affidavit was not able to be located in the original diary.
9. When asked about a note from the GP that referred to a mental health plan for "him", he took the view that that was probably X that the doctor was talking about, rather than himself. He denies that he ever had depression or had been prescribed Zoloft, as alleged by the wife. There was no evidence led of him having received prescriptions for Zoloft or a diagnosis of depression.
10. He accepted that he had not taken the assessment as recommended by Dr C at paragraph 175 of the Single Expert Report dated 11 October 2024, which provided:
    1. As previously discussed, it is considered essential that [the husband] be mandated to engage in structured psychological therapy with a suitably qualified and experienced male clinical or forensic psychologist, who has an understanding of working with people within conflicted family court matters, in order to assist him in addressing his unresolved emotional issues and his distorted thinking patterns regarding co-parenting and separation. [The husband] will also experience a considerable benefit from engaging fully in parenting courses as previously outlined. It is understood that he has engaged briefly in parenting courses; however, he has not attended to the information appropriately, and has received no benefit from completing these courses in an online forum. Therefore [the husband] should be mandated to attend all courses in a face to face format. Finally, it is important that [the husband] engage in the family therapy process, as previously stated this should begin with individual sessions run by an experienced family therapist, incorporating both [the husband] and [the wife], to allow them to both reach the same level of understanding of future therapy goals, through exploration and psychoeducation as to their children's needs and to ensure that they both are able to understand and implement health parenting strategies in the future.
11. As cross-examination continued, it became clear that he was opposed to all of Dr C's recommendations, but had little insight into what was happening for Y, despite accepting that Y had been worse since not seeing his mother. He maintained that Y still does not want to see his mother on FaceTime. He maintained that, in his view, X was not aligned with him, but that it was X's own voice, based on what he had experienced, which has led him to reject his mother.
12. Cross-examination concerning the school records and access to them did not lead to clear evidence from the husband, other than to the effect that he told X to leave the portal open to allow the wife to see school reports, however, he does not appear to have taken control of that situation.
13. It was put to the husband that there were records that he had told the school that the wife was not interested in the child's schooling (see Exhibit 16), however he denied this and said it must have been an error. He said that, whilst he had advised X to allow the wife to continue to access his schooling information, he did not force X to do so, phrasing it as respecting X's decision. However, the husband agreed that he sent an email saying that he would not share X's details (see wife's affidavit filed 23 June 2025, pp.8-9 paragraph 45).
14. He accepted that he threw a bottle, as set out in the wife's tender bundle at p.36, but maintained that it was not thrown at the wife. He said that he had no intention of causing harm to her, saying that she provoked him, before accepting that it is "probably not an appropriate thing to do". He denied that any bruise resulted from the bottle being thrown, and denied that there was any damage to a work camera that the wife may have had possession of at the time.
15. The husband was critical of Ms D, reported by the GP as being behaviour that was "disgusting". He said that he would not have used the word disgusting, but that he was unhappy. He said he had told Ms D that he did not think that Y would see the wife, and he accepts that the wife had asked about Y more than twice.
16. He described the Mashed Potato Incident as the wife going into a rage and belting X with a spoon. Despite this, and the alleged injuries, he did not take X to see the doctor until six days later, by which time there were no visible marks. He said that the photos he had taken were after the incident in X's room.
17. During cross-examination, he set out the sequence of events as being X leaving the dinner table after being struck by the spoon, the wife then leaving, and him then placing Y in the games room before going to check on the wife. He said he then went to the shed, where X had gone, and brought X back up to his bedroom and took the photographs. He said he then went downstairs and photographed the mess and cleaned up. However, on other occasions, he described himself as having gone to the shed to check on X before going up to the see the wife.
18. It appears that he recorded his interaction with the wife when he went upstairs to see her, without her knowledge. He said that he did this as he was there to protect the children, saying that it was "[n]ot so much to gather evidence, but it was there to protect my children because of the violent outburst [the wife] did" (Transcript 6 August 2025, p.266 lines 21-22). It seems that he had made the wife a cup of Milo and taken it upstairs, and that he told Y (who was in bed with the wife) to come downstairs with him, rather than having sent Y to the games room before going up to check on the wife.
19. When he took X to the police to make a complaint, he also took Y with him.
20. It transpired that Y was not at school on the days of trial, as the husband was unable to get him to school whilst coming to court. It is unclear why the paternal grandmother could not have taken him to school.
21. After the Mashed Potato Incident, the husband kept the broken spoon in a toolbox in the shed, he said for the safety of the children. It is difficult to understand why a broken plastic spoon would have presented any risk to the children if it had been thrown away. He gave it to the police when X made the complaint. The paternal grandmother was present with X at his interview with the police.
22. He sent photographs of the aftermath of the Mashed Potato Incident to Mr W a friend of his, on his phone, and accepted that he had expressed a negative view of the wife around that time. He accepted that the children would have spoken to each other about the issues, and that X would have given Y an unfavourable view of the wife. The husband said that he never stepped in, but attempted to minimise this and described X as not talking much to Y about these things.
23. He accepted that it would be important to encourage Y to maintain a relationship with the wife, and says he would have done so, saying that he had told Y that he would be going to visits every fortnight. He did not seem able to provide any details of genuine engagement with Y concerning emotional issues that were confronting the family, and in particular, Y and his mother.
24. Y had said to Mr FF that the husband would be sad if he "picked" the wife's side. Indeed, it seems that the husband gave permission to Y not to continue a relationship with the wife, telling him that no one would push him and that he might continue as long as he wished with Dr B. This was likely to leave Y in a difficult position if he thought that neither the husband nor X wanted him to see the wife. At this point, Y was only eight years of age.
25. The husband denies that he monitors Y's calls with the wife. This seems inconsistent with notes in the ICL's tender bundle, at pages 182 and 185, which form part of Exhibit 21.
26. Interestingly, X attended at each occasion seeing Mr FF, even though X was not required to come for visits. It is difficult to see how this shows any insight on the part of the husband, who knows that X is strongly opposed to any ongoing relationship with the wife. The husband has also been deleting text messages between him and X on the telephones, which he maintains are simply to "clean up... the phone" (Transcript 7 August 2025, p.381 line 26).

1. With respect to property issues, the husband referred to a non-disclosure agreement concerning his compensation, before disclosing that the full settlement amount he received (after legal fees) was $1,034,000 in July 2023. He said he now only has $100,000 left from those monies. He had sold Water Vessel 1 and trailer (Item 9 on the balance sheet) for $25,000 in cash, even though he had purchased it for $50,000, which he explained on the basis that it was a quick sale. He said he sold it at a loss to obtain funds. Item 13, Water Vessel 2, was sold a year ago for $90,000, and Item 14, Water Vessel 3, sold for about $24,000 to $25,000.
2. He said that he knew he had a payment plan with the ATO for payment of tax since 2023, however he accepted that in his earlier affidavit he said that he expected to have paid his tax liabilities by March 2025.
3. He said that the Z Company loan in the wife's name was for his Motor Vehicle 1.
4. It was put to him that he could have paid his ATO debts if he had not purchased other items, and it seems that he elected to maintain pre-separation debt on the basis that this would be more advantageous to him than paying it out.
5. The parties had some dispute with respect to child support, and the husband had applied for a departure concerning school fees. He said that his mother (the paternal grandmother) had gifted him $35,000 for X's school fees (which were $12,500 per annum), but that he had spent the money on renovations. However, in his affidavit from 2023, he said that he would pay the school fees. He has received income protection insurance monies since his accident in March 2016. He says that he is not well enough to start a business again, although he is well enough to mow the lawn and do some housework (but not to kneel down). His payments from income protection are around $7,200 per month, which will continue until he is 67 years of age.
6. Whilst there were two defaults on the Z Company loan, he is up-to-date with the loan with respect to Motor Vehicle 1. The husband maintained that the rates debt accrued when the wife was in the home.
7. The husband said that his mother paid off the wife's car for $16,000. He accepted that he incurred costs in these proceedings of $675,299.
8. I did not find that the husband presented as an open and frank witness. His lack of detail concerning financial issues, knowing that they were a real issue in the proceedings, also undermines his credibility. It appears that he tended to exaggerate those matters negative to the wife's case and minimised his role in the difficulties the family faced.

1. Mr W was called to give evidence for the husband's case. He is a friend of the husband who previously worked with him. He was unable to explain why the husband has two telephones. He was not cross-examined with respect to what he said at paragraph 18 of his affidavit, being:
   1. [The husband] and the children really enjoy camping, so after the funeral, we would often camp for the whole weekend in the bush from [City AA] and [BB River] to [Town CC] and [Town DD], giving us a chance to relax and talk openly. Whilst camping, [X] would confide in me, telling me that at times he did not want to go home as he hated walking on egg shells in that house with his mum there. I believed that [X] feared his mother. I recall telling [X] "my number is in both your dad's phones, and anytime you don't feel safe get one of your dad's phones and you can call me."

He maintains that he did not tell others how to parent, and that he thought the majority of meals were cooked by the husband.

1. At paragraph 19 of his affidavit, he said:
   1. I clearly remember getting a call from [the husband] in around early 2022, saying "[the wife] has hit [X]". [The husband] sent photos of the pot with hot potato she had thrown in anger at [X] and hit him with a spoon. Then on another occasion, [the wife] lashing out at [X], spraying cooking spray directly into his face and going into his eyes. I advised [the husband] to take [X] to the family doctor on both occasions and also recommend he talk to the police and that [X] talk to a counsellor for the abuse he was copping at home from his part-time mother.

The photographs appear to have been sent by SMS on 7 April 2022 from a phone number ending in 838.

1. Mr W presented as a frank witness whose evidence I largely accept as reliable.

1. The paternal grandmother, Mrs EE, was called to give evidence. She last spoke to the wife at the end of 2022. She said that the husband rang her about the Mashed Potato Incident because he was concerned, and that she went to the police station to "get advice", and was told by the police that it was serious. She said that she was asked to go to the police station by the husband. She explained that the police didn't question X at the interview, and that when X was nervous, she prompted him by asking about the events, such as "what about the pot?" She said that Y was simply playing with toys at the police station.
2. It is unclear why she was not able to drive Y to school on the days of trial. She said that she drives a lot and has been retired since 2018. She says she does country driving, although could drive Y to school as it is near where she does her shopping. She said she had a busy lifestyle.
3. She had no positive comments to make about the mother.

1. The therapist who had been working with the children, Dr B, gave evidence. She said she only saw X twice, and that X felt okay and did not need to see her anymore. This seems an odd outcome (that X did not need therapeutic assistance) given that X has clearly rejected his mother completely. It is difficult to see that a complete rejection of his mother is a sound psychological position for him to be left in for the remainder of his teenage years, and perhaps his entire life.
2. The therapist did not consider it appropriate to speak to the wife, and at the first appointment saw the husband together with the children. She could not recall Y having said that the husband or X might be mad if he saw the wife, but recounted that he had said that the wife might hit him hard, and that he was concerned about the Cooking Spray Incident and the Mashed Potato Incident, and the claim that the wife had attempted to hurt the husband by pushing him down the stairs.
3. Dr B was quite firm that the children were in need of family counselling. She agreed that she was aware of the Australian Psychological Society guidelines about seeing only one of the siblings, and said that perhaps she should have sent X to another therapist, as she then described him as a distressed and angry young man. She did not make diagnoses or provisional diagnoses, and nor did she develop a treatment plan. She said that she uses cognitive behavioural therapy and that it is difficult to determine a timeframe when improvements might be expected.
4. My impression of her evidence is that she approached the complex problems of this family uncritically and failed to understand the complexities of the parental conflict as a result of not seeing the wife. I am not persuaded that she conducted effective therapy, nor that she has insights upon which weight may be placed.

1. Dr C was an impressive witness in the witness box, giving clear answers with confidence.
2. Significantly, Dr C, in his October 2024 report stated at paragraph 128 that:

...[Y] now exhibits overwhelming distress when speaking or thinking about his mother, highlighting the deep cognitive dissonance that he experiences in actively rejecting his primary maternal caregiver. [Y's] overwhelming distress and the flooding of emotion observed in his interview is believed to be due to the internal conflict he is experiencing between the innate belief that his mother should (and most likely did) provide him with abundant love and security and the perception that his mother has rejected this role, which he has taken as evidence of her lack of care for him. On one hand, [Y] has the instinctual need for maternal affection and security, but on the other, [the husband]'s negative narrative reinforces the idea that his mother is neglectful and unloving.

1. At that time Dr C thought that (at paragraph 145):

An important step in rectifying the relationships in this family is for [Y] to be able to spend extensive periods of quality time in his mother's care. This will enable him to begin to rebuild an independent relationship with her that does not involve [the husband] or [X] and is not subject to his constraining, if not discouraging, influence.

1. However, the context of the difficulties is identified (at paragraphs 148 and 211) where he says:
   1. As such, and when considering the narratives of the children, all of whom have been made privy to their mother's relationships with other men, [the husband]'s intentions appear to be somewhat self-focused and questions need to be asked in relation to his motivations. It is apparent that he has engaged in the subjugation of his entire family, working specifically to achieve the alignment of the children with his views. But of concern is that he has done so with particular manipulative skill and continues to do so at the present time.

...

1. To date, [the husband] has shown a persistent refusal to facilitate a healthy and ongoing relationship between the children and [the wife], indicating that he is not actively supporting the children's connection to her. His behaviour has indicated a lack of willingness to prioritise the children's need for balanced relationships with both parents, which is essential for their emotional and psychological development, over that of his own.

1. In his July 2025 Addendum Report, Dr C considered the changes each parent had made by engaging in therapy and courses, saying:
   1. In the interviews for the SER, [the wife] was able to detail her engagement in these programs and in her therapy and provide insights into how she has worked to improve her parental capacity. These were recommendations which were mentioned in the CIR, and reflects on her willingness to accept help and be insightful about working to improve her parenting capacity. It is recommended still, in light of the recent criminal proceedings judgement, that [the wife] should continue to see a psychologist (presuming that practitioner has experience in conflicted family court matters) to help her better navigate the difficult issues rising from these findings with her children if/when they bring this up in the future, which is most probable.
   2. Regrettably, the same cannot be said about [the husband] however, indeed to the contrary. The same recommendations were provided for him in the CIR, and in the SER, for him to engage in similar therapeutic supports and programs for parents. Whilst [the husband] reported completing a parenting course in the SER, he could not recall the name of the course nor his retained learning, rather he had stated, 'I learnt nothing. Everything was things I have already done'. It continues to be this clinician's perspective, that if not already ordered, that [the husband] be mandated to attend face-to-face, group-based parenting courses (in person or via AVL), within a specified time frame, to ensure that he attends the courses as requested and engages with the content provided by these courses in an effort to improve his level of insight as to what is in the best immediate and long-term interests of his children.

1. Dr C set out clearly that some changes were needed, saying:
   1. At this stage in time, arguably, if there is not a demonstrable change of heart and effort by the father, there is increasing benefit for [Y] being removed from this environment and put back into the care of his mother. Because if his father is not prepared to accept help (and engage with same) to reunite [Y] with his mother, then it is reasonable to assume that there will be no change to the current situation. This has been covered at length in the SER, and in the subsequent questions posed by both parties, and these views continue to hold true taking into account the additional information received.
2. In that report Dr C concluded:
   1. Hence at the point, mindful of the prolonged and extremely conflicted nature of these proceedings, the options remain stark for the Court to consider. Option one would be for the Court to permit the current care arrangements remain in place, thereby condoning the circumstances in which the younger child's distorted view has developed and consolidated over time, to continue, thereby crystallising his estrangement and persisting loss of his maternal figure. The repercussions of this loss on any child's development are not just considered profound, but lifelong.
   2. The second option, taking into account the ramifications of the previous option, is to implement a radical reversal of care arrangements for this child, so that an opportunity is provided for [Y] and his mother to repair their fractured relationship without the negative influence of the father. It is readily acknowledged that implementing such an option is not without short-term distress and disruption for the child, but when balanced against the enormity of loss associated with maternal absence for the remainder of his childhood and adolescent development that his current trajectory predicates, then this choice becomes far more tolerable.
   3. If by the time of the Court hearing, there has been little or no progress made in the reunification efforts (between [Y] and his mother) by the Family Therapist, as per Orders of 30 June 2025, then it may leave the Court with little option other than to weigh heavily the mother's proposal for a radical reversal of care and a non-contact period between [Y] and his father (and potentially [X]) for a minimum of three months, though possibly extending to six months.

1. Dr C gave evidence and was cross-examined, in addition to the significant evidence in his reports. He commended Mr FF's efforts, noting that Mr FF had brought Y to the doorway of the room, which was further than he had reached in trying to have Y see the wife.
2. Dr C was concerned about the husband and X being in the waiting room when the sessions with Mr FF were to take place, explaining that it is a difficult situation for a small boy like Y, who he expects would have perceived the husband and X marshalled against the wife, sitting waiting in the rooms for him to finish. Dr C believes that one can be confident that it is unlikely Y and his mother will be able to resolve their relationship issues in a setting where the husband and X were present. He was unsurprised that, in those circumstances, little or no progress was made. He viewed this as evidence for why a no-contact period would be important if change of care arrangements were made for Y.
3. Dr C explained that the primary objective was to bring together Y and his mother so as to enable Y to reconcile his relationship with his mother. He is of the view that reversing care is an absolute last resort, and had spoken to the husband about this critical issue. It surprised him that minimal gains had been made to date.
4. In his view, Y's fear of his mother is a combination of sadness and loss, and Y has likely experienced a profound loss over the last two years with his mother not being part of his life. He believes that the coping mechanism Y relies upon is avoidance. He sees the loss as crystallised through the ongoing factors of living with the husband and X, and their clear negative views of the wife.
5. He noted that Y is of an age where he is likely to be relatively compliant, and whilst some attention may be necessary for the possibility of him absconding, he did not see this as a significant risk. He did believe that the wife would need a seasoned clinician to assist her in managing Y at the beginning, and that a holiday at the outset would be a good idea.
6. Dr C thought that a three to six-month moratorium would be appropriate, before reintegration with the husband and X. In order to encourage proper compliance, he thought it appropriate that a moratorium clock could be reset if Y were to abscond. He believed that the reunification of X and Y ought to be supervised by Mr FF, followed by supervised time with the husband.
7. Dr C was asked about the possibility that any change of care might result in significant harm to the relationship between Y, and his father and brother. Dr C was of the view that there was no chance of exclusion of Y by his father or X, as it would not be Y's choice to live with his mother, but a choice by the court. He noted that Y's anxiety was currently at such levels that it even impacted his speech, and that he is likely to suffer significant panic if told that his living arrangements could be changed, however Dr C believed that this would pass. Dr C reflected on the potential risks to Y of any change of care, noting that he is an anxious child and not an angry externaliser. Dr C was of the view that absconding was a low risk, and he reminded those present that the wife's sensitivity to Y would be essential, and that it would be necessary to be mindful of the potential of self-harm as the child may well have a tendency towards internalising behaviours.
8. Dr C believed that the possibility of reconciliation between X and his mother has now passed, and that the window of opportunity to make changes to the relationship between Y and his mother is narrowing. He believed the rupture to Y's relationship with his mother remains a result of the events over the last couple of years and is profoundly damaging to Y, as the risk of no action will be a probable loss of relationship entirely with his mother, and the continuation for Y of life in a deep and fractured family system. This has to be seen in the context of Dr C's view that the husband is rigid and intolerant, and why Dr C has suggested that therapy for the husband would be of some assistance, as the husband has not taken ownership of any aspect of the relationship failure.
9. He believes that the wife has reflected upon her own conduct and manages her own traits more successfully. He noted that Mr FF had observed her as a calmer and more positive person in the sessions with him. He believed that the wife's continuation with the reunification counselling, despite the exceedingly slow progress, was both empathetic and insightful.
10. In cross-examination he was asked about the possibility that a change of care would be profoundly rupturing of the relationship between the husband and X, but maintained that he did not have any sense that the husband would walk away from Y. Rather, Y is currently caught within the conflict between the parents with fear in transitions. He acknowledged the significance of the incidents that had occurred, but was clear that in his view they were not of such gravity as to result in the termination of a relationship between a child and a parent. Rather, the husband could have been the "wise elephant in the room", rather than allowing the situation to develop as it has.
11. Dr C accepted that the husband's actions may well have been subconscious rather than a conscious course, set out to align X to him and cause the wife to become estranged from the children. He accepted that the estrangement would, in part, be due to the experiences the children have had with their mother, but did not consider them to be the significant motivator for the estrangement. He noted that Y's reasons, even years later, do not have a realistic basis for the behaviours that he is displaying.
12. He found it perplexing that the husband put forward proposed orders for steps that he could have been doing for years, and as a result did not think that the husband's heart and soul was in the success of any family therapy.
13. He made even the simple observation that the husband could have left X at home and sought earliest appointments for family therapy if he had been committed to the success of that family therapy. He was doubtful that family therapy would ever be successful while the current care arrangements continued.

1. Mr FF provided a written report outlining his attempts to have Y commence seeing his mother. Unfortunately, he got no further than having Y sit in the doorway when his mother was in the room. Whilst not expressing opinions, some of his observations are telling:
   1. In a follow-up individual session with [Y] following the failed first attempted joint session, [Y] explored factors that may have contributed to his decision not to enter the therapy room with his mother. [Y] stated that he thought his father and brother might be feeling disappointed, mad or sad about him seeing his mother. He continued by saying that he would feel disappointed in himself if he let his father down and said, "I'm not going to do that, because I'm not going to see her". [Y] was encouraged by the therapist to engage in the next joint session with his mother.

...

1. [The husband] spoke positively about [Y] and reported that he was doing well at school and had received positive feedback from teachers. The father proudly stated that he'd "taken them ([X] and [Y]) away from their mother and that other guy and put them in a better place".

...

1. At the conclusion of [Y's] appointment on 3 July 2025, the therapist met briefly with [the husband] and [X], in hope that they could be supported by the therapist to in turn support [Y] to engage in the next joint session with his mother. It was communicated that the therapist opined that with encouragement from both family members, [Y] could feel reassured. Furthermore, it was relayed to them that [Y] had reported to the therapist that a barrier to progressing to joint sessions was based on how he perceived [the husband] and [X] might feel about the reconnection. Furthermore, it was acknowledged that while they might have felt an instinct to protect [Y], the therapist would be present to guide the session and future sessions for [Y].

2. [X] raised that he did not want to see his mother in the waiting room when [Y] was to meet with [the wife]. The therapist advised that the Practice staff do their best to utilise two waiting areas, however in an abundance of caution, [X] need not attend the sessions.

3. [X] accompanied [Y] and his father to each session. [Y] was consistently polite. He warmly greeted and saluted the therapist, by name and with a firm handshake each time.

...

1. In my view, [Y] has taken on a protective role within his father's household, at the cost of his own emotional clarity. When he sees his mother, he appears overwhelmed, not necessarily because he feels unsafe, but perhaps because he feels the grief from the cut off. [Y] may be mistakenly attributing his grief to [the wife] being a harmful person, which teaches his brain that emotional discomfort must be caused by her, rather than recognising that it is a normal response to sadness, loss or loyalty conflict.
2. It is recommended that therapy continue and all family members remain engaged in the therapeutic process to support [Y's] emotional wellbeing and promote the possibility of future repair with his mother...

1. Mr FF was called to give evidence. He was concerned not to express views about the parties as he wished to preserve the extent of the therapeutic relationship that he had established. The parties chose to respect this view.
2. He explained that he had spoken to the husband about preparing Y for sessions, and in an initial session had noted that the husband's eyes were watery and flushed, that he was a bit upset, and that he had told the husband that it was important that he quarantined his emotions.
3. X attended on every occasion. Although he was always polite and well-mannered, Mr FF thought that his presence could have added a layer of stress for Y. He explained that he would have preferred more time to work with Y and would be prepared to continue to work with the family. He had another appointment with the husband in a couple of weeks' time.
4. When he was asked to consider the three options that were, in substance, open to the court (formal therapy, reversal of care, or a cessation of interventions), he reiterated the importance of him remaining neutral as a therapist who may continue to work with the family. However, he did express the view that he was not sure that more time would assist.
5. He said that if Y were to remain with the husband, it would be helpful for Y to understand attachments better and become more ambivalent in his thinking, saying it often takes a long time and needs to be done before joint sessions. He was also of the view that the husband needed coaching to support Y and to quarantine his own emotions. The wife needed to be supported to ensure that she did not pressure Y.
6. Mr FF expressed the view that if Y were to be residing with the wife, immediate and intense therapy would be required to adjust his understanding and the inevitable grief that he would feel as a result of a change in the care. Mr FF was an impressive witness.

1. X will soon be an adult and does not wish to have a relationship with his mother. Having regard to his age no orders were sought with respect to his parenting, although the wife remains hopeful that she may one day have a relationship with him.
2. Y is still of an age where mending his relationship with the wife remains a real possibility, and of importance to Y if a relationship can be renewed. Accordingly, the parenting issues in this case only concern Y ("the child").

1. There was much dispute as to how the wife's relationship with her family had broken down. The wife alleges that the husband pressed her to cut off her family and the husband alleges that her father (the maternal grandfather) was controlling and pressuring her to contact her own mother more often. An AVO was issued against the maternal grandfather in protection of the wife in 2009 for a duration of twelve months. Further the maternal grandfather filed proceedings to recover money from the husband, although his claim was dismissed. The wife's evidence on this issue was reticent and did not appear to be frank and open. However, the difficult relationship between the parties and the wife's parents is not of great significance in these proceedings.

1. Both the husband and the wife gave evidence as to this incident. There was no evidence aside from their versions. Having seen both give evidence, I accept the wife's evidence that the husband threw a bottle of washing liquid at her resulting in bruising.

1. The wife says that in 2022, X called out "Dad. Mum's just sprayed oil at me." The wife says that she was in the kitchen preparing dinner when X came running in to get a snack before going back to the games room whilst calling out to his father. The wife denies spraying cooking oil at him and said that when she looked at X, he was smiling. The wife says that the husband then said loudly to her "What the fuck do you think you are doing?", and that she replied that "[X] just deliberately made that up".
2. The husband says that the wife sprayed cooking oil "directly into [X's] eyes".
3. The incident is alleged to have occurred around a year before the report was made to the police (after the parties had separated).
4. Whilst giving oral evidence, the wife stated:

...At the time, it was only [X] and I in the house. [X] was playing his PlayStation on the weekend in the afternoon. I started to cook dinner. I had the fry pan. I sprayed the oil on the fry pan. [X] just came running out of the games room to quickly get something from the cupboard, like a packet of chips, then ran back. That was the end of that episode, but then saw [the husband] just walking back from the shed to come and see [X] because he wouldn't allow [X] to be without him for prolonged period of times, and then [X] thought it was funny to say, "Dad, mum just sprayed oil in my face", and then [the husband] storms in and says, "Why did you do that for?" and I said, "Well, why - like why are you getting upset with me? Like, nothing happened. [X] is just saying that", and then that - that then became a big ordeal once I left a year later.

(Transcript 4 August 2025, p.37, lines 30-41)

1. When questioned about what she had told the single expert report writer at interviews regarding an oil nozzle becoming stuck, the wife stated:

The oil lid, the spray bottle, as in, the - the spray bottle, as in, it wasn't spraying, but then I had to lift it up, but [X] was metres away. It didn't direct at him. He wasn't near. He didn't stop for a minute. Even in the kitchen, he just came, grabbed his packet of chips and then left...

There was no spraying at [X]. I was just spraying with the bottle, cooking dinner, and [the husband] is just trying to think of scenarios to put in his affidavit, and he remembers that episode of [X] saying, "Dad" - when [the husband] knew nothing had happened and would never happen, but he liked to, in front of [X], get angry at me to show that his - supporting [X]. It was a very unusual dynamic.

(Transcript 4 August 2025, p.38, lines 16-27)

1. This extra detail about the wife holding a spray bottle at the time of this alleged incident was not in her affidavit.
2. In the appeal judgment from the District Court, the judge notes that this incident wasn't recorded in X's diary and that X had said "I can't remember the whole thing exactly" and that "[the wife] would have turned round or she would have been walked, like, walking-walking, like, not walking but, like, turned around at me to get something".
3. Dr C, in his October 2024 report noted that X had written a letter to the ICL and rewritten it to read to the report writer (at paragraph 103) and said that:
   1. [X's] letter contained information about his experience of being cross examined at his mother's criminal trial after she had sprayed cooking oil into his eyes during an argument and hit him with a potato masher, 'how can she put her child through a one-and-a-half-hour cross examination. Why wouldn't she just admit to it?'. [X] then raised that his mother had been in Melbourne having an affair with another man while his paternal grandfather was in hospital.

Comment: [X's] narrative appeared identical to that of his father, matching in both incident and wording. Overall it provided a very strong indication that [the husband] has been involving [X] in matters relating to his mother and likely adversely impacting [X's] view of his mother.

...

1. [X] expressed his view that he believed his mother only made telephone calls [to] himself and [Y] because 'she has to'. He stated 'she doesn't care about me. You don't abuse your child and spray oil in their face'. [X] acknowledged that his father sometimes gets cross with him, and will raise his voice, 'nowhere near as much as Mum'. [X] stated that he wanted nothing to do with his mother for the rest of his life because he did not believe that she cared about him, 'anyone who does that to their child can't like them'. When asked to consider the possibility that he may be wrong in his belief about his mother's feelings towards him, [X] replied 'she doesn't care about me. It's not possible. She doesn't. I will never forget or forgive her'.

1. The repeated use of the third person when recounting the incidents ("her child", "your child", "their child") exhibits a level of detachment that seems surprising if X is describing events that distressed him to the extent he made a complaint to police.
2. The husband's affidavit only contained a brief statement about the incident, saying (at paragraph 52): "On another instance at home, [the wife] sprayed cooking oil directly into X's eyes. She never felt sorry for him or apologised for her actions, instead blaming him or me." He was not cross‑examined on his memory of this event. He was asked about the reasons he believed Y was unsafe with the wife, to which he stated his belief was based on "her past actions with the violence in the family", being "the injuries to [X] and what she has done to him and different things, which [Y] has been around. I don't want that happening to [Y]" (the incident with the oil spray and the incident with the potato being two of the incidents) (Transcript 5 August 2025, p.168, lines 6-24).
3. I am not persuaded that the incident occurred as alleged by the husband and X. I do not accept that the wife actually sprayed cooking oil into X's eyes.

1. In April 2022, the wife was serving mashed potato to the husband and children at the dinner table.
2. The wife says that she asked X whether he wanted gravy with the mashed potato and that X responded "I don't want fucking mash potatoes" (mother's affidavit filed 23 June 2025, paragraph 54(c)) or "I don't fucking want any mashed potato" (Transcript 4 August 2025, p.40, lines 39-40). The wife says that upon hearing that response she was upset (but did not swear back at X) and threw the plastic spoon she was using to serve the mashed potatoes down and that the spoon may have hit X, but that she did not observe any marks on X.
3. In oral evidence, she denied hitting X but said "I got upset, I threw the spoon and I believe some mash potato went on his neck. And it was some degree hot because it was still in the pot as I was mashing it" (Transcript 4 August 2025, p.41, lines 6-9).
4. Later the following evidence was given (Transcript 4 August 2025, pp. 41-42):

So, on your version, he had ended up with some hot potato on him?---Yes, which -which I was - we were facing each other at the time, but then, after dinner, they went down to the shed, which is what - where I had my concerns about.

So you think, do you, that [Mr Abraham] did something to [X] - - -?---Yes.

- - - to make the red marks?---Yes, to take the photo because he knew that I was - it was inevitable and imminent that I was leaving him.

So that he deliberately injured [X], or do you think it's make-up?---I don't know injured, but I - to make a red mark, yes. There's no other way that could have happened.

Well, you don't think hot mashed potato might do that?---It's - it's - it's on the back of him and under his shirt, like - where's the other picture?

1. The husband recounts this incident differently, stating in his affidavit:
   1. In April 2022, we were having dinner one night when [the wife] asked [X] if he wanted mashed potato. [X] said no and [the wife] insisted. The situation escalated with [X] swearing at [the wife] and [the wife], smacking him in the neck and shoulder with a hot spoon containing the mashed potato with such force that it broke into pieces and burnt him. [The wife] continued to throw the hot saucepan containing the food at the floor.
2. The husband said in oral evidence that the wife went into "an absolute rage and belted [X]" and "she went into a rage and in a couple split second just went bang, bang pot and then broken spoon on [X]. And it's a plastic spoon so it's a lot of force" (Transcript 6 August 2025, p.223, lines 10-12). The husband says that the force of the wife's smacks to X's neck and shoulders broke the spoon into pieces and left burn marks on X (the wife says she only found out the spoon was broken afterwards, following dinner: Transcript 4 August 2025, p.41, lines 11-13). The husband says that following this incident, X told him that he no longer wanted to live with his mother and wanted nothing more to do with her (husband's affidavit filed 16 July 2025, paragraph 60).
3. There is a photograph of a mild red mark on the side of X's neck that has the shape of a horizontal oblong area and a photo of his shoulder that has a large mildly red mark around it. The red marks do not appear to be the type or shape one would expect from being forcibly struck by a serving spoon. They appear more consistent with having been in contact with mashed potato from the pot. The serving spoon may have made contact however I am not persuaded that it did so in a way that the force of the spoon (rather than the heat of the mashed potato) caused any red mark or injury.
4. Whilst giving evidence, the husband recalled:

I've told [the wife] to go and apologise to [X], and she refused. And then she said, "he can't swear at me." I said, "well you've just belted him, you know, with the hot potato and stuff." And she laughed it off and said, "well he can look after himself." I said, "you need to go and apologise to your son." She never did and never has to date.

(Transcript 6 August 2025, p.229, lines 21-27)

1. The husband explained the timeline of the conduct after the event in detail (Transcript 6 August 2025, pp.228 line 30 to p.229 line 27) as X going to the shed, he settling Y in the games room to watch TV, him going to see X in the shed and bringing him back to the house, and then going upstairs to see the wife, then seeing X, then photographing the mess before cleaning it up. He then changed the sequence saying he saw the wife before he went to the shed to see X (Transcript 6 August 2025, p.229 lines 39-43).
2. On the recording that the husband took of his conversation with the wife after the incident he tells Y to come downstairs to watch TV: clearly Y was upstairs with the wife after the incident. Whilst, at one level, it is a simple error in sequencing, it also shows that Y's relationship with the wife was such that he went to her room with her after the incident and only left when encouraged to do so by the husband. More significantly, the husband describes the incident (in this conversation that he was recording without the wife's knowledge) when saying to the wife "Can you please apologise to [X] for throwing potato in his face?" The wife objects, saying that X "keeps swearing at me. He's swearing at me more and more". Later the husband says, whilst continuing to persuade the wife to apologise, that X's "just had, you just threw potato at his face" to which she laughs and he says "Don't worry. It's a bit of a shock". There is no mention (express or implied) of X being struck by the wife, indeed the comment "Don't worry. It's a bit of a shock" clearly implies that there was no injury, nor that X was struck by the spoon.
3. X has given slightly different versions of the incident, as recounted by the District Court Judge:

When one turns first to the incident referred to as the "potato incident", this is an allegation in which the complainant asserts that he was hit with a big black plastic spoon full of potato. In his diary, he asserted that he was belted with it on his right shoulder. Fifteen days later, he gave another version which was that he was hit on the right shoulder with a spoon that left a large red mark, and then, the appellant threw it and hot potato at him which scalded the left side of his neck.

1. I accept that X provoked an outburst from the wife, which resulted in her throwing the pot of mashed potato onto the floor creating a mess. I also accept that some potato may have landed on X. I am not persuaded that she struck him with the spoon.
2. X's behaviour that evening was insolent. It appears his behaviour in this regard had been developing for some time; the husband had done nothing to check the teenager's disrespectful behaviours toward the wife. X provoked a response from the wife that shocked him and no doubt wounded his pride; as the husband put it, he got a bit of a fright. The wife lost her temper in response to his provocation. I am mindful that these events take place in a short period of time yet are later analysed in detail, and that few parents have had no arguments with a teenage child as an incident of parenting.
3. I am not persuaded that this incident indicates that the wife is a risk to the children or is a poor parent. Parents are not always perfect; children are not always respectful. When viewed through the lens of family life, the incident shows that the wife had an understandable emotive outburst and that the husband failed to assist in placing appropriate boundaries around X's disrespectful behaviours. Had the husband been more focused upon parenting than gathering evidence, he would have intervened earlier to chastise X for his behaviour.

1. The claim that the wife had attempted to push the husband down the stairs became an issue of significance at trial. The husband said in his affidavit that:
   1. In 2022, [the wife] also attempted to push me down the stairs of our two-story home on a few occasions, knowing that I had balancing issues due to my permanently injured knee. Each time, this happened, the children witnessed this, with [X] intervening to push [the wife] off me so that I wouldn't fall.
2. The wife denies that she attempted push the husband down the stairs, saying that when they argued upstairs she was always in bed (wife's affidavit filed 23 June 2025, page 44 paragraph 372).
3. The wife denied the allegation in cross-examination, pointing out that the husband was stable on his feet (not using crutches) but restricted such that he couldn't get up off the ground or run.
4. X's version is carefully discussed in the transcript from the District Court appeal hearing (Exhibit 22), highlighting the weaknesses in his version (he was at the bottom of the stairs; the husband was facing him and on the stairs; and there was no evidence that the husband fell or stumbled; at one point saying the wife only went to push him but "didn't push him"). X also said that he ran up and pushed the wife against a wardrobe which appears inconsistent with the alleged attempt to push the husband which was alleged to have happened on the stairs. Whilst I do not formally adopt the findings of the District Court, the arguments made in that Court highlight the very real weaknesses in X's evidence.
5. I am not persuaded that the wife attempted to push the husband down the stairs or ever acted in a way that would indicate she intended to push him down the stairs.

1. More generally, the wife sets out a long history of the husband effectively excluding her from the lives of the children, which became quite extreme after separation when the husband would intervene to stop her taking Y to school or participating in his life. I prefer the evidence of the wife on these issues.
2. The parties had a fractious marriage that was increasingly unhappy over many years. Their emotional connection had withered years ago. I accept that they had a marriage punctuated by disputes.

Children's discovery of wife's relationships with others

1. Some aspects of the hearing descended into recounting the difficulties in the relationship of the parties and the wife's steps to find a new partner. Relationships end as people grow apart. In this case there were difficulties in the parties' relationship from the earliest days. The pressures on the relationship and family life resulting from the injuries suffered by the husband would not have helped their situation.
2. The extent of the material seen by the children on the mother's phone is unclear. She was using a dating app and there is a photo produced where a male friend from running is kissing her on the cheek. X describes lewd texts and images, yet none have been produced; this may be simply because they were on the wife's phone, but it is odd that such images or texts would not have been captured in some form, given that level of evidence gathering that had been engendered later in the relationship.
3. There are two factors that appear to be of real significance in the current proceedings. First, the breakdown of the parties' relationship over such a lengthy period would have created a tense and difficult environment for everyone in the home. It would have been far better, in retrospect, had the parties separated much earlier. Secondly, the wife's development of a separate life outside the home may well have contributed to the alignment of X with the husband. It was most unfortunate that the children learned of the wife looking for another relationship before their parents separated. The parties must both share some responsibility for not resolving their relationship difficulties and providing clear messages to the children, rather than allowing the difficulties to continue for many years resulting in pressure for the children to choose one parent or the other.

Husband's recounting of narratives to family GP

1. Considerable evidence was provided describing what the husband recounted to his doctor, Dr B. Dr B was not called. Her notes are careful, identifying what she was told and what she observed. My impression of the notes is that the husband was in large part recounting self-serving versions of events to Dr B in order to generate a trail of evidence should the time come that the parties separated.

1. The wife has made preparations and taken steps to be able to support Y in anticipation of orders that Y live or spend time with her.
2. The wife has relocated to provide a better environment for Y. Her new home is in a family-orientated suburb, close to a sporting oval and with many bike paths available to support Y's extracurricular interests and, most importantly, the new residence is close to Y's school. The new home has four bedrooms, which would afford Y necessary privacy as he grows into a teenager, and a large backyard.
3. The wife has re-partnered since the separation and now lives with her new partner, Mr P. The wife and her new partner have discussed Mr P moving out of their shared home if the wife receives custody of Y to allow the wife and Y some time to revive their relationship. The wife's current partner has given evidence he would leave the wife's home, where he currently resides, for at least a month to allow time for Y to adjust to the new environment (Transcript 4 August 2025, p.60 line 40 to p.61 line 9). He understands that his introduction to Y would be gradual and only take place once the child is settled at the wife's home.
4. The wife has indicated she understands that a moratorium period with Y would be difficult. She has arranged with her supervisors at work to take four weeks leave should she receive custody of Y.
5. The wife has made progress in her therapy as acknowledged by Mr FF in his report from 30 July 2025 at paragraph 37, which provided:
   1. [The wife] appeared to take on opinions or advice suggested by the therapist. She acknowledged that at times she felt helpless. She showed insight into how these feelings had led to her being more likely to make comments to [Y] that placed him in a difficult position.
6. Further, external experts such as Mr FF and Dr C, have indicated they would support the wife while she repaired her relationship with Y.
7. The evidence indicates the children have a positive sibling relationship with one another. However, the children are not close in age, being born seven years apart from one another. X would have been able to obtain his driver's licence in late 2025 (Transcript 4 August 2025, p.11 lines 1-6) and begin an apprenticeship soon after. This means, regardless of any court orders, the children would be spending significantly less time with each other, so the moratorium period's effect on the children's relationship would be minimal.
8. It would be necessary to include X amongst those forbidden to contact Y during the moratorium period because he impairs Y's relationship with their mother. An example of this is at paragraph 19 of Dr C's July 2025 Addendum Report, which provided:

...As currently, the mother has made all appropriate efforts and followed all guidelines to have contact with her children, as noted in materials that she has made efforts to contact [Y's] treating psychologist, find out information from the school, and engage in regular phone calls, with the latter being limited by the paternal surveillance and/or [X's] presence in these calls with [Y].

...In [X's] case however, noting his ongoing alignment with his father, and the likely ramifications on him arising from proceeding with a police report, presumably at the behest of his father more than a year after the event, ... will no doubt have further damaged an already fractured relationship with his mother to the point where possible reconciliation will be unlikely for some years to come.

1. The wife outlines in her affidavit that prior to separation, her and Y were "extremely close", for example opening the gate for her on arrival home from work and giving her a hug, helping prepare dinner with her, playing games or watching television in bed together after dinner, riding their bikes together, and playing Lego (see paragraph 39). This was not disputed by the husband.
2. The parties dispute the extent to which the wife assisted with the children when working from home during COVID.

1. The ICL proposes that there be ongoing family therapy for Y whether there is a change of primary care or not. I am mindful that if Y remains with the husband there is nothing that appears to have changed that would give any real confidence that ongoing family therapy would have any success, given that it appears to have been entirely unsuccessful until Mr FF became involved, and that any advances with Mr FF have been minimal.
2. If Y's care is not shifted to the wife, he will continue to be exposed to the negative views of the husband and X. Without changing Y's care, I see no real prospect that he will have a relationship with his mother, despite what appears to have been a close and warm relationship prior to separation. I accept that it is likely that Y feels unable to have a relationship with his mother at present due to the impact of X and his father's views.

1. There is no doubt that Y, who has not been prepared to be in a room with the wife in the last two years (even with the assistance of therapists), would suffer acute distress in the event that orders are made changing his primary care. I am mindful that this will be a psychological harm for Y in the short term. Against this short-term harm, I must consider the potential long-term benefit of renewing his relationship with his mother.
2. Dr C is confident that a change of care will not fracture Y's relationship with X or his father. That is, Dr C does not think that they would abandon or reject Y. I accept Dr C's evidence on this point. A change of primary care therefore offers the prospect of the child having a relationship with both parents and his brother.
3. I accept that a change of care is the only realistic path forward for Y to have a relationship with both parents.
4. A change of primary care is a significant relationship change and there is no guarantee that Y will settle in his mother's home, nor that he would build a strong attachment to her to replace the severing (at least in the short term) of his relationship with the husband. Dr C's opinion is that a change in care is more likely than not to succeed. However, Dr C sees the prospect of Y attempting to run away as a real possibility, which would place him at risk if it occurred. That risk is mitigated a little by the wife's proposal to take Y away for a holiday from the time of the orders so as to have a break in routines and time to re-bond. I accept that the wife is aware of the challenges she may face in parenting him at first (although like most parents it is difficulty to appreciate the full depth of those difficulties until they are experienced).
5. Mr FF and Dr C are both available to provide support for the parents following the orders made by the court. Mr FF has maintained his independence as a therapist, avoiding providing a critique of the parents, leaving him well placed to work with the parents and Y.
6. The Reasons for Judgment in the matter have not been delivered at a time so close to holidays that they would not be expected to be available.
7. I am comfortably satisfied that the prospects of a change of care resulting in a successful outcome for Y are good, and far outweigh the chances that a change will fail and outweigh the potential immediate adverse impacts on Y (whilst it is possible that the impact of orders changing care will immediately free Y from severe cognitive dissonance, it is appropriate that I carefully consider the potentially negative impacts).

1. Section 65D of the Family Law Act provides that a court may "make such parenting order as it thinks proper". Section 60CA and s 65AA require the court to "regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration" when exercising the broad discretion provided in s 65D.
2. The various factors the court must consider when determining a child's best interests are set out in s 60CC(2):

(a) what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of:

(i) the child; and

(ii) each person who has care of the child (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for the child);

(b) any views expressed by the child;

(c) the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child;

(d) the capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child to provide for the child's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs;

(e) the benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child's parents, and other people who are significant to the child, where it is safe to do so;

(f) anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child.

1. There has been a number of Apprehended Violence Orders as well as the criminal prosecution and the appeal from the magistrate's findings. I have had regard to these as required by s 60CC(2A) and considered the significant incidents in detail above. I am not persuaded that Y is at risk of physical harm in the care of either parent. The real risk to Y is the psychological impact of living in the husband's household where the husband's views (reinforced by X) have left Y unable to have a relationship with his mother. I do not accept that this arose simply from the wife's conduct in the relationship, given her close relationship with Y prior to separation. The situation is likely to cause long term harm in Y's development.
2. As discussed above there are risks in ordering a change in Y's care arrangements, as the change cannot be guaranteed to succeed. Whilst it is possible that upon being told of orders requiring Y live with his mother he will experience relief, it seems that there is a greater chance that he will suffer significant distress and grief for a short period.
3. I take into account Y's expressed views as have been recounted by many witnesses in the hearing. The weight to be placed upon those expressions of his views must be considered in the context of the circumstances of the case. I am not persuaded that his current views and reactions are a result of his lived experience with the wife, nor free choices that he has made. I am persuaded that he feels unable to have a relationship with the wife due to the attitude of the father and X. Y's young age also makes him more susceptible to these pressures.
4. I note Y's age, and the history of interventions in this case. If I were not to order a change of care I would seriously consider ending time between Y and his mother, simply to allow him to be free of the conflict and likely ongoing sense of pressure to reject his mother. However, this would result in the loss of his mother from his life.
5. The capacity of the parents is discussed above. I accept that both have deficits in their parenting capacity. The husband's passivity during the Mashed Potato Incident demonstrates a real lack of parenting capacity on his part in a situation where X had been so rude to the wife after she had cooked the family a meal.
6. It is clear that the wife has made significant changes since separation, whilst the husband has remained resistant (at least in the sense of passive resistance) to Y having any relationship with the wife. Whilst the husband says that he encourages a relationship I do not accept that this describes Y's experience of life in the household. Y is also likely to suffer significant pressure from X; one only has to consider why X would even attend the sessions with Mr FF, let alone claim to be fearful in Mr FF's rooms (discussed above) to see the level of indirect pressure placed upon Y to reject his mother.
7. There is a real benefit to Y having a relationship with all of his family members. I am satisfied that the chance of him having a relationship with the wife, if he remains living with the husband, is negligible. I accept Dr C's view that the husband and X are unlikely to reject him if he lives with the wife. The impact upon a child of growing up hating a parent is a terrible thing, even where there is good reason for the animus. Here there is no satisfactory reason for Y to reject his mother.
8. Taking into account the lengthy discussions set out above I am persuaded that orders ought to be made for Y to live with the wife.
9. The changeover of care will be ordered to take place in the secure Court Child Expert rooms at the court where a Court Child Expert will be available and the ICL can explain the orders and reasons for them to Y. This will afford Y a safe place within which to process the decision and some time to overcome any initial distress that he may feel without pressure to react in any particular way.
10. Dr C suggests a moratorium of contact with the husband and X for three to six months. I note that this is a significant period of time for a child of Y's age. Having regard to the circumstances of this case, and the pressure that Y no doubt feels to reject his mother, a significant period is required to allow him to establish a relationship with sufficient strength and security to withstand the pressures (at least indirect) of the husband and X. It is also important to ensure that the change of care be given the best circumstances to succeed given the likely distress Y will experience initially.
11. I am persuaded that a six month moratorium on direct contact is in Y's best interests, however that after four months the husband should be permitted telephone contact once per week, supervised by a professional supervisor.
12. I am not persuaded that it is appropriate to order that the husband attend therapy as it will be of no use if he does not choose to approach it for the purpose of making changes. I accept that the wife will continue to obtain support from Mr FF without the necessity of an order. I am satisfied that the wife will not hold Y in therapy any longer than necessary to allow him to come to terms with his circumstances and the conduct of the adults in his life. If orders were made for therapy for a set period, that period may be too short or too long for what Y requires: that is, he primarily requires the opportunity to be a child and not pressured by the conflict of his parents or endless therapy sessions.
13. I am not persuaded that the very restrictive orders sought by the wife are necessary in the context of this case. Once Y has had an opportunity to renew and solidify his relationship with her, it ought to be sufficient that time with the husband (and X) be gradually reintroduced leading up to week-end time and school holiday time. After four months, the introduction of supervised telephone time allows the relationship with the husband to continue with appropriate protection for the relationship with the wife. After six months, the introduction of supervised physical contact allows the relationship with the husband and X to resume in person, but still with some safeguards to prevent them consciously or subconsciously undermining the relationship between Y and the wife. After nine months from the date of the orders, the relationship between Y and the wife ought to be sufficient to allow fortnightly weekend time and half school holidays with the father, although I will limit the blocks of school holiday time over the 2026 Christmas break to a maximum of one week to ensure Y's relationship with the wife is not undermined. By 2027 the relationships ought to be sufficient to withstand half of the school holidays.
14. It is apparent that the parties are unable to communicate effectively. The wife ought to have sole parental responsibility for Y, but consult with the husband. The parties can use a parenting app for communication and the husband ought to be able to receive school information.

1. The written submissions for the wife made no attempt to identify a total for the pool, nor a contributions assessment93548874947. The mother's submissions contained only 4 specific references to evidence (taxation evidence in Exhibits 43 and 44, and Exhibits 5 and 6 with respect to family violence) despite the extensive claims of waste and dissipation.
2. The last version of the joint balance sheet (Exhibit 9A) provided as follows:

Loan from Mr P (loan to wife for her legal fees held in solicitor's trust account)

Super Fund 1 (Member No [...]) (as at 26.06.25)

1. A number of items remained in contention. Unfortunately, there was little cross-examination or evidence on these issues.

1. Counsel for the husband submits that Motor Vehicle 1 has been sold (as the husband said in evidence) and that there is no reason to doubt that evidence.

1. The husband said in evidence that he had sold Motor Vehicle 2. His Financial Statement filed for the trial listed it as having a value of $20,000. He was not pressed in cross-examination as to who he sold it to, or about any transfer of registration, nor was any earlier financial statement put to him or tendered. I accept the figure that he set out in his financial statement as an admission and his evidence that he has sold the motor vehicle.

Item 13 - Water Vessel 2 and trailer (purchased 18.09.23)

1. Again, the husband's evidence was that the water vessel and trailer have been sold for $90,000 and that he has spent the money. There is no evidence to challenge that, and no registration or other documents in evidence.

1. The husband's evidence is that the water vessel and trailer have been sold and there is no evidence to the contrary, nor any documents or registration searches. The husband said that it was sold for between $24,000 and $25,000 and that the money had "gone back into the account" (Transcript 6 August 2025, p.295 line 10).

Item 17 - Mower, tools, push bikes, BBQ, fishing boat

1. Counsel for the husband submits that "this item appears to be an assertion by the Wife in relation to miscellaneous items and an estimated value that the Husband provided in a historic Financial Statement. There is no accounting of the items, valuation of the items nor adjustment for items which have otherwise been disposed of" (Summary of Closing Submissions on behalf of the Respondent Husband, as contained in Exhibit B, p.19). If the item is based upon an historic Financial Statement, it was not tendered into evidence. The husband said in cross‑examination that the mower had a value of $3,000 (Transcript 6 August 2025, p.296 line 14) however he said he has sold it. Counsel for the wife did not address this in her written submissions nor the notes to the last balance sheet (Exhibit 9A). The balance of the husband's cross-examination on this topic was not of sufficient clarity to allow me to place any weight on it.

1. This appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the husband's evidence about having sold an item for $20,000. However, there was evidence from the husband that he had $25,000 in cash at his home at the time he was cross-examined, which was the sale proceeds of Water Vessel 1 at trial which remain listed on the balance sheet without dispute at $25,000. The notes to the balanced sheet address a different issue - the proceeds of the husband's personal injuries settlement.
2. Given the husband's evidence in cross-examination that the water vessel was sold during the trial (Transcript 6 August 2025, p.293 lines 5-11), Item 9 should remain as cash proceeds are held by the husband from the sale.

1. None of these items are property presently held by the husband. Thus, they are not assets. In light of the Full Court decision in Shinohara & Shinohara [2025] FedCFamC1A 126; (2025) FLC 94-266, they cannot be included in the list of property as 'add-backs'.

1. The property which is available for division between the parties comprises of the following:

Loan from Mr P (loan to wife for her legal fees held in solicitor's trust account)

1. This results in a net total for the assets of the parties of $860,541. If superannuation is added to the total it comes to $860,5411,106,884.

1. The wife sought a contributions assessment 'of up to' 60 per cent in her favour in her Case Outline (at paragraph 33), although then sought:
   1. Wife seeks orders that she retain the balance of the funds in the trust account and her superannuation, and the husband retain his funds and other assets.
2. In her final submissions (contained in Exhibit B) the wife sought "60% to 70%" based upon the findings she contended for that:

1.1 The wife made greater financial and non-financial contributions during the marriage and post separation [s79(4)(a-ca) Family Law Act 1975 (the Act)

1.2 The husband has 'intentionally or recklessly' caused 'material wastage' to the property or financial resources available to him or to both parties [s79(4)(d) of the Act]

1.3 The husband has been a perpetrator of family violence during and after the marriage which has had an adverse life altering impact on the wife and the children [s79(5)(a) of the Act]

1.4 The husband has undertaken a course of conduct to deliberating increase the liabilities and reduce the available pool [s79(5)(e) of the Act]

1.5 The husband has deliberately failed to comply with his duty of disclosure and has not provided the relevant financial disclosure to the wife or the court [s71B(1-2) of the Act].

1.6 Given the husband's non-disclosure the court ought to make an adjustment of the property pool in the wife's favour: (s71B(2)(a) of the Act; Weir and Weir [1992] FamCA 69; (1993) FLC 92-338: Black v Kellner [1992] FamCA 2; (1992) FLC 92-287.

1.7 The wife has continued to support the children financially and pays child support as assessed which is in the range of $700 per week ($2800 per month). [exhibit 14]

(as per the original)

1. The first of these claims is unsustainable as the husband's personal injuries settlement was around $1,037,832 and the husband has been the primary carer of the children since separation. Much of the balance goes to factors pursuant to s 79(5).
2. The husband, in his Case Outline sought an assessment of 60 per cent to 40 per cent in his favour on contributions and an adjustment pursuant to s 79(5) of 10 per cent based upon his lower income earning capacity and care of the children into the future. In his written submissions he argued for a two-pool approach, treating the funds from the sale of the matrimonial home as one pool to which he argued a 55 per cent to 45 per cent assessment in his favour as a result of his post-separation care of the children. The other pool would be the compensation funds, which it is argued is the source of the funds for the various other items on the balance sheet. On this basis he argues that the interim payments to the wife represent approximately 23 per cent of the compensation pool, that this represents a sufficient split of these monies and that any waste allegations relate to the balance and therefore do not need to be determined. Counsel for the husband notes that (Summary of Closing Submissions on behalf of the Respondent Husband, as contained in Exhibit B, p.22):
   1. This is, in a sense, a hypothetical exercise because on one view of things this logic is re-creating an asset pool which is no longer in existence in a way which may offend the logic in Shinohara. Having said that, however, of that hypothetical compensation pool the Husband would have argued that his contribution was greater than 77%. In all of the circumstances there is no need to make an adjustive Order in relation to Pool 2 and it would not be just and equitable to do so.
3. The husband argues that when considering the s 79(5) factors, a two pool approach should again be adopted, this time with respect to the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home (for which he seeks a 15 per cent adjustment based upon earning differences and care of the children) and the superannuation entitlements for which he seeks a 50/50 split of the wife's superannuation entitlements from her Super Fund 1 account.
4. Whilst there is considerable logic in the approach suggested by the husband, it so fragments the considerations that it would be unlikely to result in the 'holistic' approach required by the Full Court authorities.
5. The relationship was for around 22 years. At commencement it appears that both parties had minimal assets.
6. During the relationship, both parties worked and applied their savings to the purchase of their first home in 2003 in Town G. Later, they sold the Town G property and purchased the Suburb H property. In 2012, the parties sold the Suburb H property and purchased the Town J property. The Town J property was sold less than a year later in 2013, and the parties purchased the former matrimonial home in Town E.
7. The wife was in paid employment, took six to eight months off on maternity leave to care for both children, and made significant household contributions.
8. The wife says that the husband worked from cohabitation until his accident in 2016 as a self‑employed tradesperson. Following the husband's accident in 2016, which required him to be hospitalised followed by six months in a wheelchair and further time on crutches, the wife supported the family financially whilst also undertaking caring and household responsibilities.
9. Significantly, the husband received a large compensation payment for the consequences of his medical treatment. He says that it was in the order of $1,037,000, which does not appear to be disputed.
10. Since separation, the husband has been solely responsible for the care of the children, with the wife paying child support of around $660 per week. He has been on a low income but had the use of the home (on which he does not appear to have paid rates) until it was sold (noting that some of the rates debt appears to have existed at separation). The husband also received some modest financial support from his mother.
11. The value of the assets accumulated by the parties when together is largely comprised of the net sale proceeds of the home and the superannuation. Whilst the superannuation amount is agreed, the wife provided no evidence or submissions as to the amount of the net proceeds of the sale of the home or where they were applied. The husband, in his affidavit (at paragraphs 117 to 120) says that the net proceeds were $967,672. The balance sheet shows home contents of around $19,000 in total.
12. Thus, around $2,270,015 in assets and superannuation (the net proceeds of the home, the value of the furniture, the personal injuries settlement and $246,343 in superannuation) resulted from the contributions of the parties during the relationship. Whilst much of this is no longer available, s 79(4) requires regard to be had not only to existing assets but also contributions to assets no longer held by the parties when assessing contributions.
13. I am not persuaded that in the circumstances of this case the wife has established incidents of family violence that would justify taking them into account under s 79(4)(ca).
14. The contributions of the parties appear to be around 60/40 in favour of the husband, noting that the impact of many factors await consideration pursuant to s 79(5) to be taken into account.

Current and future circumstances of the parties - section 79(5) considerations

1. The wife raised a wastage argument, submitting:
   1. The husband maintains that he spent over one million dollars in the last two years while he was receiving income protection payments of $1,286 per week, and $700 per week in child support from the wife.
   2. The parties did not live a lavish lifestyle however, the husband seems to have drained exorbitant amount from the pool.

(wife's case outline filed 1 August 2025, p.6, paragraphs 35-36, as per the original)

1. The wife also relied upon the husband's less-than-full disclosure, making a submission for an adjustment in her favour:

The husband has failed to account for the dissipation of the funds and there is $330,000 unaccounted for even when if one accepts the husband's explanation for where the money went. The husband has refused to provide disclosure and consistently delayed providing information to the wife's legal representatives. For example, the husband only disclosed the exact amount he received from the compensation in February 2025 despite numerous requests.

(wife's case outline filed 1 August 2025, p.6, paragraph 38)

1. I accept the wife's claim that the husband has failed to make full and frank disclosure of how he dealt with all of the monies from his personal injuries settlement, although I accept that some of the monies would likely have been expended on day to day living expenses.
2. The wife portrays her future circumstances as appearing to be worse than the husband's, arguing:
   1. The wife has no other assets or financial resources and needs to find acquire housing and have some financial security.
   2. The husband will receive income payments until the age of 67 and he has not provided any evidence that he does not have capacity to earn any further income.

(wife's case outline filed 1 August 2025, p.7, paragraphs 46-47)

1. I am not persuaded that the husband's income is ever likely to exceed that of the wife's. He receives his insurance payments only while he cannot work. Those payments are lower than the income earned by the wife. There is no evidence upon which I could conclude that, if the husband recovers, he would be able to earn as much as the wife.
2. Whilst the origin of the tax debt is less than clear it appears to have largely arisen in the year that the parties separated and thus does not lead to an adjustment under s 79(5), save to the extent that interest and penalties have accrued during a period when the husband chose not to pay it despite having his personal injuries payment.
3. The husband is required to meet future medical costs for the injuries for which he has received compensation.
4. The wife will have the care of Y and the costs that this entails. The husband has the care of X, however he will soon be working (if he has not started a job already). Whilst X will not immediately be self-supporting (an apprentice does not receive significant income) the financial costs will be modest. Y will have to be supported for longer given the age difference.

1. The husband and wife sought that account be taken of "addbacks" which, on the current law, is no longer an accepted path for considering such items. On the current law, these items must be taken up as considerations under s 79(5). The relevant items are:

Legal fees paid from partial distribution of $238,000

Partial property settlement received by Husband 14/07/25

Item 21 - Monies received from compensation payout

1. Item 21 is the amount that the wife submits is unaccounted for from the husband's personal injuries settlement. It is difficult to make a finding as to a precise amount and difficult to determine where the monies all went (beyond legal fees). However, it is clear that the husband had control over these monies and there is little left, aside from the modest items in the balance sheet.

Item 22 and 23 and 26- Legal fees and interim property settlement

1. Whilst in the past legal fees funded from the property of the parties would have been added back to the balance sheet, the abolition of addbacks does not change the underlying principle: the parties should fund their own legal fees, rather than treating them as a joint debt. To the extent that they have used funds that would otherwise be in the balance sheet for legal fees, this must be taken into account. This also includes taking into account that debts for legal fees should be borne by the party liable for the fees, even though they may appear on the joint balance sheet.
2. Similarly, interim property settlements must be taken into account under s 79(5) now that they cannot be added back to the balance sheet.

1. The final submissions of the wife provided little assistance on this issue. The wife simply assets that '[t]he husband also had sole occupancy of the former matrimonial home post separation until the property was sold and ceased making mortgage repayments, council rates and other outgoings notwithstanding he had ample financial resources to do so" (at paragraph 18 of her written submissions, as contained in Exhibit B, p.10).
2. Exhibit 32 shows a rates debt of $9,194.00 as at May 2024. The notice also shows quarterly instalments at $635.00. By the time the property was sold (settlement occurred in early December 2024) the rates debt had reached $13,533.77. The wife left the home in May 2023. Neither party has provided a basis for calculating the periods during which the rates debt accrued (a simple division by the quarterly amount would fail to take account of the nine per cent per annum daily interest charge imposed by the council). However, it is apparent that at least some part of the debt must have accrued whilst the parties were sharing the home.
3. I have already had regard to this issue (and the husband's use of the home after separation) when considering contributions of the parties and therefore do not take the rates that accrued in that period into account a second time.

1. The wife sets out the events at paragraphs 347 to 359 of her affidavit. She had a car loan in her name for the vehicle retained by the husband. The repayments by him were in default. This caused considerable angst as the financier was contacting the wife. Ultimately the debt was paid out from the sale proceeds of the home.
2. Each have had the use of funds (including partial property settlement amounts set out above) and paid significant legal fees.
3. I note that the parties cannot access superannuation for some years. The wife has a greater income than the husband and the husband has the possibility of future health costs. I am persuaded that in the circumstances of this case a superannuation splitting order is not appropriate, but that superannuation be taken up in the pool of assets generally, and the limited access to superannuation by the wife be taken into account pursuant to s 79(5).
4. More generally, it is clear that the husband has had control over his personal injuries settlement of over $1 million. There is no satisfactory accounting of how all of that money has been expended. The expenditure on boats and trailers appears to have been beyond reasonable hobbies given the circumstances of the parties. The remaining assets represent only a fraction of that amount. I accept that part of the money was expended on legal fees and part on reasonable living expenses for the husband and the children, however much was also spent in ways that have not been satisfactorily accounted for in the proceedings.

Conclusions on section 79(5)

1. There is no simple mathematical method of explaining the ultimate figure for the adjustment appropriate to take account of the various factors agitated by the parties.
2. I am persuaded that as a result of these various factors there should be an adjustment in the wife's favour such that the remaining assets of the parties are split 60 per cent to 40 per cent in favour of the wife. This will result in the wife retaining 431,972$664,130.00 (being $431,972.00, together with $232,158.00 in superannuation) and the husband retaining the balance.

Just and equitable outcome - section 79(2) of the Act

1. The split of assets should be undertaken on the basis that the wife retains her superannuation and each of the assets in her possession, and remains responsible for her debts. This will result in a split of the assets such that the wife will retain (assuming the joint accounts are retained by the husband) the following:

Loan from Mr P (loan to wife for her legal fees held in solicitor's trust account)

1. The wife would then require $415,510.00 from the monies held in the controlled monies account together with her superannuation, even though it cannot be accessed for some time.
2. The husband would retain net assets (after liabilities) of $428,569, which, together with his superannuation comes to a total of $442,754.
3. In all of the circumstances of this case I am persuaded that this represents a just and equitable result.
4. I will therefore make orders accordingly.

I certify that the preceding three hundred and twenty-two (322) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Riethmuller.