Abramsson & Abramsson (No 8) [2025] FedCFamC1F 919 (17 December 2025)

1. The ICL was appointed on 17 June 2022 and there has already been a trial in which she was involved. The application to discharge the ICL was made well into the rehearing of the trial. Several of the grounds relied upon by the mother to discharge the ICL were known to her prior to the first trial and others were known prior to the commencement of the rehearing.
2. The mother misunderstood the basis of the engagement of Ms NN. She is not a single expert. It seems the mother felt aggrieved by any positive observations made by Ms NN and Ms E of the children with the father and any opinions that do not accord with her own. It is not in dispute that there is mutual love and affection between the children and the mother. Nor is it in dispute that the children have said on a number of occasions that they want to live with her. There was no proper basis to discharge the ICL.

1. When the part-heard trial resumed, there was no mention of Ms PP (a witness in the mother's case) in the trial plan. On the afternoon of 30 October 2025 (which was to be the last day of the rehearing), counsel for the mother sought leave to reopen the mother's case and to call Ms PP "as she was now available". It was conceded by counsel for the mother, that the other parties had previously been informed that Ms PP's affidavit would not be relied upon. Objection was taken to the late reliance on the affidavit.
2. It was conceded on behalf of the mother that leave was required to rely upon this further expert's report and it was submitted by counsel for the mother that the psychometric tests administered by Ms PP constituted "matters, not known to the single expert witness, that may be necessary for determining the issue" or constituted "another special reason for adducing evidence from another expert witness", within the meaning of r 7.08(2)(b) and (c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) ("the Rules"). When r 7.14 was brought to counsel's attention, belated reliance was also placed on r 7.14(3) (which provides that any party may seek to tender an expert's report obtained for a parenting proceeding) although no submissions were advanced as to the circumstances in which such a rule might apply nor were any authorities cited where that rule had been considered.
3. Ms PP is a forensic psychologist who had been retained by the mother to offer an assessment of the following matters:

(a) the presence of any diagnosable mental health conditions;

(b) whether any identified mental health concerns may impact parenting capacity;

(c) whether any identified mental health concerns were contributing to the contraventions of the parenting order conditions; and

(d) the [mother's] current mental health treatment progress and future support recommendations.

1. Ms PP noted that the children were not part of the assessment process and the mother's "parenting capacity was not assessed". Ms PP gave a lengthy account of an interview she conducted with Dr G, the mother's treating psychologist and a witness in the case who was cross-examined during the trial. Ms PP also gave a lengthy account of an interview she conducted with an officer from Child Safety. Not only were extensive notes from Child Safety tendered as exhibits in the trial but two officers from Child Safety gave evidence at the trial. Ms PP set out the mother's childhood history, education and employment history, relationship history, physical health history, psychological and psychiatric history, and the mother's account of various parenting issues. All these matters were contained either in the single expert's report or the mother's evidence in chief. Ms PP administered various psychometric tests.
2. A single expert psychiatrist, Dr R, assessed the parents in November 2022 and his report, curriculum vitae and letter of instructions are Exhibit 21 in the proceedings. He was cross-examined. Dr R had available to him extensive external information as noted in his report (including recordings) and he received updating information as noted in Exhibit 22. Ms PP had very limited external information available to her.
3. Consistent with Dr R's assessment, Ms PP opined that the mother's "presentation had not met diagnostic criteria for any mood, anxiety, or personality disorder" which Ms PP opined was supported by the results of the psychometric testing. Ms PP noted that "[p]er collateral information, [the mother] had a pre-existing diagnosis of complex PTSD". There is no evidence to substantiate a diagnosis of complex PTSD, and during cross-examination, Dr R rejected the suggestion that the mother had complex PTSD. Ms PP opined that there were "no signs of behavioural dysregulation" in either the psychometric testing or presentation: an opinion of limited forensic value when the sources of Ms PP's information were so limited. Ms PP opined that at the time of interview, "based on the sources of information [i.e. three interviews with the mother, the temporary protection order dated 27 April 2022, and interviews with Dr G and a Child Safety officer] and psychometric results, my view is that [the mother] met the DSM-5 criteria for the following diagnosis:

59.1 F43.10 - Post-traumatic Stress Disorder

59.2 [The mother] presented with subclinical mood symptoms that did not meet diagnostic thresholds, and there was no evidence of somatic, cognitive or behavioural dysregulation".

1. Ms PP's reference to PTSD was not an opinion based on her own assessment but reliant on other "collateral information". Indeed, Ms PP opined that "[p]sychometric and collateral data [not identified] had suggested her PTSD symptoms had largely resolved, though residual low mood and self-doubt had persisted". In her opinion, the mother's "mental health appears stable at this time". Her opinion did not contradict the single expert.
2. Ms PP's affidavit was not received into evidence given its limited forensic value.

1. It is common ground that counsel for the father had notified counsel for the mother during the first tranche of the rehearing that objection was taken to the affidavit of Ms H and the objection was pressed. The Court was first informed of this late on 29 October 2025.
2. On 30 October 2025, counsel for the mother informed the Court that the mother was not relying upon Ms H's affidavit.

1. At the conclusion of the evidence, a joint tender bundle, prepared by the ICL, was tendered by consent with an amended index and became Exhibit 29. Unfortunately, both counsel for the father and counsel for the mother referred to documents from the proposed bundle during their submissions that had not been tendered. A further amended index was submitted the day after the conclusion of the trial and with the consent of the parties it replaced the index in Exhibit 29. Unfortunately, the mother's written outline of submissions included documents that were not tendered. I have not had regard to such documents as they are not in evidence. [2]

1. The father proposes that he have sole responsibility for making decisions about major long-term issues, that the children live with him and not communicate or spend time with the mother. The precise order proposed by the father is set out in his Amended Initiating Application filed on 29 July 2025.
2. The mother proposes that she have sole parental responsibility and sole responsibility for making decisions about major long-term issues, that the children live with her and communicate with the father only by Facetime for an hour on alternate Sundays and on specified special occasions each year. The precise order proposed by the mother, including in the alternative, is set out in Exhibit 1 (as amended during the trial but only in relation to the alternative orders).
3. The ICL recommends that the children continue to live with the father and that he should have sole responsibility for making decisions about major long-term issues. Other than the mother being at liberty to send a card or gift to each child on special occasions, the ICL recommends that the mother spend no time with the children nor communicate with them. The precise terms of the order recommended by the ICL are set out in the Minute of Order retained with the Court papers.

1. Parenting proceedings are regulated by Pt VII of the Act. In addition, s 43 of the Act requires the Court to have regard to several matters including:

(c) the need to protect the rights of children and to promote their welfare; and

(ca) the need to ensure protection from family violence.

1. Every parenting decision requires the application of the relevant parts of Pt VII of the Act which sets out the objects and matters that must be considered when determining what parenting order is proper.[3]
2. A 'parenting order' is defined in s 64B(2) of the Act and may deal with matters including:

(a) the person or persons with whom a child is to live;

(b) the time a child is to spend with another person or other persons;

(c) the allocation of parental responsibility; and

...

(e) the communication a child is to have with another person or persons.

1. The objects of Pt VII of the Act are set out in s 60B and are to ensure that the best interests of children are met, including by ensuring their safety, and to give effect to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
2. In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order, the Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration (s 60CA of the Act).
3. The best interests of the child are determined by reference to the matters set out in s 60CC of the Act and include: what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect or other harm) of the child and each person who has care of the child; any views expressed by the child; the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child; the capacity of each person who has or will have parental responsibility to provide for the child's needs; 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; and in considering those matters, the Court must consider any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child, and any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child's family.
4. Section 60CG of the Act imposes a statutory imperative to ensure that a parenting order does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence and empowers the Court to include in the order any safeguards that it considers necessary for the safety of those affected by the order.
5. Family violence is defined in s 4AB of the Act and means violent, threatening, or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family (the family member) or causes the family member to be fearful. Examples of such behaviour include assault, sexually abusive behaviour, stalking, repeated derogatory taunts, intentional damage or destruction of property, unreasonably withholding financial support needed to meet the reasonable living expenses of the family member, or his or her child, including at a time when the family member is entirely or predominantly dependent on the person for financial support, preventing the family member from making or keeping connection with his or her family or friends, or unlawfully depriving the family member from his or her liberty.
6. When considering behaviour that coerces or controls a person, the Full Court in Pickford,[4] per Aldridge and Carew JJ said:
   1. In fulfilling the onus of proving an allegation of family violence that involves behaviour that coerces or controls, it is not necessary to prove the alleged perpetrator intended the behaviour to be so. That does not mean that intention is irrelevant, but it is not dispositive. A person who engages in such behaviour may be completely oblivious to the impact of their behaviour or they may believe that they are acting in such a way to protect the other family member. Notwithstanding that subjective belief, the behaviour may nevertheless coerce or control the other family member and fall within the definition of family violence.
   2. The focus of the fact finding process is on the behaviour and the impact of the behaviour. It is the behaviour that coerces or controls. It requires action and reaction. A single act is unlikely to be coercive or controlling but it may be. Behaviour that coerces or controls may be innocuous, subtle, capable of different interpretations, complex, undermining, etc. Such behaviour may create impossible expectations for the other family member. It may be transactional and involve punishments for perceived failures. The impact of the behaviour can be insidious. A confident and happy family member may lose their confidence, their self-esteem, question their sanity, shun their family and friends, become depressed, irritable, inefficient, and unhappy. There may be times when they strike out either verbally or physically.
   3. When determining an allegation that a person has engaged in behaviour that coerces or controls a family member, a trial judge will undertake a forensic examination of all relevant evidence to:

(a) identify the behaviour about which complaint is made;

(b) identify the full context of the behaviour including any explanation that may be given by the alleged perpetrator;

(c) identify the impact of the behaviour on the alleged victim (mere assertion by the alleged victim that they feel coerced or controlled is insufficient);

(d) make all relevant factual findings; and

(e) explain why the behaviour in question is or is not family violence that coerces or controls the family member and if the alleged behaviour does not entail a course or pattern of conduct, explain how the behaviour can nevertheless be characterised as behaviour that coerces or controls, if so found.

1. Once such behaviour has been identified it is then a question of what weight is to be given to it and any impact on the orders under consideration.
2. The definition of family violence is necessarily broad and any interpretation that may be perceived to, or actually, create unnecessary hurdles to an alleged victim proving an allegation of family violence should be avoided.
3. Whilst the key feature of coercion or control is that a person is induced (many other words are also apt here) to do as the other wishes, the statutory focus is simply on behaviour that coerces or controls and not the intention of the perpetrator.

1. Section 4AB(2A) of the Act sets out examples of behaviour that might constitute economic or financial abuse of a family member:

(a) unreasonably denying the family member the financial autonomy that the family member would otherwise have had, such as by:

(i) forcibly controlling the family member's money or assets, including superannuation; or

(ii) sabotaging the family member's employment or income or potential employment or income; or

(iii) forcing the family member to take on a financial or legal liability, or status; or

(iv) forcibly or without the family member's knowledge, accumulating debt in the family member's name;

(b) unreasonably withholding financial support needed to meet the reasonable living expenses of the family member, or the family member's child (including at a time when the family member is entirely or predominantly dependent on the person for financial support);

(c) coercing a family member (including by use of threats, physical abuse or emotional or psychological abuse):

(i) to give or seek money, assets or other items as dowry; or

(ii) to do or agree to things in connection with a practice of dowry;

(d) hiding or falsely denying things done or agreed to by the family member, including hiding or falsely denying the receipt of money, assets or other items, in connection with a practice of dowry.

1. Section 4AB(4) of the Act sets out examples of situations that may constitute a child being exposed to family violence such as overhearing threats of death or personal injury or seeing or hearing an assault.
2. Abuse in relation to a child is defined in s 4 of the Act and includes a sexual assault or involving the child in a sexual activity in which the child is used, directly or indirectly, as a sexual object, or causing the child to suffer serious psychological harm, including by subjecting or exposing a child to family violence.
3. In cases involving allegations of abuse or family violence, a positive finding should not be made unless the Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities,[5] having regard to the "inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding"[6] and proof to the reasonable satisfaction of the Court, "should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences".[7] Where a positive finding is not made but it is nevertheless not possible to reject an allegation as groundless, the Court is required to assess and evaluate the magnitude of any risk to the child and to determine whether the risk of harm is unacceptable.[8]
4. The High Court in M v M explained at p. 78, the nature of the risk (in that case involving a risk of sexual abuse but equally applicable in assessing risk generally) in the following terms:

Efforts to define with greater precision the magnitude of the risk which will justify a court in denying a parent access to a child have resulted in a variety of formulations. ... courts are striving for a greater degree of definition than the subject is capable of yielding. In devising these tests the courts have endeavoured, in their efforts to protect the child's paramount interests, to achieve a balance between the risk of detriment to the child from sexual abuse and the possibility of benefit to the child from parental access. To achieve a proper balance, the test is best expressed by saying that a court will not grant custody or access to a parent if that custody or access would expose the child to an unacceptable risk of sexual abuse.

1. When assessing the nature and magnitude of a risk posed by a parent or other person, all relevant evidence must be considered as part of the "matrix of evidence"[9] to determine whether or not the risk of possible future harm is unacceptable and, in making that determination, it is not necessary to make findings of fact on the balance of probabilities on each piece of relevant evidence (or even any), although caution is required if concluding that a risk is unacceptable where no such findings are made.[10] When assessing whether a risk is unacceptable, the Court is concerned with possibilities and not probabilities.[11] Whether a risk is found to be unacceptable is not determined according to the civil standard of proof i.e. on the balance of probabilities.[12]
2. When considering the parenting dispute more broadly, it is not necessary to make findings of fact on every factual dispute raised by the parties.[13] The paramount issue for the Court is to determine what order is in the best interests of the subject child in the particular circumstances of the case, and in the process of that determination the Court "cannot be diverted by the supposed need to arrive at a definitive conclusion"[14] on each and every factual dispute.
3. Each parent has parental responsibility (i.e. all the powers, responsibilities, and authority which, by law, parents have in relation to a child) for a child subject to any order made by the Court (s 61C of the Act).
4. Section 61D of the Act provides that a parenting order can deal with the allocation of responsibility for decision making about major long-term issues, being joint or sole decision making in relation to all or specified major long-term issues. Major long-term issues mean issues about the care, welfare, and development of the child of a long-term nature and includes issues about education, religious and cultural upbringing, health, name, and changes to living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the child to spend time with a parent (s 4).
5. Where an order is made for joint decision making about major long-term issues, there is a requirement to consult in relation to each such decision and make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision (s 61DAA of the Act).
6. Although I may not specifically discuss in these reasons each subparagraph of each relevant section of the Act, I have considered all sections as required when making my determination.[15]

1. The following issues were jointly identified by the parties for the Court's determination:

(1) Does the father pose a risk to the safety of the children and/or the mother?

(2) Does the mother pose a risk to the safety of the children and/or the father?

(3) Is it in the best interests of the children to have a relationship with both parents?

1. Before considering the issues, it will be helpful to consider in greater detail the complex dynamics of this relationship as described by various therapists who were involved with the family during their relationship. That complexity is perhaps helpfully exemplified in evidence from the father's treating psychiatrist, Dr F, and treating psychologist, Dr W, and the mother's treating psychologist, Dr G, and X's treating psychologists, Ms D and Ms T.
2. It also seems to me that there are considerable complexities in characterising certain historical behaviours as coercive or controlling in this relationship particularly where one party, the father, has been diagnosed with autism - level 1 and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ("ADHD").
3. The single expert, Mr S, a clinical psychologist with over 50 years' experience and a recognised expert in autism spectrum disorder (ASD), opined in his report dated 3 January 2024:

A partner being autistic will have a significant impact on a relationship. I have provided individual, couple and group relationship counselling where one or both partners are autistic. The main themes during relationship counselling are improving communication, especially emotional communication, expressing love and affection, managing anger and conflict, and providing emotional and practical support and intimacy.

... Theory of Mind difficulties gradually become apparent: the autistic partner's ability to read body language, facial expressions, tone of voice and contextual cues to determine what someone is thinking or feeling. We recognise that impaired Theory of Mind also occurs for the non-autistic partner, which is sometimes called double empathy. The non-autistic partner can have difficulty determining the thoughts, feelings and needs of the autistic partner, which leads to a breakdown in communication and distress and agitation for both partners.

1. Another factor adding to the complexity of this relationship relates to the mother's history of alleged sexual assault as a teenager and her initial struggle with the concept of having a son. She contends that her pregnancy with Y triggered flashbacks and nightmares of being sexually assaulted and that the father refused to engage when she attempted to talk about her feelings. The mother contends that she was behaving in ways that she would not "normally" behave and that "[i]t is not unusual for women to experience extreme rage and hatred of their husbands during pregnancy". The mother contends that the father's habit of recording her "all seem to start around late 2020, when [she] was heavily pregnant". She suggests that her "reactions during this period, and until separation, what [sic] not my normal and not at all consistent with who I am outside of the relationship". The mother concedes being "emotionally dysregulated" at times and attributes her dysregulation to the father's "unpredictable behaviour, combined with my history of trauma and pregnancy losses". The mother contends that - "Today, I am so different, and I can't imagine subjecting my children to what they saw and heard back then".
2. In an email from Dr W to Dr F dated 29 November 2021, Dr W outlined that she had started seeing the father in 2012 after his diagnosis of autism and ADHD and had been working with him at varying frequencies across that time. At the time of her email, she was seeing the father weekly. Dr W said:

I started seeing [the father] in 2012 after his diagnosis, and have seen him at varying frequencies across that time, with some breaks/re-engagement across the years.

...

The unhealthy relationship dynamics have been there as long as I've been working with them - unfortunately I didn't see them early on, and probably inadvertently fed into the narrative that [the father] is the problem and needs fixing- not by overtly saying that, but more covertly by including [the mother] in sessions as a support person while we worked on capacity building for [the father]. ...

I have stopped [the mother] from attending [the father's] sessions as it was becoming clearer and clearer there is a conflict of interest between [the mother's] agenda and [the father's] mental health- and I strongly recommended couples therapy and formal mediation. [The mother] escalated when a limit was set on her attending sessions, and would come into the room and verbally abuse [the father] just off camera during therapy sessions (I could hear through the microphone on [the father's] headset, but couldn't say anything because only [the father] could hear me- I coached him but she wouldn't stop when he asserted himself), at times she would listen through the door then come in and chastise [the father] for what he had said. ...

...

[The father's] strength is in understanding and conceptualising, and his knowledge base about autism and ADHD is incredible. He struggles with emotions, he is alexithymic, ... He switches from showing no emotion to outwardly to intense emotion very quickly. He also struggles with interoception more broadly (including toileting cues), and executive function is a genuine challenge for him.

...

1. Dr R explained during cross-examination that alexithymia is "literally the inability to put one's feelings into words". When asked whether alexithymia would inhibit the father's capacity to read the children's emotions, Dr R said - "not necessarily. It's ... expressing what you feel in a way that can be transmitted to another. It doesn't follow that you can't read emotions". The mother concedes that the father "struggled to express emotions" and this appears to be one of the significant issues in their relationship.
2. In a letter from Dr F dated 12 May 2022, she noted that the father had been referred to her on 23 August 2021 for "follow up and support for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Autistic Spectrum Disorder, medications and management, as well as coping with an extremely stressful time around the birth of his second child" and said:

...

His symptoms cause difficulties with time management, prioritisation of tasks and completion of tasks ...

There is improvement in these symptoms for approximately 10-12 hours after each dose of lisdexamfetamine.

...

His symptoms cause difficulties in some social communication and social interactions. He also will display repetitive speech when overwhelmed, has difficulty adjusting to rapid changes, and can be hyperreactive to sensory input (for example noise)

... [The father] described that there had been more friction in recent years as he had tried to have more input in decision making. ...

...

... On mental state examination he appeared to be anxious and overwhelmed. There was no evidence of depressive or manic mood states. There was no evidence of thought disorder, no delusional content and no perceptual disturbance.

My assessment following that appointment was that [the father] was experiencing an ongoing situational crisis, that he had anxiety related to the current situation, and that there continued to be no signs of mental health conditions other than ADHD and ASD.

1. In a further letter dated 6 June 2022, Dr F said:

... He has described being the victim of domestic violence (physical, coercive control), escalating in recent years. He is commencing family court proceedings. He also is extremely concerned for his children's safety and has made reports to child protection regarding these concerns.

His Autistic Spectrum Disorder can impact on his verbal fluency and at time[s] he experiences perseveration, echolalia, and difficulties with word finding and sentence construction. In his anxiety to have his experiences be heard and understood, he can display pressure of speech, be overinclusive and tangential in retelling of events, and may become frustrated with any communication difficulties he is experiencing. These changes only occur during periods where he is highly anxious and feeling overwhelmed.

1. Dr W sent a letter to the father's solicitor on 11 November 2022, in which she said:

...

Since becoming a psychiatrist, [the father] has consistently worked more than recommended in relation to his capacity, and more than he has wanted. He has expressed on numerous occasions that he felt like he was being ostracised from the family unit through pressure to work, he often reported working six or seven days a week, without adequate periods of leave. ... he did not feel able to adequately reduce the hours he worked due to over pressure from [the mother] to maintain a particular lifestyle. ...

...

[The father] is a highly intelligent man, and has a great capacity for understanding concepts and researching information. He does, however, find communication challenging and can particularly struggle with tasks that require central coherence (i.e., focusing on the main message rather than all the details), with discussing plans or ideas that diverge from what he was expecting, and with communicating his experiences and needs in a way that is readily understood by others. This is due to his autistic communication style not being the predominant communication style in our society, not due to an inherent deficit. Further, communication and other challenges tend to become more pronounced during periods of autistic burnout and situational stress, so this compounded the challenges. ...

1. Dr G initially provided couples counselling for the parents from 26 March 2021 to 3 December 2021 during which they attended 29 therapy sessions, and with the father's consent, Dr G then became the mother's therapist. During the parents' last joint session with Dr G on 3 December 2021, she observed "[b]oth frequently became escalated and blaming towards the other person, which was difficult to control, and is harmful to them both".
2. In a letter from Dr G to "Dear Reader" dated 23 June 2022, she said:

... Both parties reported as [sic] long history of conflict in their 12-year relationship. The conflict followed a typical approach-withdraw dynamic, where [the mother] would raise an issue (generally focussed on needs for emotional or practical support or requests for action around a topic), [the father] would feel criticised and attacked, and either escalate (with anger) or withdraw. Overtime, [the mother] has also responded with withdrawal (taking on a burnt out pursuer role) due to her efforts at communication being ineffective or fears around [the father] escalating and becoming dysregulated.

Before the transition to parenting, the relationship was more stable. ...

There was an increase in tension in the relationship with the transition to parenting with their first child, ... My sense is that this was due to the increased demands placed on both individuals, ... This tension significantly increased following the birth of their son ... There were additional stressors such as COVID and the isolation this caused.

Over the course of our treatment in 2021, [the father's] ability to cope with stressors and maintain his work commitments declined; ...

...

... [The mother] reports [the father] was historically 'grateful' for her support, but as he began to think more in line with neurodivergent thinking, where the focus was on the neurotypical partner adapting to the neurodivergent partner, he became more 'resentful' of her support attempts.

At this time [the father] also began to focus on [the mother's] behaviour as constituting coercive control. While [the mother] could at time [sic] be more critical than she intended, I did not observe coercive control behaviours, where there was deliberate intent to manipulate and denigrate. While some of her behaviours could be interpreted that way (e.g., instructing [the father] on how many hours were needed to repay a taxation debt), her intent was not about control but about meeting external responsibilities. ...

[The father] would respond to most requests from [the mother] with an escalated defence or withdrawal. ... [The mother] struggled with accepting that [the father] did not have capacity for parenting and household tasks and interpreted this lack of engagement as a lack of caring at times, which would increase her distress. [The mother] did set appropriate boundaries regarding her needs in the relationship, which [the father] then saw as emotional blackmail.

1. Ms D provided counselling to X over an extended period (pre-dating the parents' separation). She described in a report dated 11 January 2023 that this family dynamic was "an extremely complex situation". In a follow-up report dated 1 November 2024, she repeated this description stating, "I recognise the complexity of the case involving the [Abramsson] family".
2. Ms T provided counselling to X between July 2023 and February 2024 and observed "[i]t is acknowledged that information shared may reflect only one side of a complex situation". The father was not spending any time with the children during this period.
3. Yet another fact adding to the complexities of this relationship was the mother's history of undergoing in vitro fertilisation over many years from 2017 and having suffered five miscarriages prior to 2017. The mother also suffered other health issues. In 2011, the mother had an 18 centimetre Paraovarian Cyst removed. She was diagnosed with a heart condition which required several surgeries throughout 2012 and early 2013. In 2014, the mother was diagnosed with Lipoedema by a vascular specialist and underwent three surgeries in Country QQ for this between March and May 2017. Also in 2014, the mother sustained four broken bones in her back after a "severe horseback riding accident".
4. It is also relevant when considering the complexities of this case, to note that the father was the subject of several complaints to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority ("AHPRA") in relation to his communication, prescribing practices, competence, organisation, and ability to keep records. The complaints or concerns date back to 2018. For instance, it appears that complaints/concerns were raised about the father prescribing certain medications on first consultation without follow up and without writing a report to the patient's GP. The father was reportedly teary at work and presented as overwhelmed. He was a very busy practitioner but reportedly unable or unwilling to take a break from clinical practice to catch up on administration. There is evidence the father avoided responding to AHPRA for a period which may have further complicated matters.
5. In a letter from AHPRA to the father dated 26 August 2022, it was stated that the complaints related to "communication, administration, and billing". A detailed letter from the father's lawyers provided an update to AHPRA on 2 December 2022.
6. In a letter from AHPRA to the father on 3 April 2023, the father was advised that a confidential notification raising concerns about the father of financial and coercive control against the mother was investigated but no further action would be taken. AHPRA undertook an investigation notwithstanding the notifier "had not directly observed the alleged behaviour and had no direct evidence". In conducting their investigation, AHPRA obtained records from police and concluded that the records "demonstrate that [the father] and [the mother] are going through a very difficult divorce" and that protection orders were in place where both the father and the mother were protected persons, but "at no stage has either been charged with an offence".
7. The father had no income from 9 April 2024 until 23 October 2024. AHPRA revoked approval for the father to work at a private specialist clinic on 9 April 2024. He was then suspended from practice on 15 July 2024 until 18 September 2024. There is no further evidence before the Court relating to AHPRA involvement. The father contends that he remains unable to work in private practice due to restrictions on his medical registration.
8. This overview provides a helpful backdrop to the stressors and challenges each party faced particularly from about 2020.

Determining disputed allegations of family violence

1. While considerable focus is placed on allegations of family violence in parenting proceedings, and understandably so, a finding that family violence has occurred or that there is a risk of family violence occurring in the future, does not of itself necessarily determine what parenting order should be made in a child's best interests. It is but one matter, albeit an important one, which will inform the ultimate decision. It is also important to recognise that while certain behaviour may not fall within the definition of family violence, it may nevertheless be relevant when assessing what impact such behaviour may have on the children if such behaviour were to be repeated in the future.
2. Determining allegations of family violence is a forensic exercise. As the Full Court said in Pickford,[16] per Austin and Williams JJ at [79]:

... in litigation under Pt VII of the Act, untested allegations of family violence are not proven facts. No court can prophetically know whether such allegations made by one party against another are true or false and, if false, whether the falsehood is deliberate or inadvertent. Disputed allegations of family violence must be subjected to the same forensic rigour as any other contested factual issue. The party alleging the fact bears the burden of proving it and the standard of the burden is the balance of probabilities. The same point was recently made by the Full Court, though perhaps in less robust terms.

(Citations omitted)

1. The Court is nevertheless in the unique position of being able to hear and observe evidence from the parties and witnesses being tested in cross-examination and to have before it a considerable body of other evidence which may corroborate other evidence or from which inferences may be drawn, aiding in the determination of disputed facts.
2. In undertaking that task, it is important to recognise that memories are fallible. The fact that there may be some inconsistencies in historical accounts of family violence (or other factual matters) does not of itself mean the allegations are necessarily untrue. Further, a victim may act in ways that seem counterintuitive, e.g. staying in an abusive relationship or failing to make formal complaints, but such behaviour does not mean that the allegations are necessarily untrue. There can be a variety of reasons why a victim stays in an abusive relationship e.g. believing that it is the best way to protect young children from the perpetrator or fearing for their life if they leave.
3. It is a fact of life that most family violence occurs in private where there are no witnesses, or where the only witnesses are young children. However, where it is contended that there is evidence corroborative of an allegation, either from a witness after the event or from a document, and the witness is not called or the document is not tendered, adverse inferences may be drawn i.e. that the evidence, if called or tendered, would contradict the allegation.[17]
4. Determining disputed facts can be a difficult exercise. I do not generally find demeanour on its own to be a reliable basis upon which to make findings of fact. The most abusive people can sometimes be very convincing in their denials. They may manipulate the system to their own advantage, presenting the victim as "crazy". Equally, a person may be very convincing as a "victim" when they are in fact the perpetrator. A long history of being subjected to coercive or controlling behaviour may ultimately result in the victim "snapping" and acting in an abusive way themselves which can result in them being wrongly identified as the primary perpetrator.
5. While it is necessary to consider the history of family violence, the purpose of such consideration is to inform the assessment of future risk.[18]

1. Authorities such as police or Child Safety have a different role to this Court. Police determine whether criminal offences may have occurred and, if so, to charge people with criminal offences. Police may also assess whether there appears to be a risk of future family violence which may justify an application to a court for a protection order. Child Safety assess risk of harm and whether a parent is willing and able to care for a child. Any conclusions reached by police or Child Safety may inform, but do not bind the Court. The Court is generally in the best position to make findings on disputed facts having regard to the broad range of evidence before it and the ability to hear the evidence tested during cross-examination.
2. However, the Court's primary focus is to make a parenting order that is in the best interests of the child given the particular circumstances of the case.
3. Turning then to consider the issues identified.

DOES THE FATHER POSE A RISK TO THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN AND/OR THE MOTHER?

1. The mother contends that the father poses a risk of future psychological, emotional, and physical harm to the children based on the following:[19]

(a) Family violence perpetrated by the father towards the mother and the children;

(b) Lack of insight into the impact of his violence upon the mother and the children;

(c) Lack of acceptance of responsibility or remorse for his family violence;

(d) Failure to meet the children's basic physical needs;

(e) Undermining the children's maternal bond;

(f) Failure to meet the children's emotional needs;

(g) Lack of parenting skills and experience;

(h) Lack of insight into the importance of the children's psychological welfare and need for therapeutic support; and

(i) Compromised parenting capacity arising from his medical conditions.

1. The nature of the family violence alleged by the mother against the father includes coercive or controlling behaviour, physical assault including attempted strangulation on one occasion, derogatory taunts and financial deprivation. The alleged coercive or controlling behaviour includes not only physical assault, derogatory taunts and financial deprivation but also subjecting the mother to repeated silences, unexplained absences from the home, audio and video recording her without her knowledge and, on occasions with her knowledge, by way of provocation. The father denies perpetrating family violence. The father contends that he recorded their encounters to protect himself against allegations made by the mother and to "prove" to authorities that he was the victim rather than the mother. He admits that the children were exposed to family violence but contends the mother was the perpetrator, not him.
2. It is not necessary to make findings on every allegation made by the mother, many of which are expressed in general terms. However, having regard to the seriousness of her allegations it is necessary to make findings in relation to some allegations for which there are particulars, as such findings are likely to inform the assessment of future risk.

1. In 2010 or early 2011, the mother contends that the father "[i]n a fit of rage" grabbed her from behind and threw her across the room, "causing pelvic bleeding and resulting in another miscarriage". The mother contends that she had just returned from a visit to her dying grandmother, and she asked the father who had prepared the salad in the fridge which "sparked an argument that revealed he was cheating on me".
2. It is common ground that the mother suffered five early miscarriages (between six to 10 weeks gestation) during the relationship and before becoming pregnant with X in 2017.
3. There is no evidence that the mother sought medical attention after the incident in 2010 or early 2011 which the mother contends caused "pelvic bleeding" and a miscarriage. It seems likely that sustaining injury while pregnant would result in medical attention and that, if so, there would be records that may tend to corroborate at least the timing of the alleged assault. If the mother did not seek medical attention, she does not explain why she did not do so. The mother contends that a text message she sent to the father at some time in 2020 in which she said - "You are disgusting and I should have walked away 10 years ago when you threw me across the kitchen", is corroborative of her allegation. It could not be said the text message represents a contemporaneous complaint.
4. The mother contends that in 2017, while she was about 16-20 weeks pregnant with X (approximately July/August 2017), the father "became aggressive, and when [she] tried to escape to the car in the garage, he took [her] bag to prevent [her] from leaving and pushed [her]". The mother contends she called the police but "convinced them not to attend because [she] was concerned about the potential impact on [the father's] career". There is no evidence of a call having been made to police. It is curious that the mother contends she was concerned about the impact on the father's career if police attended yet she says she called the police. The mother did not explain the inconsistency. There is no reference to this alleged incident in any email to Dr W from the mother at that time despite the mother contending that "[b]eginning in 2015, after or even during incidents of domestic violence, I emailed Dr. [W] to document these events". The mother contends that she retained the emails.
5. The mother alleges that in September 2017, the father grabbed her by the arm and threw her across the room. The mother contends that she left and presented at the foetal assessment unit at the hospital with "pelvic bleeding" but lied to hospital staff about the reason for her attendance because the father was present, and she was fearful. There is no evidence of a hospital attendance. After returning home, the mother contends that she and the father had an emergency session with Dr W during which Dr W told the father that the incident was not only domestic violence but also an act of child abuse. There is no evidence of a session with Dr W. There is no reference to this alleged incident in any email by the mother to Dr W at the time.
6. The mother describes her and the father's time in Melbourne, where they lived from 2014 until July 2017 (other than a period of about nine months in 2016 when the parents lived in Brisbane), as a period of "significant decline" for the father "with increasing instances of domestic violence". The mother contends that during that time she "sought refuge at the home of [the father's] relatives: his mother's cousin [Mr RR] and his wife, [Ms SS]. During our time in Melbourne, I became particularly close to [Ms SS] and she supported me through the DV, the miscarriage ...". There is no evidence from Mr RR or Ms SS and no explanation for the failure to call them as witnesses. The mother deposed that her five miscarriages occurred during 2010 - 2014.
7. The mother deposed that on an occasion in 2021, while she was breastfeeding Y and X was eating dinner a few metres away, the father:
   1. ... placed his hands around my neck, and held them there for several seconds. ... While he didn't squeeze or strangle, his hands were tense around my neck, and his expression was intensely frightening and aggressive, making me feel incredibly threatened.
   2. This incident is documented in police notes. [X] was watching TV and eating, I was feeding [Y] on the couch, and [the father] was sitting next to me. He jumped up and put his hands around my neck, after which I moved myself and the children upstairs and called the police. This led to a second CYPS investigation, this time focusing on [the father's] risk to the children. I believe this incident took place in April 2021.
8. In records produced by Child and Youth Protection Services in the ACT ("CYPS" part of Exhibit 29), the following is recorded on 5 April 2021 at 11:34 pm:

...

On Monday 5 April 2021, Police attended the residence of [redacted in original] ACT, where [the mother] reported that [the father] had placed his hands around her neck, but not making contact with her. He gestured strangling her and she feared that he would. ... Police attended but due to evidence available are not able to proceed with Criminal Charges ... Children present during incident ...

1. The mother sent a text message to a friend, Ms TT, on 5 April 2021 in which she alleged the father had "just strangled me, I can't move or leave. do I need to call the Police?". Ms TT told the mother to contact the police. The mother responded - "I am scared he will lie and paint me as the abuser". (Emphasis in original)
2. In an email sent by the mother to Dr W on 6 April 2021, the mother states, among other things:

Last night [the father] became violent towards me, in front of the children. He wrapped his hands around my neck while I was feeding the baby and lunged at me and growled at me, repeatedly, in a threatening manner, all while I was feeding the baby and unable to move. I had not said or done anything to provoke him. [X] was also in the room but thankfully she had her back to us and was engrossed in watching Bluey on the TV. She didn't seem to be aware of much, other than that mummy was upset and daddy was being mean to mummy.

1. In a conversation between the mother and a case worker from ACT Domestic Violence Service ("SHIP" part of Exhibit 29) on 6 April 2021, it is recorded that "[the father] then lunged forward and put his hands around [the mother's] neck".
2. The clear impression created in the mother's text to Ms TT, in her email to Dr W, and her conversation with SHIP was that the father had strangled her. The mother deposed in her trial affidavit that the father put his hands around her neck and held them there for several seconds. By contrast, the evidence recorded by the CYPS was that the mother told the police the father gestured strangulation and that his hands did not even make contact with her neck. The mother did not explain the inconsistency.
3. In another incident, the mother deposed that "[j]ust days prior [to 26 December 2021]", while they were both lying on the father's bed, she tried to discuss the final details of their planned move to Queensland when the father "suddenly stood up, placed his foot over my skull, and, with a cold, detached look ... shook violently, as though poised to harm me. I froze, feeling utterly terrified and convinced I was about to die". The mother described this incident in two consecutive paragraphs of her trial affidavit, adding in the second paragraph that the father "became violent, putting his foot on my head and threatening to crush my skull". No verbal threats are attributed to the father.
4. The mother deposed that "the week before December 26 [2021] saw a significant increase in [the father's] physical aggression and threats to kill" her. This allegation appears separately in her affidavit to the incident alleged to have occurred "[j]ust days prior [to 26 December 2021]". Despite such a serious allegation the mother does not provide any particulars of alleged threats to kill her nor was it put to the father during cross-examination. The mother deposed that she was so alarmed by the father's behaviour at this time that she contacted her mother "who was staying at a nearby hotel for support due to [the father's] escalating violence, to come over early, as [she] feared he would harm us". The mother's mother was not a witness in the mother's case and no explanation for her absence was provided.
5. There is, however, some evidence attributed to the maternal grandmother in Exhibit 29. In hospital records created when the mother was in hospital after the 21 April 2022 incident, the maternal grandmother spoke to the hospital by phone and referred to her being in Brisbane on 26 December 2021 and that there were instances of "physical stuff" but that it was "[not] a big physical thing". The maternal grandmother was not staying with the family, so I infer her source of information was the mother. The maternal grandmother told the hospital that the mother was asking the father about his medication and asked if he was still taking it and he threw the box of tablets at the mother in front of the children and the mother called the police. The maternal grandmother also told the hospital that there had been an incident during that week (prior to 26 December 2021) when the mother lay on the father's bed and he had become agitated, stood up on the bed and "looked he [sic] was going to stomp on her head but didn't".
6. On 26 December 2021, ACT police responded to an emergency call made by the mother and attended the parents' home at about 2.51 pm. The mother answered the door and "appeared quite distressed and visibly upset". The mother disclosed that there had been an argument regarding medication that the father was meant to take for ADHD, and this resulted in the father throwing the medication at the mother and saying - "[t]hat is for telling me to take my medication". There is no record of the mother alleging that the medication was in a bottle and that she was hurt when it struck her in the back. The mother alleged to police that the father had become more aggressive over the previous 12 months and that he had placed her in a headlock but did not apply any pressure to the neck and that the father had also put his foot on her head when they were in bed together and had an argument. The mother did not suggest to police that this was a recent incident. Notably, there is no record of the mother alleging the father had made threats to kill her. At about 3.20 pm, the mother advised police that the father was in a back bedroom and may be asleep. The mother told police that the father was manipulative and had control of all the finances. The father was detained in police custody pending police obtaining a temporary family violence order. It does not appear from police records that they sought any version of events from the father before removing him from the home.
7. The father admits to "tossing" a box of medication at the mother on 26 December 2021. He contends that the mother was pressuring him to take it and telling him, in front of X, how mentally unwell he was.
8. During cross-examination of the father, it was put to him that he threw a "bottle" rather than a box. The father denied it was a bottle. While there is no sworn evidence from the mother about this allegation i.e. that it was a bottle rather than a box, there is a record from CYPS in City AA dated 26 December 2021, that the father threw a bottle of tablets as hard as he could from about a metre away from her and hit her in her back and that it really hurt. There is no evidence of any injury to or mark on the mother's back. That record also reveals the mother stating that five days before that, the father raised his foot over her head and "threatened to stomp on her head".
9. Records produced from SHIP report that they had two calls from the mother on 26 December 2021. In one call the mother said the father had thrown a "bottle" of medication at her and in the other call she said he had thrown a "box" of medication at her.
10. Prior to the alleged incidents on and prior to 26 December 2021, the mother emailed the father's recently retained psychiatrist, Dr F, on 17 December 2021 at 11:57 pm. The email included the following:

I would like to firstly apologise for reaching out to you directly. I understand that it may be viewed as inappropriate.

I understand you have recently begun seeing my husband, [the father], as a patient.

...

The couples psychologist we were seeing for the last 10 months, now refuses to see [the father]. He became very abusive towards her in a session a few weeks ago. ...

[The father] has been getting increasingly unstable at home. He has a dangerous level of hatred towards me and is convinced that I am abusing him, while he is routinely physically and emotionally abusing me. Over the last 8 months, the physical violence has been escalating and he attacks me multiple times a week.

Tonight, he bit me, injured my arm and hand, and tried to stomp on my head. ...

I called the mental health crisis team tonight but I couldn't follow through with allowing them to take my details or call the police. I'm terrified about retaliation from [the father], the impact on the children when the police come, and also how it could impact his work.

...

I am concerned that the picture he is painting for you, is very different to reality, and so he is not going to get the help he needs.

I apologise again for reaching out to you. I just don't know what to do. I am really scared for the children. I just want their lives to be safe, secure, and happy, which it is, when [the father] isn't around. I don't know how to help him and he doesn't want my help, so we're just stuck in limbo. I really am extremely concerned for [the father]. He's just not himself and he has been so fixated on me being the enemy, for nearly 12 months. I am exhausted and I just want to make things okay for my family.

1. The mother does not allege in her sworn evidence that the father physically attacked her multiple times a week as she claimed in her email to Dr F. There is no evidence to corroborate any injury sustained by the mother as a result of the father allegedly biting her on 17 December 2021, or at all. Notably, the mother does not allege to Dr F that the father made threats to kill her. The psychologist referred to by the mother in her email was Dr G. When cross-examined, Dr G, denied that she had refused to see the father or that he had been abusive to her.
2. Dr F forwarded the mother's email to the father and explained her reasons for not responding to it. In her email to the father on 18 December 2021 she said, among other things, the following:

...

1. I do not have your consent to correspond with her.

1. As I mentioned during out [sic] last session, when I am seeing someone who describes being in a conflict situation with another family member, I do not liaise with that family member. Any deviation from this would be planned, with a clear agenda, and only occur with my patient in the room.

Having said this, the behaviours [the mother] alleges are serious. I am now in a 'he said, she said' situation, where both parties are alleging the other party is physically abusive. However, in support of my belief in your version of events, I have collateral history from your psychologist, [Dr W], describing incidents of verbal abuse which she has witnessed. And I also have the email that you forwarded to me which the couples therapist, [Dr G], sent you on 3 Dec which described where things had concluded after the last couples session, and this is not consistent with [the mother's] description of [Dr G] 'refusing to see [the father]'. [Dr G's] statement that "I understand how hurtful it must be to have [the mother] not respect your request for a planned separation" is also inconsistent with [the mother's] statement in her email regarding the children that "I just want their lives to be safe, secure, and happy, which it is, when [the father] isn't around."

Lastly, if I had reached a different conclusion about the veracity of [the mother's] statements and assumed [the mother] was telling the truth, [the mother] describes in her email that she is aware of how to act on her concerns (by calling the mental health crisis team), but actively chose not to follow through with the support they were offering to get her details and call the police. I also know that [the mother] has asked you to leave the house on at least one occasion since I met you and you complied, which illustrates that she is able to see to her own safety.

...

1. The father responded to Dr F's forwarded email from the mother and her explanation for not responding stating the following:

...

Thanks for letting me know that [the mother] has emailed you. I'll give you the context. She's continuing to focus on how everything's my fault and it's because I'm autistic (which also means I "can't understand human emotions and communication and intent"), and subjecting me to long, vitriolic rants about this. There was one two nights ago, where she spoke for over 20 minutes while I was completely silent on the other end of the phone (I was in my car at the time), and another one last night, which started with her coming into the bedroom where I sleep (at the back of the house) at 2040, making me play some threatening voicemails she'd left me, and grabbing my leg to stop me from leaving because I didn't want to engage with her, and ended when she finally left me alone three hours later. That's the context of her email.

I didn't bite her or try to stomp on her, she wouldn't leave me alone and kept grabbing at me and trying to hold my hands and hug me when I told her I didn't want her to touch me and wanted her to leave me alone, I was trying to get away from her.

Also, [the mother] has set up a session on Sunday with a marriage therapist in the US (which will cost over $1000) to try to push the "[The father's] autism is the root of all our problems, and the only reason he believes I'm abusive is because he doesn't understand human emotions or relationships" agenda. I said I didn't want to see him, and that we can't afford $1000 when I'm needing to take on extra patients to cover our existing costs and debts, but she did it anyway.

1. Dr F suggested the father should consider recording the mother and locking his bedroom door to minimise the mother intruding in his space.
2. The mother contends that the father broke down on 4 January 2022, acknowledged his mental health issues and agreed to pursue inpatient treatment. This seems unlikely given that it is common ground that the father applied for a protection order against the mother on 4 January 2022 and that a temporary order was made. Indeed, the father sent an email to his psychiatrist, Dr F on 4 January 2022, while waiting for the court to deal with his application. An interim protection order was made on 4 January 2022. The father contends that he received "floods of calls and texts" from the mother on 4 January 2022 stating that she "had no choice" but to apply for a protection order but that she had ultimately decided against it. The parents and children relocated to Brisbane on 19 January 2022. The interim protection order was discharged on 28 March 2022.
3. Despite the mother's evidence that her "closest friends at the time, including [X's] godmother, [Ms TT]" knew the "full truth" about her relationship with the father, from which I infer they knew about the alleged family violence, the mother did not call any of her close friends as witnesses other than Ms TT. Ms TT worked in the father's practice performing administrative tasks.
4. Ms TT's evidence addresses, among other things, her observations of the father's chaotic professional practice and the alleged complaints from patients who had not received reports and prescriptions when they were due. Ms TT first met the parents in about 2018 and became very involved in their personal lives until sometime before January 2022, when the parents moved to Brisbane. She received repeated requests for assistance with the parents' daily lives, and each parent discussed their relentless conflict with her. She describes a "constant theme" being that the father felt "attacked" by the mother and that the mother confided that even asking the father for basic assistance at home would result in the father "being prepared to do even less or engage with her or [X] if [he] did not feel like it". Ms TT deposed that she would often try to encourage the mother "to forget about the issues she took offence to for example, I would say to her "stop putting so much weight on who takes the rubbish out" and she would often tell the father that he is an adult and a father and encouraged him to "engage in his responsibilities". (Emphasis in original)
5. Notwithstanding the mother confiding in Ms TT, there is no evidence that the mother made any complaint to Ms TT of any physical assault other than the text on 5 April 2021 (discussed earlier in these reasons) when the mother alleged the father had strangled her.
6. Despite Ms TT's frequent attendance at the parents' home during arguments, she does not depose to witnessing any physically violent behaviour or its aftermath. Ms TT describes the mother as "incredibly stressed and not getting much sleep". Ms TT deposed that there were times when she attended their home and had to remove X while they were arguing. She tried to encourage the parents to focus on the care of their child.
7. Contrary to the mother's allegations to this Court, that she was subjected to repeated physical assaults throughout her relationship with the father, the mother reported to a domestic violence service on 2 April 2021 that the father was "not physical but emotionally abusive".
8. In a surgery consultation with Dr WW on 11 April 2022, the mother provided "background update since last seen in 2017 when was moving to City AA and about to undertake fertility treatment". The doctor's notes thereafter set out quite a detailed history with no mention of any family violence. The mother was seeking a referral to a psychiatrist.
9. On 19 April 2022, the police attended in response to an emergency call from the mother. The mother told police that her main concern about the father was his financial abuse and inability to communicate on emotional issues to do with their relationship. The mother did not mention alleged threats to kill her or any physical assaults.
10. During the mother's hospital admission after the incident on 21 April 2022, the records state that the mother said - "they had a good life before covid started" and "never had DV before".
11. The mother's allegations of repeated serious physical assault throughout the relationship commencing in 2010 and her suggestions that she was "trapped" in the relationship and wanted it to end, are also at odds with an email sent to the father, the father's family and therapists on 4 May 2022 in which she conveys her ongoing love and support for the father and stated - "I miss who you were, before you became unwell. We were genuinely best friends and genuinely liked spending time together" and "I miss [the father], who he was before he became unwell". The mother conveys that the father became unwell in the two years preceding the email. The mother also stated - "We want you to get well, we want you here with us, once you are well" and refers to the father as "a kind man with a good heart".
12. During the mother's intake session with V Family Services on 18 January 2023, she said, in the context of concern about X seeing the father, that there had been a one-and-a-half-year experience of domestic violence.

1. The mother's evidence of physical assault is inconsistent and contradictory. Evidence that may have tended to corroborate the allegations was not called. I infer that such evidence would not have assisted the mother's case. I reject the mother's allegations of physical assault by the father.

Other behaviours that may constitute coercive or controlling behaviour

1. The mother contends that from early 2021 onwards, the father would leave home for days or weeks or even months at a time and that when he did, he was rarely contactable. The mother contends this behaviour caused her immense distress. The mother accuses the father of ignoring his "responsibilities" and contends that she was responsible for "100% of the parenting and domestic duties, as well as managing [the father's] needs".
2. I note that Ms TT does not depose to any complaint by the mother about the father leaving home for days or weeks or months at a time.
3. Although mostly prior to the period about which the mother complains, I note that in the mother's numerous emails to Dr W between 14 July 2015 and 1 April 2021 she repeatedly complains that the father would not leave the home.
4. It was also a requirement of a safety plan developed by CYPS, on 18 May 2021 and updated on 18 June 2021, that the father leave the house if requested by the mother or there was conflict, and the mother was not to contact him unless it was something urgent about the children.
5. The mother contends that the father frequently told her that no one would believe her because he is a psychiatrist, and she was "nothing". Notwithstanding this, it is apparent that the mother made numerous complaints to authorities about the father and that her allegations against the father were largely believed. Indeed, as already noted, the CYPS developed a safety plan which, among other things required the father to leave the home if requested. The mother contends that the father "initially complied with police and child welfare demands, but over time, he began spreading a false narrative, alleging [she] was mentally unwell, abusive, and controlling". The safety plan also provided that if the father had concerns about the mother's mental health, he was to call a person such as a friend or family member. As earlier noted, when the mother made a complaint to police on 26 December 2021, the father was removed from the home, seemingly without seeking his version.
6. The mother contends that the father contacted her obstetrician, falsely claiming the mother had perinatal psychosis. The mother denies ever experiencing "any perinatal or postnatal mental health issues", notwithstanding her admission that she suffered nightmares and flashbacks about her sexual assault as a teenager while pregnant with Y and that she had struggled with the concept of having a boy. Further, the mother admits to feelings of extreme rage and hatred of the father while pregnant. The mother contends that her obstetrician "had serious concerns about [the father's] behaviour" and "banned" him from the delivery room. There is no evidence from the mother's obstetrician to corroborate the mother's claims.
7. On 20 April 2021, the mother's mother was sufficiently concerned about the mother's mental state that she contacted the mother's psychiatrist, Dr XX.
8. In a letter from Dr XX to Dr YY dated 23 April 2021 she stated the following:

...

Thank you for referring [the mother] whom I had seen previously seven years ago. As you are aware she has been going through a traumatic relationship break-up. She currently has her two young children in her care.

[The mother] made contact briefly over the past few weeks but has declined further treatment. Due to her level of distress, few social supports and concern expressed by her mother about her mental state I sought follow up for her through the emergency mental health services in [City AA]. They have undertaken to visit [the mother] and provide locally-based support for her. As you know, [the mother] is also seeing a psychologist for follow-up care.

...

1. Dr XX's involvement will be further discussed later in these reasons.
2. The parents attended an orientation at X's school in February 2022. The mother contends that the father was "abrasive, distant, and rude to the director". The director, Ms Q, was a witness in the mother's case but made no such accusation.
3. The mother contends that she had an appointment with a heart specialist after their move to Brisbane, but the father left on a flight to City AA. The mother describes X "running after him and pleading 'mummy needs to go to the heart doctor'". X was just four years old at the time. It is concerning that she appears to be doing the mother's bidding. There is no evidence the father did or said anything to console the child, if indeed this occurred.
4. The mother contends that on 18 April 2022, she and the father had an "exchange" during which the father accused the mother of being "crazy". The mother contends that when she said she would go to the hospital and headed outside to get into her car, the father jumped onto the car bonnet, while recording the mother on his phone. The mother "drove on until he eventually got off". The mother called the police "explaining [her] fear about leaving the children alone with him but saying [she] needed hospital support".
5. The police records reveal that this incident occurred on 19 April 2022. The mother was located by police in her vehicle around the corner from their Airbnb "extremely upset and emotional" and described years of emotional abuse which she said may be unintentional on the part of the father as he suffers from ASD, low functioning and mental health issues. The record states "[s]he stated she wanted to end her life". The mother was taken to hospital, but the assessment of her mental health was unable to be completed because the mother left the hospital.
6. There is a recording of what appears to be this incident made by the father and dated 19 April 2022 (Exhibit 3). In Exhibit 3, the mother appears upset. It is difficult to tell from the recording, but the father appears to be on the bonnet of the car given the angle. I note from police records dated 21 April 2022, reference is made to a recording made by the father where it is said he was on the bonnet of the mother's car while she was attempting to leave and that he repeatedly told her she could not leave. It is likely to be the recording in Exhibit 3. The father can be heard saying repeatedly - "abandoning the children" and then - "you don't get to leave whenever you want". The recording was at the very least insensitive and provocative. It certainly does not demonstrate that the mother was the perpetrator of family violence, which is the father's explanation for his repeatedly recording the mother over some years. To the contrary, it corroborates the mother's allegations of the father's taunting and provocative behaviour by recording her. The children do not appear to be present. When the police later undertook a welfare check they noted that the children were safe, well, and sleeping. The police had no concerns for the children's safety. The police records note that there were conflicting versions when it came to financial control, with both parents asserting the other was financially controlling. The police did not consider a protection order was necessary to protect the mother. They noted that both parents were under the care of various therapists, but they provided a referral to the mother to a "centre for women".
7. Notwithstanding the mother's allegations that the father had threatened to kill her and to crush her skull in December 2021, the mother made no such allegation to police on 19 April 2022. The mother's allegations were confined to financial abuse, becoming fearful when the father gets angry, and that her main concern was the father's inability to communicate on emotional issues to do with their relationship.
8. Concerns about the mother's mental health at the time are further discussed later in these reasons.
9. On 22 April 2022, a police protection notice issued against the husband which ousted him from the former matrimonial home and the police applied for a temporary protection order against the father. The application (Exhibit 8) addresses in some detail the incident on 21 April 2022 (involving the mother driving over a cliff) and the lead up to it. Under the terms of the temporary protection order made on 27 April 2022, the father was not permitted to have any contact with the mother, other than through a lawyer, with certain exceptions relating to the children or about issues of fund transfers, finances/mortgage or rental payments or property settlement, and he was not permitted to see the children other than with written agreement or court order.
10. After the incident on 21 April 2022, the children were cared for by the maternal grandmother until the mother was discharged from hospital on 24 or 25 April 2022.
11. The police undertook a forensic review of the father's phone at this time and noted concerning behaviour by both parents. They describe some of the content as containing "an alarming amount of stalking like filming of the [mother]" but also that the mother "is quite controlling of the [father], however, consideration has to be given to the difficult behaviour and nature of the [father] due to his Autism". The police identified elements of family violence in the actions of both parents.
12. On 28 April 2022, the mother made a complaint to police that the father had breached the protection order by not replying to her text messages sent between 24 and 28 April 2025 requesting that he organise finances for her and the children to enable her to buy food and pay bills. The mother contended that the father was perpetrating financial abuse. The complaint was not treated as a breach.

1. I find that the father's behaviour was at times provocative and insensitive but did not fall within the definition of family violence. I accept that the father recorded the mother at times to protect himself against accusations consistent with the advice of his psychiatrist (although he had likely commenced doing so prior to that advice). In my view, the father's practice of continuing to record the mother at times rather than protect the children from the conflict is the most egregious aspect of his behaviour.
2. I do not accept the mother's evidence that the father disappeared for weeks or months at a time. I accept that he did absent himself from the home from time to time, but this was in the context of a safety plan developed with the parents by CYPS. I accept that the father's absences may have been longer than the mother anticipated or wanted and that she was left with the sole burden of caring for the children and running the home. This no doubt exacerbated the mother's stress.
3. I accept that the father failed to provide much needed emotional support to the mother particularly during the period after she became pregnant with Y. However, the father's behaviour must be considered in the context of the complicated dynamics of this relationship including his autism, the mother's admitted hatred of the father during her pregnancy and her periodic uncontrollable rage.
4. I reject the mother's allegations that the behaviour engaged in by the father was controlling or coercive.

1. The mother alleges that she was subjected to financial abuse during the relationship and after separation.
2. The mother contends that from 2014, she was entirely financially dependent upon the father. The mother contends she felt "trapped". It is unclear why that would have been the case. The mother had a history of employment and tertiary qualifications in marketing/management. In a psychiatric review of the mother on 28 April 2022, the notes refer to the mother's statement that she had not worked officially since 2017. While it is unclear what this may have meant, it implies the mother was receiving at least some income until 2017.
3. There are many inconsistencies in the mother's allegations that she was subjected to financial abuse throughout the relationship. For example, the mother deposed that the father told her that his family's motto had been "if you like, buy it" and she concedes that "over the years I did become drawn into this way of thinking". This attitude to spending is corroborated by the mother's witness, Ms TT, who deposed - "It didn't matter how expensive something was, if [the mother] thought it was something that [X] would like, [the mother] would get it for her".
4. The mother also admits that by mid-2019, she and X had a "packed schedule" where they attended "weekly music lessons, Gymbaroo, mother's group gatherings, playdates, ballet and dance lessons, swimming lessons, cheerleading, and gymnastics". As the mother was not employed, the only source of funds for these various activities was the father.
5. It is apparent that despite the father working long hours, the family was struggling financially from at least 2020. In a session with Dr W on 18 June 2020, she noted the father disclosure - "financial issues as no tax put aside. Accountant suggested a budget".
6. Dr W's notes of a joint session with the father and mother on 1 April 2021 again referred to their financial stress and that the father's practice "won't break even next month".
7. The mother contends that on 26 December 2021, the father cut off her access to "the business" (presumably his professional practice) and restricted access to all but one joint bank account. The mother does not allege that the joint bank account was depleted of funds, and the father alleges that the mother withdrew the funds from the joint account and deposited them into her sole account. No relevant bank statements are in evidence. The mother concedes that the catalyst for the father removing her access to the practice account was her transfer of $10,000 into an account in her sole name, a transaction he later reversed.
8. Records from SHIP disclose that the mother said on 31 December 2021 that they had no money and that the father had a huge tax debt.
9. The father contends that an arrangement he had for working in a practice upon relocating to Brisbane on 19 January 2022 fell through. Whether or not that was the case, I note that Dr F refers to the father working from his sister's home in Region ZZ using telehealth, as of 17 February 2022. It is unclear how much work the father was undertaking.
10. The mother's claim of financial abuse throughout the relationship impliedly dating back to 2014 is inconsistent with an email sent by her to the father, members of the father's family and his treating therapists on 4 May 2022, in which she complains about the father not providing financial support and states - "[The father], prior to the last two years, would not do that" and that "I have spent almost every day, for the past 12 years, with [the father], and if he were of sound mind, there's no possibility he would be behaving in this way". In the same email, the mother contends that she has paid for "all costs for temporary accommodation, for the last 3.5 months, ... from savings I had put aside". It is common ground that the mother had at least one bank account in her own name and that she had access to joint accounts and the father's practice accounts. Indeed, the mother complains in the 4 May 2022 email that the father had cut off her access to funds "over the last six months" and "cut off [her] involvement in, and access to, anything related to the business, despite [her] being technically employed as his practice manager".
11. On 3 May 2022, it is common ground that the mother unilaterally sold shares for $150,148.78 and then transferred the sale proceeds into an account in her sole name.
12. On 5 May 2022, it is common ground that the mother unilaterally sold further shares for $273,048.36 and deposited the sale proceeds into an account in the name of a private family trust to which both she and the father had access.
13. On 17 October 2022, a spouse maintenance and child support departure order was made in the mother's favour.
14. On 20 October 2022, the mother received $36,405 from the insurance payout from the father's car which was written off after the incident on 21 April 2022.
15. On 21 and 22 November 2022, the mother transferred $17,336 on each day from the family trust account into her own account with the reference "spousal maintenance and child support".
16. Between 25 November 2022 and 16 January 2024, the mother transferred a weekly sum of $4,332 from the family trust account into her own account - a total of about $264,252. The family trust account was by then depleted of funds.
17. The mother contends that by having to deplete the family trust account, the father was failing to meet his financial obligations and that the depletion of property was a form of financial abuse. The father contends he could not afford to pay the spouse maintenance and child support from his income. Having regard to the evidence about how his professional practice was falling apart, it seems feasible that he did not have the capacity to meet the spouse maintenance and child support at least at some point. No relevant bank statements are in evidence.
18. Due to work restrictions imposed on his practice and subsequent suspension by AHPRA, the father had no income for several months in 2024. At the time of trial, the father's gross fortnightly income was $9,805. From that amount, $3,004 was deducted for income tax and $4,090 was garnisheed by the Child Support Agency and paid to the mother, leaving the father with a fortnightly balance of $2,711. At times, his net income has been as little as $784 per fortnight (Exhibit 27, p.119 Pay Advice dated 18 June 2025).

1. I reject the mother's allegations that she was subjected to financial abuse during the relationship or after separation. The mother's own evidence about her expenditure, corroborated by Ms TT, indicate the mother had unrestricted access to funds during the relationship. In the period leading up to the family's move to Brisbane in January 2022, it is common ground that the father was struggling with his practice and, according to both parties, they were struggling financially, and the father had a tax debt for which no provision had been made. After the family moved to Brisbane, it does not appear that the father had any permanent work for at least several months. The mother had access to substantial funds from May 2022 until January 2024. The father was unemployed from April 2024 to October 2024. The mother has received spouse maintenance and child support garnisheed from the father's wages since the father was permitted to return to practice. These payments have continued notwithstanding the children being in the father's sole care since 11 September 2024 (save for the period the mother withheld the children in March to May 2025). Inexplicably, an application by the father to vary the spouse maintenance order was dismissed on 15 May 2024, without consideration.

Father's alleged inability to meet the needs of the children and alleged interference with the maternal/child bond

1. When the children unexpectedly came into the care of the father on 11 September 2024, he was living in a two-bedroom flat with no provisions for the children. He was unemployed. The father borrowed funds to purchase car seats and other necessities for the children. He did not have a washing machine for some weeks.
2. It certainly appears that the father struggled initially to meet the basic needs of the children. X's school and Y's day care reported a significant decline in the children's presentation including that X's hair was unkempt and the children's clothes appeared unwashed on occasion. The children indicated at times that they had not had breakfast. The father disputes this.
3. The mother maintains that the children were severely neglected in the father's care, e.g. that they were not fed, bathed, that they lost significant weight etc., allegations she continues to press. The mother contends that Y was covered in untreated school sores, had bruising on his spine, and that his ribs and collar bones were protruding on 21 February 2025. A medical certificate dated 22 February 2025 confirms that Y had school sores and was prescribed antibiotics. There is no mention of the child being malnourished, neglected, or having bruising on his spine. While the father's care of the children may not have been optimal for a period when they first came into his care, I reject the mother's contention that they were neglected.
4. Notwithstanding the mother's frequent complaints about the children not being fed or clothed appropriately, allegations that she continues to make, there is no suggestion that she offered to provide any monetary assistance or provided any necessities. As noted, the mother has continued to receive funds garnisheed from the father's wages such that on occasion the father has been left with only $784 a fortnight to provide for the children.
5. As a consequence of complaints made about the children's presentation late last year, Child Safety became involved. The father consented to an informal intervention by Child Safety which resulted in weekly visits from Child Safety to advise, assist, and monitor his care of the children. It is not likely that such assistance will continue in the long term. The case plan was last reviewed on 25 July 2025 and is due for further review on 22 January 2026.
6. The paternal grandmother has spent extended time in Brisbane to assist the father with the children. She lives in Adelaide and has commitments to other family members also.
7. The father has engaged consistently with X's school. X displayed considerable anxiety about attending school. She commenced at her current school in 2025. It was a slow process and interrupted from 21 March 2025 to 29 May 2025 when the mother withheld the children. During that time, X did not attend school, and Y did not attend daycare, because the mother was worried that the father would retrieve the children.
8. The guidance officer from X's school described a difficult period for X after returning to school mid-year but she described X's current presentation and attendance in very positive terms. X is now doing well and is settled.
9. In the video recordings made by the father on 21 August 2025, Exhibit 11, the children appear to be well cared for.
10. Y attends daycare four days per week. There have been no concerns raised about Y by the daycare centre.
11. Despite some delay in obtaining therapeutic assistance for X, the child is now seeing a psychologist. I am not unduly critical of the father for that delay. The father unexpectedly found himself as the full-time carer for the children on 11 September 2024. He was not employed at the time and had limited financial means. Ms D, X's previous psychologist, considered the child should consult someone with more experience. Ms D's rooms were a considerable distance from the father's home. The father gave priority to meeting the children's basic necessities. The fact is that X is now consulting Ms NN and seems to be doing reasonably well.
12. The father continues to attend regular appointments with his psychiatrist. He has been in regular part-time employment since October 2024. The father has a long history of engagement with a psychiatrist and psychologist, although he is not currently seeing a psychologist.
13. Mr S agreed with previous diagnoses made by several psychologists and psychiatrists that the father has ASD and ADHD. In his opinion:

ASD would have affected interpersonal abilities with patients, staff and colleagues, with a mutual misinterpretation of intentions and [the father] having difficulty appreciating another person's perspective.

I suspect that the employment stress created a condition we describe as 'autistic burnout' (Higgins et al. 2021, Autism 25). This is characterised by exhaustion, withdrawal, increased executive function problems, and increased manifestation of autistic traits. This would also have been a factor in the interpersonal disputes between [the father] and [the mother].

1. Mr S reviewed the observation notes from V Family Services for the period January to August 2023 and opined that the reported interactions between the father and the children "did not indicate an inability to relate to and play with [the children]". Mr S opined that "being autistic does not automatically imply an inability to be a loving and supportive parent" and that the father "has the capacity to be a caring and supportive father to his two children".
2. Dr R opined that at the time he assessed the father he was suffering from a depressive illness in addition to ASD and ADHD. His depression was considered understandable considering restrictions placed on his rights to practice as a psychiatrist and not seeing his children for several months. Dr R opined that the father's "psychiatric difficulties are not such as to preclude him from being an effective parent, and this would be enhanced once his depression lifts with treatment or natural history". During cross-examination, Dr R deferred to the father's treating psychiatrist who did not diagnose the father as suffering from depression. In any event, Dr R opined that "depression tends to be [an] episodic condition rather than a chronic condition". Dr R noted that the father was now working "which is a big thing" and opined that if the father was significantly depressed, "there would be problems at work".
3. After the removal of the children from the mother's care on 11 September 2024, Ms E, met with the father and the children on 18 September 2024 to explain the order made on 11 September 2024. The children were observed to be "very happy and at ease with their father, appeared to rely on him for comfort and reassurance". The father was observed to be "calm, gentle and attentive to both children."
4. I am not persuaded that the father's medical conditions or previous inexperience as the primary carer pose a risk to the children's safety.
5. Lastly, the mother contends that the father poses a risk to the safety of the children by undermining the maternal/child bond. It does not seem in doubt that the children love their mother. I have no doubt they miss her. The children's most recent encounter with the mother on 21 August 2025 was filmed by the father. There did not appear to be any fracture in the maternal/child bond. I am not persuaded that the father has undermined that bond.

Conclusion - does the father pose a risk to the safety of the children and/or the mother?

1. While rejecting the mother's allegations that the father perpetrated family violence against her, I do not underestimate the impact on the mother of the father's autism and emotional dysregulation at times of stress which no doubt exacerbated her own emotional dysregulation and added to her burden as the primary homemaker and parent.
2. Several of the father's behaviours, while not falling within the definition of family violence, may nevertheless pose a risk to the safety of the children.
3. In a letter from Dr W to Dr AAA dated 5 April 2013, she states that the father "engages in some aggressive behaviour when he is under high levels of stress". In a handwritten note dated 26 May 2014, Dr W states:

[The father] Skype - Note

Debriefed re emotional escalation. Suggested both [the father] & [the mother] have core defectiveness, & both cope by shifting blame to others. [The father] detaches, [the mother] perfects, which perpetuates each other's defectiveness.

(As per original)

1. In another letter from Dr W to the father's GP dated 24 November 2014, Dr W described the father's "emotional dysregulation" and "emotional outbursts, usually in the form of anger directed at his wife". Further, Dr W opined that the father "has an over compensatory style of coping and often deflects blame to others when he is feeling the most vulnerable". This was at a time that the mother was involved in the father's therapy sessions. In a further letter dated 4 December 2014, Dr W said she had discussed with the father "using a heart rate monitor as an objective measure of emotionality, and to have an alarm set at a certain rate to allow [the father] to leave when escalating". The father conceded during cross-examination that this was a discussion he had with Dr W.
2. While I am conscious of Dr Ws' later expression of regret that she involved the mother in therapy sessions with the father which she described as a conflict of interest as the mother had "an agenda", it is apparent that the father's maladaptive coping responses continued, not only in the marital relationship but also at work. In concerns raised with AHPRA the father was noted to be teary at work and chaotic in his practice. This was at a time when the father was working in private practice six or seven days a week. In an email from Dr W to Dr F in November 2021, she said that the father "switches from showing no emotion outwardly to intense emotion very quickly". When stressed the father can experience heightened autistic traits including "autistic burnout" so the father will need to ensure that he continues to seek psychiatric/psychological support, but he has a long history of doing so.
3. I also take some comfort from the various independent reports of the father presenting as calm and patient with the children e.g. during all supervised visits, during the Family Report interviews, at X's school, Ms NN's recent observations, and Ms

LL's recent observations. In addition, the father has been working part-time for over a year now. There is stability in his life. He has continued to see his psychiatrist. The father has also cooperated with Child Safety's intervention. He has built up a trusting and cooperative relationship with X's school. The children are progressing well. 4. Neither Mr S nor Dr R consider the father's ASD or ADHD prevent him from being an appropriate parent. 5. In conclusion, and notwithstanding the father's focus on recording the mother rather than protecting the children which has, at times, been egregious, and the father's autism and maladaptive behaviours at times of stress, I am not persuaded that the father poses an unacceptable risk to the safety of the children and/or the mother. It is common ground, that any order that is made will not include any circumstance requiring the parents to come into contact.

DOES THE MOTHER POSE A RISK TO THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN AND/OR THE FATHER?

1. The father contends that the mother poses unacceptable risks of future emotional and physical harm to the children based on the following:[20]

(a) Family violence perpetrated by the mother towards the father;

(b) Exposure of the children to family violence;

(c) Exposure of the children to suicidal ideation and possible future suicide attempts;

(d) 'Parentification' (particularly in relation to X);

(e) Negative attitude towards the father's autism diagnosis, noting the possibility that the children may be diagnosed with autism in the future; and

(f) Undermining and failing to accept the bond between the children and the father.

1. The nature of the alleged family violence includes physical violence including attempted strangulation on three occasions, emotional abuse, and coercive or controlling behaviour. The father contends that the level of control and violence increased over time and that after the birth of each child, the mother's behaviour deteriorated further, and the abuse increased in severity and frequency. The father contends that he began recording his interactions with the mother due to his fears he would be disbelieved. The father maintains that he has been misidentified as the perpetrator of family violence e.g. on 26 December 2021 when he was removed from the home by police.
2. The mother denies perpetrating family violence.
3. As with the mother's allegations, it is not necessary to make findings on every allegation made by the father. However, having regard to the seriousness of some of his allegations, it is necessary to make findings in relation to some allegations as such findings are likely to inform the assessment of future risk.

Physical assaults, threats to physically harm, and verbal abuse

1. The father contends that the mother attempted to strangle him in 2019 and on 20 February 2021. On 21 April 2022, he alleges he was pushed, hit and strangled. Further, he contends that the mother bit his finger on 20 February 2021, pushed him on that day and repeatedly threatened to kill him, strangle him, and encouraged him to kill himself.

1. The father has not provided any particulars of an alleged strangulation in 2019.

1. On 20 February 2021, the parents agree that there was an incident. They contend that X, who was not quite three years of age, was upstairs asleep. For reasons which will become apparent, I reject the contention that the child remained asleep during the incident. It is more likely that she heard the horrendous verbal abuse of the father by the mother.
2. Exhibit 4 is a recording of the incident on 20 February 2021. This incident has been referred to as the "doppler incident" as it involved the mother, who was at the time pregnant with Y, using a doppler ultrasound to try and detect the foetus' heartbeat. The duration of the recording is 39 minutes 48 seconds.
3. The recording commences with a clearly agitated mother demanding to know why the father is not ready. She demands that the father "[a]nswer the fucking question". The mother then informs the father that she has not felt the foetus move all night. She announces "[t]he baby's dead. There you go. You don't care (indistinct) I can't find a heartbeat". The mother repeatedly asks the father why he is so horrible. She accuses him of pulling faces. She becomes more and more agitated and is yelling at the father. The father can be heard saying in an agitated voice - "Stop hitting me. Stop hitting me. Stop hitting me". On the recording, the mother does not deny hitting him. Shortly thereafter, the father says, "[d]on't strangle me" and there are sounds that could be consistent with choking. On the recording the mother does not deny strangling the father although during cross-examination the mother asserted that the father had tampered with the recording. The father says he is going to call the police and the mother responds, "[g]ood". The mother again says she cannot find a heartbeat and the father suggests she go to the hospital. The mother responds - "You're making a face a[t] me and then you're making fun of me. What is wrong with you? Somebody needs to kill you." The mother screams at the father to leave the house. She says - "I want you dead", "I literally want to kill you". The mother vacillates between saying the baby is dead and demanding the father answer her questions. The following exchange then occurs:

Mother: Now, you keep doing this. You keep not resolving things. Why did you do that? Why did you do that? You want anything to get any better you start answering my questions. Why did you do that? You don't answer my questions, I'll call the police ---

Father: Okay.

Mother: --- and I'll tell them that you held your hand up to hit me while my belly was exposed and I was defending myself and that you threatened violence against me the baby on multiple occasions.

Father: But I haven't.

Mother: Tell me why you mocked me.

Father: I'm not mocking you.

Mother: Why did you mock me? What is it in your brain that sees your distressed pregnant wife and says to you the thing to do is to mock her, or to neglect her, or to go silent? Now. Answer the question now or I'm calling the police. Now. And I will tell them whatever I need to tell them and you can guarantee they're going to believe me over you. I'll say whatever I need to say to get you out of my life. Tell me now. Look at you. It's still about avoiding any discomfort.

Father: No, if you're worried about the baby ---

Mother: Tell me now. Why do you do that to me?

Father: Can we try and find the baby's heartbeat, please?

Mother: Tell me now.

Father: Can we try ---

Mother: Nuh, I'm calling the police.

Father: Can we try and find the baby's heartbeat?

Mother: No, tell me. I asked you a question.

Father: Can we try and find the baby's heartbeat?

Mother: No, not until you tell me. Tell me now, or I will wrap my fingers around your neck and I will squeeze you until you're dead because you do not deserve to be on this planet. ...

...

Mother: No. Now. Okay. I'm calling the police. I will tell them that you have beat me, that you have tried to kick the baby, whatever I have to do. You will get arrested and you will lose everything, or you can answer my question. Which one? Which one? Answer my fucking question now.

...

Father: I made a face at you because the first thing you were worried about ... why wasn't I ready. Not having felt any movements all night was an afterthought.

Mother: ... I think you are a disgusting piece of shit ... You don't deserve to live.

If you weren't so selfish, you would have killed yourself a long time ago.

1. The mother becomes more and more irate to the point where she is screaming at the father:

Mother: ... Get out of my life. Get out of [X]'s life. ... Get out of the house. ... The worst part about autistic people, when they have somebody looking after them, they can't even take enough initiative to go and kill themselves. That's the best thing you can do for me and [X]. You know why the first IVF transfer didn't work? Because of you. ... and now I have to raise a kid that's just like you ...Go and kill yourself ...

1. At various stages of the recording the father can be heard crying.
2. By complete contrast to the mother's enraged behaviour, the mother can be heard on the recording very calmly making a telephone call to Ms TT. Ironically, the mother told her that the father was having a "meltdown" and requested that she come to the home to care for X while she goes to the hospital.
3. As soon as the mother ended the call, she recommences her tirade of abuse against the father, but in a very controlled manner:

Mother: ... People like you should be killed. ... Go and kill yourself. ... You are not human. ... So it is no surprise that I feel the way I do towards you, ... just like how those Romanian orphans become homicidal and sociopathic.

1. The SHIP records dated 28 February 2021, reveal that the father said on 28 February 2021 that "last Saturday" the mother had "strangled him". He said the mother told him to get over it and that his mother said the same thing. The father said it was "only for a very few seconds, did not last long there was no pressure, he did not pass out".
2. In an email to Dr W on 3 March 2021, the mother refers to this incident:

... He is continuing to make false allegations and turn everyone against me. ... He is telling people that I tried to kill him, Saturday before last. This didn't happen. I have evidence to support that it is impossible that what he says happened, could have happened.

...

... While I do know that I pushed him and hit him yelling "don't touch me, get away from me, don't hurt the baby", I did not strangle him. ...

He also purports that I then spent 40 minutes berating him and telling him to kill himself. This never, ever happened.

1. Ms TT attended the parents' home after this incident and deposed that "it was apparent that they had just been in conflict". The father showed her a photograph of his finger (but did not show her his actual finger) which he said the mother had bitten. The photograph was not tendered. There is nothing in the recording corroborating the father's claim that he had been bitten by the mother. Despite the father's long-term association with Ms TT, the father made no complaint that the mother had strangled him. The mother made no complaint to Ms TT of the father harming or threatening to harm her or the baby.

1. It is common ground that there was an incident on this day which culminated in the mother driving the father's car over a cliff opposite their home and that the catalyst for the events of this day related to the father's reversal of a transfer of $10,000 from the father's practice account by the mother into an account in her sole name.
2. The father contends that on 21 April 2022, he was upstairs caring for the children, while the mother was isolating downstairs as she had tested positive for the COVID-19 virus. The father describes the mother rushing upstairs, screaming at him to get out of the house, and throwing his backpack over the side of the stairs. The mother then grabbed the children and shut them in a downstairs bedroom with her. The father contends that the mother let X out of the bedroom because she was distressed. The father says that the mother continued to scream at him before saying, "this is not going to end until you're dead" and started to strangle him in front of the children. The father contends that the mother then grabbed her bag and pushed her way out the back door while X tried to cling to her.
3. The mother's account is that she had seen a family lawyer the week before and, "at that point" she had no access to funds "aside from the joint transaction account at Westpac". The mother does not state what the balance in that account was, if anything. The mother says she, "managed to access a practice trust account and transferred $10,000 to fund our relocation back to [City AA]". She began to feel unwell shortly after and tested positive for Covid. The mother contends that the father agreed to care for the children while she isolated, but on 20 April 2022, she awoke to find that the father had left the home and did not answer her calls. The mother reported the father to the police for failing to isolate. The mother says her health worsened, and she struggled to care for the two young children. Upon the father's return to the home, the parents argued about the father leaving the mother to care for the children. The mother says that on 21 April 2022, the father "continued preventing me from being near the children". Yet the mother concedes that she was becoming increasingly unwell.
4. When the mother checked "the bank accounts", she discovered the $10,000 transfer had been reversed. The mother says that she "confronted" the father about the bank transfer "and an argument transpired". She asked the father to leave but he refused and then the father started filming her. The mother "vaguely recalls throwing his bag down the stairs, telling him to leave". The mother contends that she was struggling to breathe and had blurred vision as she "attempted to gather the children to leave". She contends the father "blocked" her and that she tried to grab his phone. The mother contends that the father kept following her and filming her and that she tried to escape by locking herself in a room with the children.
5. The mother contends that she "attempted to put the children in the car, but [the father] kept removing them". The mother contends that she felt trapped as his car was blocking the driveway, so she ran to his car and drove off "focussed solely on escaping". She contends having a "vague memory of seeing [the father] filming in the rearview mirror, precariously holding [Y], which startled me and led to my loss of bearings". The mother contends that she, "made a significant error of judgment and tried to drive away. I felt I had no other option" and that "his refusal to leave the residence ... triggered me feeling helpless, overborne and acting impulsively". At paragraph 271 of her affidavit of evidence in chief, the mother deposed:

I acknowledge that my actions in getting into [the father's] car and driving to cause an accident was careless.

1. The mother denies that it was her intention "to abandon the children or permanently end [her] life". Notwithstanding this statement the mother concedes that she was "frank and honest about [her] feelings and all of the stressors with professionals at the hospital".

1. Given the admissions made by the mother in her email to Dr W, I readily find that the mother hit and pushed the father during the incident on 20 February 2021. I reject the mother's allegations that she did so in response to attempts or threats made by the father to harm her or the baby. I am unable to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, having regard to the serious nature of the allegation, that the mother strangled the father on this occasion, but I find she threatened to do so. I find that the mother threatened to lie to police and say whatever she needed to say to get the father out of her life. I reject the mother's evidence during cross-examination that what she was threatening was to do no more than tell police what the father had done to her historically. Given the language used by the mother, her threat involved lying about something he had just done. I find that the mother subjected the father to a tirade of verbal abuse unrelated to any concern about being unable to detect the foetus' heartbeat.
2. The incident on 21 April 2022 was appalling, and the children were exposed to it by both parents. I am unable to be satisfied that the mother strangled the father, but I find that she verbally abused him, threatened him harm and attempted to destroy his property by throwing his backpack. I find that the father taunted the mother by filming her and following her around the home, knowing that she did not want to be filmed. His actions, at least in part, provoked the mother and exacerbated her emotional dysregulation. Neither parent protected the children from emotional abuse. The father's failure to protect the children from witnessing the mother driving over the cliff and giving priority to filming the incident was particularly egregious.

1. The father describes the mother's coercive or controlling behaviour as including:
   1. Isolation tactics, including monitoring my phone calls and messages, demanding access to all email accounts, requiring joint email address setup and requiring me to instal auto-forwarding rules on my personal email so that she could monitor my emails.
   2. Control over my work such as demanding specific patient scheduling and excessive working hours, requiring detailed income reporting, contacting my workplace directly to cause issues and continuously monitor my AHPRA registration status.
   3. Financial control, such as demanding all banking passwords (including my professional accounts), making unauthorised transfers of joint funds and professional account funds, controlling investment decisions, applying dividends to her personal account and monitoring all of my financial transactions.
   4. Inserting herself into my therapeutic relationships with my treating psychologist and psychiatrist.
   5. Telling me she would call the ambulance or police if I didn't comply with her demands. She followed through with these threats on multiple occasions.
2. The mother admits that after she and the father had been dating for only six months, she "accessed [the father's] Facebook page and phone to delete the profiles of the women he met on dating sites".
3. The father alleges that the mother hacked into his email account and deleted emails which the mother denies. The mother contends that she "wouldn't know how to hack into anything. I'm not technically savvy". However, this seems at odds with her admission to deleting information on his phone and Facebook account.
4. It will be recalled that Dr W describes the mother becoming escalated when there were limitations placed on her involvement in the father's therapy sessions. In a session note dated 23 December 2020, Dr W states:

[The mother] spent 20 min yelling at [the father] through the door (given we have set a limit re involvement in sessions ...

1. In another session note dated 4 March 2021, Dr W states:

...

[The mother] became enraged @ times then quickly adjusted her behaviour.

(As per original)

1. On 1 January 2021, the father recorded an incident which has been referred to in the proceedings as the 'bathtub' incident (Exhibit 6). The recording is 29 minutes in duration. The parents had a dispute about the father's failure to clean oven trays and having left the bath in a complete mess. By the time the mother wanted to bathe X, she had to clean the bath which was something the father said he had already done. The mother was heavily pregnant with Y. I can readily understand the mother's exasperation. However, in the presence of X, the mother berates the father yelling abuse at him and at one point the mother yells at the father, "go fuck yourself, [the father]. Go fuck yourself" and the child says, "[f]uck". The mother repeatedly calls the father a "fucking liar". X can be heard asking the mother, "Mummy, do you like Daddy?" and the mother responds, "No, I don't like Daddy" and the child says, "It's okay, Mummy". The child who was not yet three tries to pacify the mother. The mother says, "Daddy's a liar", "[y]ou're a horrible person and I hope you die". When the father says, "[p]ardon?", the mother repeats, "[y]ou're a horrible person and I hope you die from your high blood pressure". Just before the recording ends, the mother screams, "No, get the fuck out of my house. Take your umbrella and stick it so far up your arse until you start bleeding to death. Okay? That's how I feel about you right now. Go and chop yourself up with your little cookie cutter. Get the fuck out of my house. Get out now, you disgusting human being". The mother's abuse is abhorrent, made more so by her complete disregard for the child's presence and her direct involvement of the child in the conflict. The father's priority on recording rather than removing himself or the child to protect her from the abuse is also egregious.
2. During a therapy session between the father and Dr W on 22 April 2021, the father received a call from the mother ostensibly so that X could say goodnight to the father. The call was on speaker and Dr W's notes record the following:

...

[X] asking if [the father] & [the mother] had a good day on their wedding day ... likes him better without a beard. Then [the mother] started chastising [the father] for not looking at [X]. "Will you just look at her! I know much hurts!" raised voice by [the mother], then [X] said, "Daddy, Stop, you are taking the beautifuls away". Then [the mother] got teary, and said "that's so sad" then continued that "Mummy is just trying to make it all better and Daddy doesn't believe me", then into "I put my heart on the line ... didn't you feel anything last night". [X] trying to talk to [the father]. "I like talking to you". [The mother] talking over the top "why would you do that today" and "why do you care now what's good for [X], what's good for [X] is me being okay, and now you've made sure I'm not". Continued into all the things [the mother] does for the children - could hear [X] in the background. [The mother] escalated - phone call for over 10 min. ...

(As per original)

1. In April 2021, the maternal grandmother sent a text to Dr XX, in which she said:

[The mother] has high expectations of others and is quite fixed in how others need to meet her needs. An example has occurred just now. We had been out this morning with the children and had a pleasant morning. [The mother] had an appointment at around 1.00pm and took [Y] with her. I put [X] down for her nap then tidied up. The cleaners had been in this morning so everything was pretty much done. I sat down for a bit and was sorting out some stuff for myself [the mother] returned around 2.20pm. I admit that when I heard the car I jumped up and started doing things. [The mother] asked me if I had been sitting on the couch. I asked if there was something specific she would like me to do. She said that I did not ever show care. She had brought home stuff for lunch and I hadn't bothered to get anything ready for her (we had had brunch so I hadn't been thinking about lunch). She said that I don't do what normal mothers do when they come to help - making sure that the new mother has everything she needs, cooking etc.

...

(Emphasis in original)

1. As earlier noted, in an email from Dr W to Dr F dated 29 November 2021, she said, among other things:

...

I have stopped [the mother] from attending [the father's] sessions as it was becoming clearer and clearer there is a conflict of interest between [the mother's] agenda and [the father's] mental health- and I strongly recommended couples therapy and formal mediation. [The mother] escalated when a limit was set on her attending sessions, and would come into the room and verbally abuse [the father] just off camera during therapy sessions (I could hear through the microphone on [the father's] headset, but couldn't say anything because only [the father] could hear me- I coached him but she wouldn't stop when he asserted himself), at times she would listen through the door then come in and chastise [the father] for what he had said. Then I asked [the father] to attend from his office, rather than home, and she would call him repeatedly and send abusive messages during the sessions time. One session she feigned a medical emergency, [the father] ended the session early, and then [the father] reported she stated there wasn't a medical emergency she just wanted him to respond.

1. In an email from to Dr W on 17 February 2022, she refers to encouraging the father to reduce his hours of work to be more in line with a 40-hour week. She noted that the father did not want to continue in the marriage and that he disclosed pressure in the past from the mother to earn more money as her expenditure levels have been high. The father had expressed worry that as a man he would not be believed about the family violence he was subjected to and Dr F thought that was a reasonable concern. Dr F opined that the events described by the father seemed plausible and that there was no other evidence of symptoms suggestive of psychosis. She did not have any concerns that his mental health was impacting on his interpretation of events.
2. Dr W in a further email to Dr F on the same day, said:

...

I know that [the mother] has fabricated information previously- for example she has told [the father] she has been in contact with me and that I said very specific things that I absolutely did not say- so there is a precedence for her presenting a picture that isn't accurate ... It is just difficult to navigate such a complex situation and manage risk without ongoing access to accurate data to triangulate!

1. The mother sent an email to Dr F dated 28 February 2022 asking if it would be possible to speak to her. The mother complained in her email that the father had abandoned all parenting responsibilities and was becoming increasingly paranoid about her and other people and that Dr G and a general medical practitioner felt that the father needed "urgent admission to hospital" as did a psychotherapist based in America, whom the mother said felt the father was "not in his right mind and needs urgent mental health care". Dr F did not speak to the mother but obtained collateral information from Dr W and another person. Neither of these people expressed any recent concerns about the father's mental health.
2. The mother sent yet a further email to Dr F dated 31 March 2022 attaching a recording of an interaction between herself and the father, "in the hopes that it might demonstrate just how unwell he is and how urgently he needs help (medication, inpatient stay)?". The mother again asked for Dr F to speak to her.
3. At 7.55 pm on 2 April 2022, the mother requested that police undertake a welfare check on the father whom she said she had not heard from since midday that day. The mother said that the father had not slept at home for the previous five days. She said the father had a background of mental health issues and autism. The father responded to a message left on his phone by police by attending the local police station at 11.30 pm that evening. He told police he did not want to go home because the mother harassed and controlled him. The father said that the mother always uses the mental health as her "ammo". Police did not believe there were any immediate safety concerns for either party. Police believed the mother was "just a concerned wife regarding [the father's] decline in mental health".
4. On 21 April 2022, the mother sent a further email to Dr F at 12.56 pm. (The mother drove over the cliff later that afternoon) She asked Dr F to "have some compassion" and to call her. She described the incident that the father filmed on 19 April 2022 and stated that when she went to the hospital, "[t]heir determination was that I am the victim of DV" and that the "ED doctor and mental health nurse both individually disclosed that they feel compelled to notify the medical board". The mother refers to "everything he has done over the last two years" and "he is a completely different person to who he was" undermining her claim that she was subjected to 12 years of family violence. The mother tried to persuade Dr F in her email, that someone needs to just tell him that "his behaviour is abusive".
5. Another email was sent by the mother to Dr F dated 24 April 2022 (three days after the mother drove over the cliff). The email commences:

Hello [Dr F]

I am saddened that you have yet again chosen not to respond to my communication. ...

I just looked back at the first email I sent you in December, and I can't help but think what a different position we'd be in right now, if you'd reached out to me and had a family collateral appointment. ...

...

The police seized his phone, downloaded the content, and the finding was that he is culpable in what happened. From what I understand, they determined there was extensive evidence of significant abuse and control from him, towards me, as well as extensive evidence of him engaging with people who were encouraging the "[the father] is the victim/[the mother] is then perpetrator" narrative, and encouraging his abusive behaviour towards me. Apparently there was even talks from the police of criminal charges against him. I tried to explain to you, and others, that [the father] had become involved with some very dangerous people, who were using his disability and his position. ...

...

From what I understand, he has gone to stay with his mother. ... his mum is very sick, and repeatedly sexually assaulted him as a child. She has a pain killer addiction and he has said in the past that he thinks she has a personality disorder, and a number of other issues.

...

You cannot in good conscience, continue to refuse to gather collateral. Please speak to me. ...

The Mental Health team at the PA have also advised that I start the process of applying for an EA.[[21]] Having [the father] admitted privately by you, would of course be preferable, but I will have to go down this path, if no action is going to be taken. ...

1. There is no evidence the mother was advised to start the process of an emergency apprehension for the father to be admitted involuntarily to a psychiatric ward. I note that in the CCC Service records dated 28 April 2022, it was determined that despite being a mandatory reporter "it would be inappropriate to make reports at this time purely on hearsay". There is no evidence that the police found the father "culpable" for the incident on 21 April 2022. To the contrary, the content of the father's phone was identified by police to contain concerning behaviour by both parents. The allegation that the paternal grandmother sexually assaulted the father as a child is discussed later in these reasons. There is no allegation in these proceedings and no evidence that the paternal grandmother had an addiction to pain medication.
2. The mother's repeated unsolicited emails to Dr F appear to be quite controlling and harassing. I am not persuaded that the mother's actions were motivated out of concern for the father but rather to deflect from her own abusive behaviour in an attempt to influence his treating therapists against him.
3. On 26 April 2022, police and Queensland Ambulance Service attended in response to a complaint by the maternal grandmother about the mother. The maternal grandmother alleged that her daughter had been screaming verbal abuse at her and stated that the mother had been "on her case" from the time she arrived back home and was constantly berating her for not doing things correctly and would not allow her to attend to the children, which she had been doing for the several days prior.
4. The records indicate that the maternal grandmother said that her relationship with the mother had historically been strained due to the mother being "hard work". The police were unable to speak to the mother because she locked herself in the house with the children. However, an officer from the Vulnerable Persons Unit, is reported to have observed the strained relationship between the mother and the maternal grandmother with the mother becoming very emotional every time the maternal grandmother attended to or gave attention to either of the children - to the point of physically removing the children from the maternal grandmother and locking herself with the children in the house. The children appeared well and comfortable in their interactions with both the mother and the maternal grandmother. Both the mother and the maternal grandmother were observed to be emotionally dysregulated. The mother was reported to be "quite agitated", "irritable" and "angry though smiling".
5. The mother said to officers that when she had arrived home from hospital that morning, there was washing all down the hallway and the home upstairs was a mess. She admitted that she liked things "a certain way". She said her mother had her own mental health issues, but the breaking point occurred when she asked her mother for help showering and her mother shouted at her that she thought she was there to care for the children not the mother. The mother was noted to be irritable with both children, constantly chastising X for playing with playdoh on the wrong table surface. The mother was assessed to have limited insight and judgement at that time.
6. On 4 May 2022, the mother sent an email to the father, members of his family, Dr W, Dr F and others. Over six pages, the mother makes numerous accusations against the father and repeatedly states that the father is mentally ill and requires inpatient treatment. The mother repeats her allegations that the paternal grandmother poses a risk to the children because of her history of sexually abusing the father which the mother contends the father disclosed to her and "in therapy sessions, and in a letter to his Aunt, in the past". No evidence was produced to substantiate this claim. The letter, if there was one, is not in evidence. The aunt was not called as a witness. The only allegation put to the paternal grandmother during cross-examination was that in the lead up to the father's marriage to the mother, she "groped" the father's crotch during a fitting for the father's wedding tuxedo. The paternal grandmother denied the allegation.
7. Counsel for the mother said that it was not the mother's case that the paternal grandmother posed a risk to the children of sexual abuse.
8. Counsel for the mother was nevertheless granted leave to recall the father to ask him about the alleged letter. It was submitted that the only relevance of the letter was as to the paternal grandmother's credibility generally. A document was shown to the father, and it was put to him that the document was created by him and sent to his aunt. It is not clear how the mother came to be in possession of the document but in any event the father denied that it was a document created by him. As to the allegation about his mother groping his crotch while he was being fitted for a wedding tuxedo the father said - "I think she had pulled my underwear up or something, you know, just at the front. Which again, was inappropriate. Fine. But I had said that at the time".
9. During her cross-examination, the mother admitted that she had communicated in writing with Y's daycare on 11 September 2024 (the day the children were removed from her pursuant to the interim order) and stated that the paternal grandmother was living with the father and "she sexually abused [the father] from when he was an infant". The communication went on:

Please, at any sign [Y] may not be okay, ... call child protection. Get them involved. At least then they can talk to the kids and the kids can tell them they want to go home. If nobody steps in [the father] will have them brainwashed within a week and recording them staying [sic] untrue things about me and I'll never see them again. ... Please help them.

1. The mother initially attempted to deflect questions about her communication with the daycare suggesting that she did not remember what she wrote because she was in a state of extreme distress. The following exchange then occurred between the mother and counsel for the father:

COUNSEL FOR THE FATHER: Right. So your counsel placed on the record, at the first part of the trial, that you did not allege that there was a risk of sexual abuse to the children, whilst in [the father's] care?

THE MOTHER: I believe the email you're referring to was about his mum.

COUNSEL FOR THE FATHER: Yes?

THE MOTHER: Yes.

COUNSEL FOR THE FATHER: So I just want to make sure that I understand your case completely. You're not asserting that there is a risk of sexual abuse to the children whilst in [the father's] care?

THE MOTHER: From - from [the father] or

COUNSEL FOR THE FATHER: Whilst they are in his care - - -?---

THE MOTHER: Well, that - - -

COUNSEL FOR THE FATHER: Do you allege that there is a risk of sexual abuse to [the children]?

THE MOTHER: There's - there's a risk of sexual abuse to a child in anybody's care, depending on who is in the home, or where they go, or - that's a very broad statement. I can't answer that. Of course there is. There's a risk in anybody's care that a child could be sexually abused.

1. I have no doubt the mother knew what she was being asked about but chose not to be responsive.
2. There was then a further exchange between counsel for the father and the mother:

COUNSEL FOR THE FATHER: Yes. Do you recall what you say was the risk of sexual abuse to - - -?

THE MOTHER: --- As I say - - -

COUNSEL FOR THE FATHER: [Y]? ---

THE MOTHER: - - - I don't even recall sending it. But what I was referring to - what I understand I was referring to - I was, like, an acute stress response at that time - I had dropped my kids off at school and daycare that morning, and suddenly they were taken - was his mother. I had spent 13 years in a relationship with someone who had repeatedly - - -

COUNSEL FOR THE FATHER: Right. So the answer is? ---

THE MOTHER: --- talked about being abused as a very young child by his mother. I had sat in on therapy sessions where he balled his eyes out over this abuse. He didn't want his mum around the children, and - because of it. And the last interaction I had had with his mum - I believe it was the last one, or the last in person one - just after [Y] was born, she made some very inappropriate remarks about his genitalia. So I was concerned that - fearful that she was staying with him, or that he may - that she was - that he may take the children to where she was staying, which - she was often staying with his sister, and that [Y] would be at extreme risk of sexual abuse, given his mother, according to [the father], until it was no longer convenient for him to - to say - to - now he denies it. ...

...

COUNSEL FOR THE FATHER: In your mind the risk is of sexual abuse to the children, from their paternal grandmother?

THE MOTHER: ---Yes.

1. The mother's evidence is troubling. It appears that the mother is prepared to go to any lengths to portray the father's household as unsafe for the children. There is nothing in the evidence to support the mother's scurrilous accusations against the paternal grandmother.
2. In the email dated 4 May 2022, referred to earlier in these reasons, the mother makes repeated assertions that the father is mentally unwell and that he requires "urgent mental health interventions" and to "immediately go into inpatient care". The mother's frenzied attempts to portray the father as mentally unstable appear to me to be further attempts to deflect from her own behaviour.
3. On 6 May 2022, the father applied for a protection order against the mother. In his application, the father alleged that the mother strangled him, made threats to commit suicide, and contended that the children were at risk because the mother had driven off a cliff on 21 April 2022. The father disclosed that on 4 May 2022, the mother had sent a six-page email to his mother, father, sister, brother, psychologist, uncle and psychiatrist alleging that he is financially abusive and making allegations of sexual abuse against the paternal grandmother. Further, the father alleged that the mother had also instigated complaints about his professional practice and alleged he lacked mental capacity.
4. The mother has repeatedly asserted to numerous people that the father is mentally ill, requires inpatient treatment, has "monsters" in his brain. In Exhibit 5 (an audio recording from 15 April 2022), the mother repeatedly told the father that he had to do something about his mental health. The mother became more and more emotionally dysregulated. She yelled and screamed at the father and told him she hopes he dies. The mother repeatedly involved X in the conversation including the appallingly abusive exchange set out at the commencement of these reasons.
5. A temporary protection order was made in favour of the father against the mother on 9 May 2022 and varied on 11 May 2022 and included the two children as protected persons. The mother was prohibited from contacting the father other than through a lawyer and was required to be of good behaviour and not commit acts of domestic violence.
6. From very early in the parents' relationship, the mother assumed an 'organiser' role. I have no doubt the mother saw her actions as helpful to the father whom she regarded as disorganised, and he probably was. It is likely that the father passively accepted the mother's assistance notwithstanding his retrospective interpretation of it as controlling. However, it is apparent that the father came to resent the mother's interventions which he began to perceive as controlling rather than helpful. When the father began to resist the mother's behaviour, she became more insistent. The tone of the mother's verbal interactions with the father in the recordings (Exhibits 4, 5 and 6) demonstrate that the mother was used to giving orders and expecting them to be obeyed.

1. In these proceedings, the mother admits that she was at times "emotionally dysregulated" and displayed "extreme rage" and "hatred" towards the father but contends the reason for that was the combination of factors including, the father's unpredictable behaviour, her history of trauma, pregnancy losses, and hormones. I accept that the mother's rage against the father can be attributed to a combination of factors. However, the fact that there may be a context does not mean the behaviour was not coercive or controlling. Even Dr G identified that some of the mother's behaviour could be interpreted as coercive and controlling. Dr W and Dr F also described behaviour that was coercive or controlling. The recordings in Exhibits 4, 5, and 6 certainly demonstrate such behaviour. When the father did not comply with the mother's directions, she ridiculed and threatened him in a most vile way.
2. Whatever the mother's motivation, objectively her behaviour in the latter years was at times coercive or controlling and that is how the father perceived it.
3. The future risk to the children that arises because of this past behaviour is that as they mature, they are likely to resist intervention and direction, as all children do, but for the mother this is likely to induce behaviour that seeks to coerce or control. Alternatively, as opined by Ms E, the children may become afraid to cross the mother out of fear of rejection or abandonment.
4. In this context, the mother's coercive and controlling behaviour towards her own mother and arguably Dr F is relevant to the assessment of risk. As is her abusive behaviour towards Ms U, the director of the V Family Services. On 23 May 2023, Ms U had to terminate a phone call with the mother because "[t]he abuse became way too great, and [she] was being yelled at" by the mother. The mother had wanted Ms U to change the time allocated for a supervised visit between the children and the father. The mother was abusive to Ms U on other occasions and was untruthful when recounting things Ms U had said that did not suit her purpose e.g. the mother claimed that Ms U initially used the term "self-harm" in relation to the mother's spurious complaint about Y digging his nails into his skin and drawing blood, when it was the mother that first used that term. The mother had claimed that Y had self-harmed during every visit at V Family Services. Ms U diligently carried out an investigation of the mother's complaint and found no evidence to support the mother's claim.
5. These various examples demonstrate that the mother's controlling or coercive behaviour was not limited, as she contends, to the dynamics of her relationship with the father but extends beyond that.

Exposure of children to suicide attempt/ideation; emotional abuse; parentification

1. X was exposed to the mother's abusive behaviour towards the father on 1 January 2021 (the "bathtub incident") and directly involved in the conflict by the mother (Exhibit 6).
2. The SHIP records reveal that during a conversation with the father on 28 February 2021, he was worried as things seemed to be escalating. He said that the mother "had been talking and empathising with the woman in Victoria who killed herself and her children, saying she can understand why someone would do that". He said that "[l]ast weekend she told him to kill himself and save her from doing it". The father said he did not want to get police involved. The mother admits that she did talk to the father about the mother who killed herself and her children but denies saying she understood why she had done it.
3. On 20 April 2021, the maternal grandmother was sufficiently concerned about the mother threatening suicide that she contacted the mother's former treating psychiatrist, Dr XX at 7.51 pm. In a text message to Dr XX, the maternal grandmother said:

Dr [XX],

I need urgent help for [the mother]. She is saying that she is not OK - can't manage two children on her own. That she will be found dead with two children in the house. She won't let me take the baby. This is following talking to [the father]. Please advise.

1. Dr XX contacted a mental health crisis service. Their records reveal that Dr XX said that she had been contacted by the mother's mother with concerns arising from the mother's threats of suicide. The record continues:

... Dr [XX] reported that [the mother] threatened to harm herself and children in the past.

Dr [XX] is concerned that [the mother's] mother will go back to Adelaide this Sunday and [the mother] would have no support then.

According to Dr [XX]:

"Currently in crisis because her marriage is breaking up"

"The patient making suicide threat"

"She does need community support"

"Presents herself as if everything is ok"

...

1. When the mental health crisis service contacted the mother and told her that her mother had contacted Dr XX because of concerns about her safety, the mother immediately denied it saying "I did not speak about suicide. I don't know what they're talking about". The mother refused to engage with the service. The mother took Dr XX to task for contacting the mental health service because of her mother's allegations, whom she said had been an inpatient in mental health facilities multiple times over the last seven years and that her presence had only added to the mother's own stress. The mother said - "I had one bad day" and that she would not be continuing therapy "because I don't feel comfortable with my mother inserting herself into things".
2. In further text messages to Dr XX, the maternal grandmother said:

...

[The mother] is very stressed about parenting on her own within the logistics of this house, once I have to return to Adelaide for work, this weekend. Her anger is turned towards me as she believes I have let her down again by not having solved the problem. ...

I will call 000 if things escalate again. I will keep a close eye on things over night.

---

Night was fine. Calm this morning. Hopefully will be able to talk with her later today.

---

[The mother] has just had a call from [the mental health service]. She was very confused as to why you would have said she was suicidal and asked if I had contacted you. I told her how frightened I had been. She has told me to leave - no contact with grandchildren etc. [The mother] believes that insecure attachment with me is at the root of all that is not good in her life snd [sic] why she ended up with someone like [the father]. I have been trying to learn how to be what [the mother] needs ...

---

Dear Dr [XX],

I apologise for my communications. I was focussing on how I was feeling and not considering that [the mother] is postpartum and sleep deprived. She has not missed a beat in her care of the children despite the continual erratic behaviour of her husband. The very little communication I've had with him was like trying to speak with an errant 10 year old. ... I communicated as I did because I wanted there to be someone who could support [the mother]. That was not my place.

(Emphasis in original)

1. On 2 May 2021, the father contacted an Adult Community Mental Health Service stating that the mother had threatened to kill herself and so he would not let her leave the house. Their records note that police attended the evening before due to a domestic violence incident, but that mother was non communicative. The father was noted to be distressed and crying but the police officer did not think he was genuine. Their records further reveal that during a phone call with the mother she told them that the father has autism and becomes fixated on people. She said three months ago he became fixated on her and made a complaint to "DV services" with a concern she was going to kill their child. The mother admitted that she had briefly discussed the situation in Melbourne where a mother killed her children. The mother then referred to a recent incident when she could not hear her baby's heartbeat with the heart monitor and had given the father the heart monitor to check but when he began mocking her, she pushed him away. The mother said she had thought about making a complaint to the medical board about him but was worried he would find out.
2. The records from SHIP reveal that the mother first contacted them in early April 2021 and said that the family were under financial stress and behind in their rental payments. The father had contacted them initially on 22 January 2021 and then another five occasions over the following several months. He raised several concerns including that the mother had strangled him and how the police were treating him.
3. The records also reveal that police informed SHIP that they had attended the parent's home on 2 May 2021 in response to the father's claim that the mother was having a breakdown. When police arrived, they described the father has "extremely distressed, histrionic, theatrical, holding his head in his hands, the most high drama imaginable; then when police asked him questions he instantly calmed and there were no actual tears". The father said that the mother had said she did not deserve to live, and he should kill her. When the mother tried to leave, he said he locked all the doors and called for help. The mother denied the father's allegations. It is apparent that police considered the father was the problem although the records reveal their comment - "[n]o violent conduct as such". They were unsure if there were grounds for a protection order.
4. SHIP records include a note that on 7 May 2021 the parents were each giving them conflicting information and they were not sure what the truth is.
5. The SHIP records reveal that the mother contacted them on several occasions on 26 December 2021 (Exhibit 29). During each call the mother was distressed and crying. She said her mother was not coping with the situation which was making it harder for her and her mother was sending her text messages that she could not help her financially. In another call on 26 December 2021, when asked what had happened that morning, the mother said that the father had thrown a box at her, the children were present, and that it hurt her back. The mother called again 27 December 2021. The mother was noted to be "sobbing incoherently" and the support worker was concerned about the children being exposed to the mother's distress. The support worker did her best to calm the mother down.
6. On 1 January 2022, the records from SHIP reveal that they received a phone call from the mother at 9.10 pm. The mother was sobbing but through tears and sobs she is reported to have said the following:

[S]he cant [sic] do this any more

[I]t's all her fault, she put too much pressure on him. It's not straight forward

[H]e's right about everything - that she is controlling

[S]he wants to take it all back

[S]he can't look after them - she can't be OK for her kids. She has no way of supporting them.

[H]er mum has gone, but has MH problems and makes it worse

I asked if she was suicidal, and she didn't know

[S]he doesn't want to take everything away from him - his career, his kids

...

[T]wo years ago they were happy. ...

[The mother] said it all changed 10 months ago. He told her [sic] phoned DVCS and said she was coercive controlling; and told CYPS in a joint meeting that she was coercively controlling

...

[O]n the day of the recent incident, she was going to police to report him throwing the box, then told him. He refused to talk to her and she called 000

COVID

everything changed two years ago with COVID

[The father] got very stressed. He stopped seeing people face to face, and instead was in a room by himself with patients on zoom; and financial stress

he could not do what he normally did to cope with stress - go to the theatre, travel.

her daughter could not go to her activities

their second child was born, and [the father] could not cope with [the mother] needing emotional support

...

[The mother] described him as malicious, intentionally controlling

[H]e truly believes he is being victimised

...

[The father] would not speak to [her] for months. ...

...

... He became aggressive with their most recent psychologist and she refused to work with him

1. As previously discussed, this latter allegation was not true.
2. On 15 April 2022, the mother berated the father in the presence of X and involved her directly in the dispute as set out in paragraph 3 of these reasons. Exhibit 5 was harrowing to listen to, particularly the torment inflicted on the child by the mother. The mother sounds very used to issuing instructions to the father and expecting him to follow them. At one point she told the father to "[s]top being here all the time" and to "[j]ust go away from us". X repeated "[g]o away". At an earlier point in the recording the mother tells the child that every time she tells the father she loves him "it tells him that what he's doing is okay" and then asks the child "[s]o you think he is doing fine?". The child was four years old. The mother then tells the child - "I can't do it on my own, [X]". Despite the child's extreme distress, neither parent did anything to comfort her.
3. On 21 April 2022, the mother drove off a 10-metre cliff in front of the children. During the trial, there was a dispute between the parents about whether the father's description of it as a "cliff" was accurate with the mother preferring the term "embankment". Police records refer to the "incident location" being "a narrow lane on top of a cliff face".
4. Having made the concession during the trial that the children were present when she drove off the cliff, the mother later sought to resile from that concession. This is despite her own evidence that prior to the incident she was trying to get the children into the car, but the father kept removing them and that she had observed the father filming her while holding onto Y in a precarious position. The police records refer to their fear that the children are at "significant risk of emotional harm due to witnessing the aforementioned incident".
5. The mother has an admitted history of attempted suicide. When she was a teenager, she overdosed on more than one occasion. In a handwritten note made by Dr W dated 7 June 2014, it states:

Skype consult. - [the father]

[The mother] overdosed on Valium and was unconscious a few days ago (while [the father] @ work).

(As per original)

1. Police records refer to the mother admitting that she drove off the cliff because she was just exhausted from the continual controlling abuse and could see no other way of ending the cycle and escaping the control of the respondent. The mother was noted to be physically unwell and informed police she was infected with the COVID-19 virus. Police records corroborate the parents' evidence that leading up to the incident they were arguing about the cancellation of a $10,000 transfer made by the wife from the father's practice account into her own account and that the children were present throughout and highly distressed.
2. It will be recalled that on 19 April 2022, the mother told police she wanted to end her life.
3. In relation to the mother's state of mind after the incident on 21 April 2022, the hospital records include the following:

Triage: BIB QPS voluntary, suicidal, no clear plan or attempt, calm and collected, suicidal ideation: does not want to live anymore, husband is manipulative and controlling - ? DV

...

Says her suicidal ideation is due to hopelessness

...

Risks

... now suicidal in context of hopelessness and lack of support

...

Summary & plan

... now in crisis with suicidal ideation ... No clear evidence of a mental illness apart from a situational reaction.

1. In another section of the hospital records, the mother provided an account about how she had accessed the practice account but when she found out the father had intercepted the transfer, she said "she felt something snapped inside of her". The mother agreed that she was "overwhelmed and had reached her breaking point". The records note the mother's history of "a couple of episodes where she had overdosed" when she was a teenager.
2. The impression hospital staff were left with was that the mother had intentionally driven off the cliff with suicidal intent, in the context of increasing domestic violence issues, housing instability and lack of supports in the area.
3. The mother denies, in these proceedings, that the incident was a suicide attempt. She contends that it was an accident in circumstances where she was unwell and completely overwhelmed. The mother's long-term therapist, Dr G, said the mother told her she had no memory of the incident. I doubt the mother's intention at the time would have made any difference to how the children perceived the incident. It would have been horrifying.
4. On the same day a complaint was made to police about the father breaching the temporary protection order, i.e. on 28 April 2022, the mother underwent a psychiatric review at the CCC Service. The mother reported that her 12-year marriage had been happy albeit with long-standing issues given the father's neurodivergence. The mother described the relationship as more of a "parent-child" relationship. The mother said that prior to the last two years the father was "loving, kind, caring, and generous and was understanding and supportive of trauma stemming from prior [sexual assault of mother when she was a teenager]". While assessing that the mother presented "a low risk of imminent harm to self and others, denying any suicidal ideation or intent", it was assessed that the mother "remains in precarious and highly stressful position, this risk will continue to fluctuate in response to ongoing stressors".
5. At some later date which is unclear from the material which forms part of Exhibit 29, (but from the content, sometime in about June 2022), the mother engaged a consultant psychiatrist, Dr DDD, to undertake a psychiatric assessment of her for the purposes of responding to claims made by the father about her mental health. Dr DDD had nine online sessions with the mother between 21 June 2022 and 16 November 2023. Dr DDD opined that the mother was "insightful and judgement rational". The mother's risk of suicide was assessed to be low. The mother told Dr DDD during her fourth telehealth session on 4 October 2022 that the father behaved differently in the last two years.
6. The records from V Family Services, a contact centre that supervised the father's visits with the children from January to August 2023, are informative. The mother was observed to be highly anxious and teary when dropping the children off. She repeatedly reassured the children that they would be safe. On 21 January 2023, X was hesitant to see the father and her first words to him were "I'm not going to call you Dada anymore". Her next statement was "I don't want you to take me away". The mother had told the contact centre staff on 18 January 2023, that there had been seven abduction attempts. There is no evidence to support such a claim. The mother did not make that allegation in these proceedings.
7. On 28 January 2023, X told the father that when she "was in mum's tummy, he was twisting her arm and hurting her (the mother)". X told the father that she had felt nervous about seeing him but when asked how she felt now, she replied that she felt good.
8. On 11 March 2023, upon entering the room, both children went immediately to the father and spontaneously cuddled him. X said "I don't want to see you today" before hugging him again. The mother contacted V Family Services on 13 March 2023 stating that Y had self-harmed and had faeces on his genitals from his time at the centre. The incident management process was followed and communicated to the parties. The mother contends that she at no point intended this to be a complaint. I have no doubt that the mother intended this issue to be a complaint.
9. On 1 July 2023, X is reported as saying to the father, "I'm not going to give you a hug" and the father responded, "that's okay, if you ever want one you can have as many as you like". X said, "because then I will smell like you and mum gets angry if I smell like you". Later in the notes it also recorded that X said to the mother, "I didn't play with [the father's first name] mum" and that the mother then became very agitated, crying, and raised her voice saying, "[X] I didn't tell you to do that, I didn't say, you have to stop saying that".
10. During Family Report interviews on 2 August 2024, the children were again exposed to their mother's distress. At [101]-[104] of the Family Report dated 9 September 2024, Ms E provides the following account:

[The mother] was immediately visibly upset and distressed when she realised that the children had spent time with their father. She cried and said the observation should not have occurred and that she did not know that it was going to occur. She said, "I didn't even have a chance to hug [Y] before he left". She expressed intense feelings of distress. She said she had felt very upset because she had heard the children with "the man that has ruined their lives" and said they should not have to see [the father] at all.

[The mother] was escorted to the observation room. When she saw the ICL with the children, [she] appeared to become angry that the children had been left with the ICL. It was explained to [the mother] that this was necessary to avoid the children being left unattended in the room.

[The mother] was visibly upset and crying as she entered the room. [X] was observed to attempt to comfort her mother and cling to her. [Y] stated to the Report Writer, "there's something wrong with mummy". [The mother] continued to cry, and she expressed a belief that she would be unfairly assessed because she was upset. It was unclear whether [the mother] expected the formal observation to proceed, however, due to her rising level of emotional distress and the potential for this to upset the children it was explained to [the mother] that it would not be necessary to formally observe her interactions with the children. Given that [the mother] had made an earlier request that the children not have to spend the entire day due to their recent illness, it was agreed for the children to be taken home and for [the mother] to remain to complete her interview with the Report Writer.

[X] was observed to continue to cry and cling to her mother as she tried to tell her mother what had transpired with [the father]. [The mother] appeared to become frustrated and told [X] to stop. Their support person assisted the children to pack their belongings and they left.

1. Ms E expressed a concern about X experiencing "emotional parentification" which she said, "occurs when children must emotionally care for their parents and can lead to difficulty in self-regulating, setting boundaries, and building relationships, as well as an increased risk of depression and anxiety". Ms E opined that "these issues are likely to become increasingly evident in [X] as she grows, unless immediate steps are taken to address the issue." Exhibit 5 (the recording of the mother's direct involvement of the child during her tirade of abuse of the father) appears to fit into this category. The observations Ms E made of the mother and children on 2 August 2024 where they were comforting the mother who was in a state of emotional distress, raised for her the "possibility that both [X] and [Y] feel responsible for their mother's emotional needs". Ms E opined that this could impede their own attempts to understand and manage their own feelings and instil in them a belief that "any attempt by them to say no to her or go against her wishes could lead to rejection or abandonment".
2. On 11 September 2024, the children were removed from the mother at an interim hearing in circumstances where a final hearing was to occur two months later and where her allegations against the father of serious family violence perpetrated against her over a sustained period were yet to be determined. I can readily accept that the decision was difficult for the mother to understand, notwithstanding the content of the Family Report and the recommendation of the ICL to remove the children on an interim basis. Ms E's Family Report had only been released to the parties on the morning of 11 September 2024. Immediately after the order was pronounced, the mother was in a heightened state of distress and made threats to kill herself.
3. The mother left the court precincts and went to the children's school/daycare contrary to an order restraining her from doing so. Police were called to the school, and the mother was detained while the father retrieved the children and left. The father describes the mother driving erratically and behaving in a threatening manner towards him and his solicitor who had accompanied him to the school/daycare. The police records describe the mother as "highly emotional" and demonstrating "erratic, aggressive or agitated behaviour". She refused to sit down and was pacing back and forth. The mother repeatedly asked police if she could see the children and said that "because she has lost custody of her children, she no longer has anything to live for". The mother told police that her "entire life is being a mother so she now has nothing else in her life". The police had serious concerns for the mother's mental health.
4. While the mother's reaction may be understandable, it is another example of the mother's inability to regulate her emotions when under stress. The mother's breach of the injunction created a heightened emotional situation for everyone, including the children. The children had not spent any time with the father since 26 August 2023 and he was not anticipating an order that the children commence living with him on 11 September 2024. He was ill-prepared e.g. he did not have car seats for the children which he had to buy on the way to the school/daycare with his solicitor's assistance. The mother was unable or unwilling to do anything to assist the children with a difficult transition.
5. There is no medical evidence that the mother is currently suicidal despite having to deal with the children being removed from her care by a recovery order on 29 May 2025 and not being permitted to spend any time with the children since then.
6. The mother has continued counselling with Dr G, but the focus has been on the mother solely as a victim. Counselling has not addressed the mother's emotional dysregulation in front of the children. This is despite the recommendation by Ms E in her 2022 report that the mother "engage with her treating psychologist to help her understand her motivation for using violence or aggression (either physical or verbal), and to develop strategies for managing strong emotions including anger". Ms E stressed the "critical importance that the mother be educated about the harmful effects on children of exposure to conflict and violence regardless of the intent or type of violence used".
7. Ms E's expectation was that the three-month moratorium imposed on 11 September 2024, would provide an opportunity for the mother "to gain insight into her beliefs [about the father] and how this has impacted her behaviour and caused harm to the children". It was anticipated that a period of supervised time with the children thereafter would provide an opportunity for the mother to "demonstrate that she can interact with the children without becoming emotionally dysregulated and without engaging in negative or critical conversations with the children about their father or undermining [the father's] parenting role".
8. While the mother concedes that X "was often witness to our arguments and conflict" the mother gives very little indication that she accepts any responsibility this. At its highest, the mother merely expresses "regret".

1. The mother exposed the children to a suicide attempt on 21 April 2022. I reject the mother's evidence that it was an accident. The mother told police on 19 April 2022 she did not want to live and left hospital before she could be assessed. The mother was under considerable stress in the lead up to the incident on 21 April 2022 and was apparently also physically unwell. After the mother's admission to hospital on 21 April 2022, the mother made certain admissions, and the hospital was left with the impression that it was a suicide attempt. The incident was certainly emotionally abusive of the children.
2. X, in particular, has been exposed to the mother's verbal abuse of the father and threats of harm. The mother emotionally and psychologically abused the child.
3. The children have repeatedly been exposed to the mother's emotional dysregulation and have taken on a level of responsibility for her wellbeing. The mother has sought to undermine the children's relationship with the father, refusing to accept that he should have a role in their lives.
4. On one occasion, referred to earlier in these reasons, the mother's vitriolic abuse of the father included ridicule of him because of his autism, and she referred to having to raise a "kid just like him". The father's counsel submitted that this raised an additional risk to the children if they were diagnosed with autism in the future. In the absence of such a diagnosis the risk is somewhat remote although given the mother's extreme reaction to the children even smelling like the father after visits, the risk of a negative reaction to the children if they are diagnosed with autism cannot be entirely dismissed.

Conclusion - does the mother pose a risk to the safety of the children and/or the father?

1. The mother is in denial. She cannot accept responsibility for perpetrating family violence against the father and the children.
2. During a consultation on 14 June 2022, with Dr WW, a general medical practitioner, the mother, when discussing the legal proceedings, said that she did not understand where the "malicious drive is coming from". The mother's comment demonstrates a monumental absence of insight. One need only consider her outrageous belittlement and threatening behaviour to the father on 15 April 2022 to have some understanding why the father was pursuing the dispute through the court system. The father was ousted from the home in circumstances where the mother had driven over a cliff in front of the children and he had not been able to see the children since 21 April 2022.
3. Throughout the trial the mother was focussed on seeking vindication as a victim. The mother at times tried to control the process in the courtroom. She was a very difficult witness, repeatedly ignoring directions to be responsive to the questions she was asked during cross-examination. The mother demonstrated a very controlling manner at times, refusing to come into the court room at one stage until she had spoken to her counsel. The mother gave the very clear impression that she was used to insisting that things be done her way. Her enmity towards the father was palpable.
4. The mother left me with the impression that anyone who dared to challenge her would be undermined and criticised. A particularly egregious example of this is the mother's statement on 18 December 2024 to Ms EEE, a psychologist from K Contact Centre, that the judge who had determined the case at the first trial "is known for placing children with abusive fathers". It was not something said in the heat of the moment immediately after the trial. When cross-examined about this statement the mother not only restated her allegation but said - "[i]t's not a belief. It's a statement of fact" based on "reading many, many of his judgments".
5. The mother's emotional dysregulation in front of the children, her coercive and controlling behaviour, her failure to acknowledge the impact of her behaviour, and her failure to address it in therapy as recommended by Ms E in 2022, creates an unacceptable risk to the safety of the children, namely, of psychological and emotional abuse. Contrary to the mother's assertions, the mother's behaviour has not solely related to her relationship with the father. As the maternal grandmother identified, the mother "is quite fixed in how others need to meet her needs" and her reactions if her needs are not met can be quite overbearing. Having regard to the mother's history of attempted suicide, including in front of the children, should the mother again find herself "in [a] precarious and highly stressful position, this risk [of suicide] will continue to fluctuate in response to ongoing stressors". I expect the mother will find the result of these proceedings highly stressful and I can only hope that she obtains urgent psychological support. As already noted, there will be no circumstance created by the parenting order I make where the parents will be required to come into contact and therefore no identifiable risk to the safety of the father.

IS IT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN TO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH BOTH PARENTS?

1. It is common ground that it is not in the children's best interests to have a relationship with both parents. The ICL nevertheless recommends the mother be kept informed about the children, have access to information from their school/daycare, and that the mother be able to send a gift/card on special occasions. The mother proposes that the children speak to the father via FaceTime once a fortnight. I have difficulty in accepting that this is a genuine proposal, and I doubt that it would be adhered to by the mother even if it were ordered. During submissions, counsel for the mother appropriately conceded there were likely to be problems with such a proposal.

WHAT PARENTING ORDER IS IN THE CHILDREN'S BEST INTERESTS?

1. The parents and the ICL agree that the parents do not have the capacity to make joint parenting decisions. I agree. Whoever has the primary care of the children will have sole parental responsibility for making decisions about major long-term issues.
2. The mother was the children's primary carer from birth to separation on 21 April 2022 and was effectively their sole carer until 11 September 2024. The children did not see the father from 21 April 2022 until supervised visits commenced on 21 January 2023 (other than on 6 September 2022 for the Family Report interviews). The supervised visits ceased on 26 August 2023. The mother failed to facilitate further scheduled supervised visits. The interim change in their care ordered on 11 September 2024 was a significant interruption in their historical care arrangements.
3. In interviews for the Family Report that took place on 6 September 2022, Ms E reported the following:

[The mother] stated that [the father] is not involved in parenting at the moment and has not demonstrated any interest by way of asking for photos or updates on them, or by providing financial support. She said he is just focused on the court proceedings.

1. I reject absolutely that the father was not interested in the children as suggested by the mother. The father commenced proceedings promptly in May 2022. An order for supervised time was not made until 20 December 2022. The order stated that supervised time was to commence as soon as possible and to occur on not less than on a weekly basis.
2. During January 2023 to August 2023, the children spent supervised time with the father. The experience was positive for the children. Thereafter, attempts were made for the father to continue to spend time with the children, but this was not facilitated by the mother. I reject the mother's contention that this was due solely to the father not paying for her petrol. It will be recalled that during the period 3 May 2022 until 16 January 2024 the mother had access to approximately $485,000.
3. It is abundantly clear that the mother has opposed the children having a relationship with the father for a very long time, and she continues to do so. It seems to me that she has gone to extraordinary lengths to achieve an outcome which removed him from the children's lives. She was prepared to do and say anything to improve her prospects of achieving her desired outcome, including threatening to lie to police, making unfounded allegations against the paternal grandmother, and insisting that the children did not want a relationship with the father when the objective evidence was to the contrary.
4. After the abrupt removal of the children from the mother's care on 11 September 2024, Ms E, met with the father and the children on 18 September 2024 to explain the order made on 11 September 2024. The children were observed to be "very happy and at ease with their father, appeared to rely on him for comfort and reassurance. Father calm, gentle and attentive to both children." Ms E formed the view that "while they will likely miss their mother, feel very secure with their father". X was noted to say in what Ms E described as a "fake voice" that she missed the mother and opined that it appeared "put on" and she did not appear upset as she smiled and rejoined the father straight away and began playing. Ms E did not have any concerns for the children in the care of the father at that time.
5. Ms E again met with the father and the children on 17 June 2025. The children had been returned to the father pursuant to a recovery order made on 29 May 2025. The children were invited to accompany the report writer into the playroom. The children were reluctant to attend without the father and Y became distressed and started to cry so the father was requested to participate. As they attempted to leave the waiting area and walk to the interview rooms, Y appeared overwhelmed by his distress and was crying loudly. He said several times, "I don't want to go to mummy". The father struggled to comfort the child in the public space. Y was then heard saying what the report writer thought was "I want mummy". X also became distressed and began crying for "mummy". X rejected the report writer's attempt to engage with her. X appeared to attempt to comfort Y and said to him "we want mummy, don't we". Y appeared to push X away, but she persisted. X said to the father "we don't want you" and gave him a light smack on the arm. The father appeared shocked by the behaviour but remained calm. X made a light-hearted warm gesture towards the father and smiled at him before saying "we don't want to live with you". Ms E opined that X's behaviour was "incongruent and possibly performative".
6. Ms E opined that the children's behaviour "is a direct result and a reflection of the traumatic impact of the prolonged parental conflict and parenting dispute, and the multiple abrupt changes in parenting arrangements". In her view, the children should live with one parent and have no contact with the other parent.
7. The mother relies on statements attributed to X that she did not want to spend time with the father. Such statements continue to be pressed notwithstanding evidence from independent sources noting X appeared happy and comfortable when observed with the father.
8. Child Safety records reveal that on various occasions X said she wanted to live with the mother. Child Safety appeared to place some significance on these statements, but views expressed by children, particularly very young children, are but one matter to take into account. Views are not determinative. I have no doubt that the children love their mother and want to have a relationship with her, if not live with her primarily. Ms NN describes X as grieving the loss of her mother. It is a tragic consequence of the mother's inability to accept the father in the children's lives.
9. If the children were to live with or spend time with the mother, there is no prospect of the mother facilitating the children's return to the father. The 'final' order made on 6 December 2024, provided for the children to spend alternate weekend and holiday time with the mother but the transitions were traumatic for X. The mother's recording of the attempted changeover on 1 January 2025 was harrowing. The poor child was distraught, and the mother was unable or unwilling to console the child. The mother relied upon the child's distress as evidence of the child's preference to live with her. During the recording, the following statements by the mother are indicative of the mother's involvement of X in the dispute and her parentification of the child:

Mother: I know. I don't want you to go either, [X], but we don't have any choice, okay. Can you use your big voice about telling people what you want, okay, writing some things down, alright, yeah, can you do that?

Child: I'm staying with you, not anybody else. Cause daddy's mean.

Mother: Okay, well you need to use your big voice, okay, and talk to people about it, okay?

Mother: If I could help you, I would, okay. I'm doing everything I can to bring you home, okay.

Mother: [X], if there was anything I could do to change it, I would, but I can't, okay"

... then you need to have a brave heart like last week...because I want to see you next week

Remember, otherwise I can't see you next week

You go with Daddy and see me in seven days, or you don't go with Daddy and then things get really, really bad ... And we can't come back here and it will be a long time before you see me

... If they don't let us come here, I won't be able to see you anymore

And who is going to make sure [Y]'s okay? ... But he's not with me, [X], he's already gone to daddy. He's all on his own ... He'll be really scared without his big sister...

Can you be really brave for me, [X]?

1. The mother eventually withheld the children contrary to the Court order. X missed school and Y did not attend daycare. When the children were returned to the father after a recovery order, the children had to endure another traumatic period of transition, not only to the father's care but also to school and day care. It seems Y managed the transition much better than X. He recommenced day care with little issue.
2. The most recent independent evidence from X's school is that X "is progressing really nicely as far as her education" and her emotional distress evident earlier in the year "has now ceased". Until March 2025, X was experiencing a stress response when transitioning from a parent to school. Her behaviours were quite extreme and involved crying, clinging to her parent, running after the parent, kicking furniture and walls, and not being totally honest about certain things with her class teacher. These behaviours returned once in July and once in August 2025. X is now not only successfully attending school full time (which she has been doing for some months) but also successfully attending after school care three times a week. The father and the school have a cooperative and trusting relationship.
3. Based on three sessions over a six-week period in September/October 2025, Ms NN noted that the father consistently arrived with the children prepared with a backpack containing items for the children e.g. hats, drink bottles, jackets, and snacks. The children were noted to be appropriately dressed, clean, with their hair brushed. The children appeared healthy and well nourished. Both children demonstrated comfort with the father through proximity seeking (X) and physical closeness (Y consistently sitting in the father's lap or leaning against him). Unsurprisingly, X was described as exhibiting grief and loss regarding separation from the mother. She appeared somewhat preoccupied with the mother's death/safety. The mother attributes this solely to the father's alleged malicious undermining of the maternal/child bond, seemingly overlooking the child's presence on 21 April 2022 (when the mother drove off a cliff) and the child's exposure to the mother's emotional dysregulation on numerous occasions.
4. Ms GG is the director of the daycare centre which Y attends. Y commenced there in January 2025 and recommenced his attendance on 14 July 2025 after an absence from late March 2025. The mother did not take Y to daycare when he was living with her from March to 29 May 2025. Y's first day back on 14 July 2025 was hard for him and on the following day he did not want the father and X to leave. However, within five minutes of the father departing, Y was settled. Y currently attends daycare on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Ms GG opines that Y "is looking very well" and the centre has had no cause to be concerned about Y in the father's care.
5. Ms LL is the current case worker assigned to the family by Child Safety. She commenced her role in about August 2025. In her communications with X's school, she has been told that the child is "doing really well". In her observations of the father with the children, she opined that the father "always remained calm" and she observed that he used various strategies to divert X's attention on an occasion when she had an emotional outburst. The children were described as "generally happy" during her visits although she had experienced some difficulty engaging with Y on occasion.
6. I conclude, notwithstanding some misgivings, that it is in the children's best interests to remain in the father's full-time care and spend no time with the mother. My misgivings relate to the mother's historical role as primary carer for the children and the children's obvious love and affection for the mother. Unfortunately, a reintroduction of the mother into their lives in the foreseeable future would again undermine their stability and pose an unacceptable risk to their safety.
7. I will accede to the ICL's recommendation that the mother be permitted to send a gift and card to the children on special occasions. The father will also be required to send a recent photograph of the children several times each year and the mother will have access to educational information about the children from their school/day care.

I certify that the preceding three hundred and fifty-three (353) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Carew.

[1] [2021] FamCAFC 165.

[2] Pages 1266-1274 and 1462-1466 of the tender bundle (in its original form).

[3] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 65D.

[4] Pickford and Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249; (2024) FLC 94-230 at [46]-[51] ("Pickford").

[5] Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140.

[6] M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 at 77 ("M v M").

[8] Ibid; N and S and the Separate Representative (1996) FLC 92-655.

[9] Eastley & Eastley [2022] FedCFamC1A 101; (2022) FLC 94-094, [31] ("Eastley").

[10] Johnson & Page (2007) FLC 93-344 at 81,890-81,891, [68]-[71] (adopting the extra curial commentary by the Hon. John Fogarty AM) NB. Johnson & Page was overturned by Isles and Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97; (2022) FLC 94-092 ("Isles") but not on this point which was subsequently confirmed by Eastley.

[13] Baghti & Baghti [2015] FamCAFC 71.

[15] Banks & Banks (2015) FLC 93-637.

[17] Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298.

[19] A written list of these particulars was provided by counsel for the mother and remain with the Court papers.

[20] A written list of these particulars was provided by counsel for the father and remain with the Court papers.

[21] Given the context it appears the mother was referring to an Emergency Apprehension (as it is referred to in the ACT) or an Emergency examination authority (EEA - as it is referred to in Queensland).