AMS v AIF

(a) prior to making the sole decision about any such issue, he shall:

(i) advise the mother in writing of any prospective decision in relation to the child's long-term care, welfare and development; and

(ii) request that the mother provide written input, within fourteen (14) days of being notified of the prospective decision, into the decision to be made; and

(iii) take any written input provided by the mother about the impending decision into account when making it; and

(b) he shall, within fourteen (14) days of making the decision, inform the mother in writing of it.

1. The parents shall have joint decision-making responsibility about the country in which the child shall live.
2. Each parent shall have responsibility for daily decisions about the day-to-day care, welfare and development of the child when he is in that parent's care.
3. If the mother is primarily living in Australia, the child shall live with the mother as agreed between the parents in writing but, failing agreement, as follows:

(a) each alternate weekend from after school Friday (or 3.00 pm if Friday is a non‑school day) until 5.00 pm Sunday; and

(b) in even numbered years: for the first half of the school holidays which apply for the school at which the child attends; and

(c) in odd numbered years: for the second half of the school holidays which apply for the school at which the child attends.

1. If the mother is primarily living outside of Australia, the child shall spend time with the mother, when she is present in Australia, at such times as are agreed between the parents in writing but, failing agreement, as follows:

(a) no more than each alternate weekend from after school Friday (or 3.00 pm if Friday is a non-school day) until 5.00 pm Sunday; and

(b) in even numbered years: for no more than the first half of the school holidays which apply for the school at which the child attends; and

(c) in odd numbered years: for no more than the second half of the school holidays which apply for the school at which the child attends.

1. In order to facilitate the child spending time with the mother in accordance with these Orders, the mother shall, save in an emergency situation:

(a) provide the father with no less than fourteen (14) days' notice in writing, sent to the father's email address, of her intention to enter the Commonwealth of Australia; and

(b) provide the father with no less than forty-eight (48) hours' notice in writing, sent to the father's email address, before each of the alternate weekends or half school holiday periods referred to in Order 7 above, of her intention to spend time with the child on that alternate weekend or during that school holiday period; and

(c) provide the father with no less than seven (7) days' notice in writing, sent to the father's email address, of her intention to leave the Commonwealth of Australia.

1. If the mother fails to provide the father with the notice referred to in Orders 8(a) and 8(b), then:

(a) the operation of Order 7 is suspended for the following period in which the mother is present in Australia and/or for the relevant alternate weekend or school holiday period; and

(b) the father is at liberty to make whatever arrangements for the child's care during such times as he considers appropriate; and

(c) the child shall spend time with the mother during such times as is agreed between the parents in writing.

1. Notwithstanding any other terms of this Order, if the mother is present in Australia on the following occasions, then, unless otherwise agreed by the parents in writing, the child shall spend time with her as follows:

(a) for Mother's Day: from 5.00 pm the night before Mother's Day until 4.00 pm on Mother's Day each year and if Mother's Day falls on a weekend that, pursuant to this Order, the child would otherwise be spending time with the father, then the child's time with the father shall conclude at 5.00 pm on the day before Mother's Day and the balance of the time that the child would ordinarily have spent with the father shall be forgone; and

(b) for the child's birthday, if the child is in the father's care:

(i) if it falls on a school day: from after school until 7.00pm; and

(ii) if it falls on a non-school day: from noon until 5.00 pm.

(c) for Christmas:

(i) in odd numbered years: from 5.00 pm Christmas Eve until 5.00 pm Christmas Day; and

(ii) in even numbered years: from 5.00 pm Christmas Day until 5.00 pm Boxing Day.

1. Unless otherwise agreed between the parents in writing, changeovers shall occur:

(a) if it falls on a school day: at the child's school; and

(b) if it falls on a non-school day: at the McDonald's restaurant located in Suburb C in the State of Queensland.

1. Whilst the mother is living outside of Australia:

(a) the child shall communicate with the mother via videocall or WhatsApp Messenger or Facetime to the child's mobile phone number every second day for at least 30 minutes or until the child terminates the call; and

(b) the father shall send the mother a different photograph/video of the child at least once per week and shall provide written updates to her about the child's progress and development once per week.

1. Notwithstanding any other terms of this Order and unless otherwise agreed by the parents in writing, the child shall spend time with the father as follows:

(a) for Father's Day: from 5.00 pm the night before Father's Day to 4.00 pm on Father's Day each year and if Father's Day falls on a weekend that, pursuant to this Order, the child would otherwise be spending time with the mother, then the child's time with the mother shall conclude at 5.00 pm on the day before Father's Day and the balance of the time that the child would ordinarily have spent with the mother shall be forgone; and

(b) if the child is in the mother's care on his birthday, then:

(i) if it falls on a school day: from after school until 7.00pm; and

(ii) if it falls on a non-school day: from noon until 5.00 pm.

(c) for Christmas:

(i) in odd numbered years: from 5.00 pm Christmas Day until 5.00 pm Boxing Day; and

(ii) in even numbered years: from 5.00 pm Christmas Eve until 5.00 pm Christmas Day.

1. The child shall be at liberty to communicate with his parents at all reasonable times as he reasonably requests to do so and, in relation to such communication, each parent shall:

(a) ensure that the child has access to the telephone to make the call and shall assist him to do so; and

(b) ensure that the child thereafter has privacy during the conversation.

(a) keep the other parent informed at all times of their residential address and a contact telephone number and shall notify the other parent:

(i) within 24 hours of any change to the contact telephone number; and

(ii) at least seven (7) days prior to any change to their residential address; and

(b) each provide the other with an email address to be used for communication about the child; and

(c) keep the other parent informed of the names, addresses and contact details of any medical or other allied health practitioner upon whom the child attends for treatment; and

(d) as soon as practicable, inform the other parent of any medical emergency, significant health issue or significant illness suffered by the child; and

(e) immediately notify the other parent by text if the child is hospitalised for any reason.

1. The mother and father shall do all things and sign all documents required to renew or obtain a Country B passport for the child and, in the event that either parent neglects to sign nay necessary document, then a Registrar of the Court is authorised to sign such document in lieu of that parent.
2. Once the parents have obtained a Country B passport for the child, that document shall be held by the father.
3. By this Order, any medical practitioner, hospital, health care professional or allied health professional upon whom the child attends is authorised to provide each parent with all such information about the child's health as they are lawfully able to provide.
4. By this Order, any school at which the child attends is authorised to provide each parent with copies of school reports, school photographs and any other document regarding the child's academic progress or achievements (including, but not limited to, newsletters, notices or other correspondence) on the proviso that the requesting parent is responsible for any costs associated with the provision of such information.
5. By this Order, both parents shall be permitted to attend all functions (including but not limited to parent-teacher interviews, fetes, exhibitions, school plays or concerts and religious celebrations) held by an educational or child minding facility at which the child attends.
6. By this Order, both parents shall be permitted to attend, to the extent that is otherwise lawfully possible, all extra-curricular activities in which the child participates.
7. During the time the child is with either parent, that parent shall:

(a) respect the privacy of the other parent and refrain from questioning the child about the personal life of the other parent; and

(b) not denigrate or insult the other parent in the presence or hearing of the child and shall use their best endeavours to ensure that others do not denigrate or insult the other parent in the hearing or the presence of the child; and

(c) not denigrate or insult the other parent's extended family in the presence or hearing of the child and shall use their best endeavours to ensure that others do not denigrate or insult the other parent's extended family in the hearing or presence of the child.

1. The parents are each restrained and an injunction issue restraining each of them personally, and by their servants and/or agents, from removing or attempting to remove the child, or causing or permitting the removal of the child, from the Commonwealth of Australia.
2. The Marshall and all officers of the Australian Federal Police and of the police forces of the various States and Territories are requested and empowered to take all necessary steps to give effect to these Orders, including by doing all things necessary to include and retain the child's name on the Airport Watch List in force at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia and to maintain the child's name on the Watch List until further order of the Court.

1. Each parent and the Independent Children's Lawyer has leave to provide a copy of the Order made 29 August 2025, the Reasons for Judgment published in support of the same and the Family Report authored by Ms D to the school at which the child attends, to any therapist upon whom the parents and/or the child attend for the purpose of therapy and, if necessary, to:

(a) the Department of Families, Seniors, Disability Services and Child Safety and/or the authority of any State or Territory responsible for child protection; and

(b) any member of the Queensland Police Service, the police service of another State or Territory and the Australian Federal Police.

1. Save as is otherwise ordered herein, no party is permitted to use the documents provided to them in the course of this proceeding for any purpose other than this proceeding or any appeal in respect of these Orders.
2. The Independent Children's Lawyer is discharged unless a Notice of Appeal is filed by any party within the time prescribed or such other time as allowed by Order.
3. All outstanding parenting applications are otherwise dismissed and removed from the list of cases requiring finalisation.
4. Pursuant to s 65DA(2) and s 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders and details of who can assist parties to adjust to and comply with an Order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached and these particulars are included in these Orders.

1. There is no Court known by the name "Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia".
2. The design of the seal affixed to this order issued by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) has been determined by the Attorney-General pursuant to the undated Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Seal) Determination 2021 signed by the Attorney-General.

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

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

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

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

1. These proceedings require the determination of those parenting orders which are now in the best interests of 10 year old X, who was born in 2015 in Country B. X is currently in Grade 4 at a school in Region E at which he has attended since he started his formal education. He has been diagnosed with ASD, ADHD, global developmental delay (with delays in multiple domains of his development, including severe delays in his speech, language, social communication and daily living skills) and another potential health issue. He has been, and remains, under the care of a paediatrician and is engaged with several allied health professionals as a consequence of the NDIS funding which supports him; he is also supported at school by learning support and the assistance provided by inclusion teachers.
2. The mother, who runs a business in City F, wants X to return to live with her in Country B (which is not a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction) and spend time with the father, either in Country B or Australia, during the Country B school holidays or at any other time he is in Country B.[1] The father, who had moved to live in Australia with his family when he was a child and who is a permanent resident of this country, works in hospitality and wants X to remain living with him in Region E - if the mother returns to live in this country, he proposes that X live in an equal-time, week-about parenting regime; if the mother continues to live in Country B, he proposes that X spend time with her in Australia when she is here, either for alternate weekends or during the school holidays.
3. Whilst aspects of the orders sought by the mother[2] are capable of suggesting otherwise, I have proceeded on the basis that each parent seeks to be accorded sole decision-making responsibility for the major long-term issues relating to X. The Independent Children's Lawyer contended that, given the very poor parental communication and the potential that this may result in further conflict and delay in the making of decisions about major long-term issues relating to X, the parent with whom X primarily lives should be accorded sole decision-making responsibility.
4. X's parents were both born in Country B. After the father returned from Australia to live in Country B, they commenced a relationship there in 2009; they married in Country B in 2010. In 2020, they moved with X to live in Australia in premises owned by the paternal aunt. At that time, X was five years of age.
5. The family continued to live in the paternal aunt's premises; X commenced his formal education at a local school and attended on his paediatrician. The family subsequently travelled back to Country B on about three occasions in 2022. They also took X back to Country B for all of Term 3 in 2023, for which they obtained an exemption for attendance from his school - this exemption required him to return to school for the start of Term 4, 2023.
6. After the parental separation in Country B in about August 2023, the father returned with X to Australia; whilst he acknowledged that he removed X from Country B without the mother's knowledge or consent, it seemed to me that his case was that he simply returned X to Australia so he could return to school (as had, I accept, previously been agreed between the parents before the Term 3 travel to Country B) and so that they could return to the place the family had decided to call home when they moved to live here in 2020.
7. The mother clearly regarded the father's conduct in returning with X to Australia as him abducting the child. After she returned to Australia in October 2023, she made this complaint to police, who subsequently attended at the home to check on X's welfare. No action was taken.
8. Despite the mother's complaint and the police involvement, the mother moved into the former matrimonial home and she, the father and X lived there together until she returned to Country B in December 2023. When she returned to Australia in February 2024, she returned to that residence and stayed there until she returned to Country B in March 2024. It seems that during at least some parts of these visits, the father moved out to stay with friends or in rented accommodation, although he frequently returned to the home early in the morning to get X ready for school and to take him to school and to the various therapists upon whom he attends.
9. The mother returned to Australia again in June 2024; she returned to stay in the paternal aunt's premises. Unfortunately, conflict arose between the paternal family and the mother about her continued presence in the paternal aunt's residence; after this conflict remained unresolved, the paternal aunt commenced proceedings in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal and an order was ultimately made in mid-2024 in terms which required the mother to vacate the premises by late 2024. The father and X remained living in the premises and continue to do so.
10. After the mother vacated the paternal aunt's premises in late 2024, she obtained shared accommodation in which she stayed until she returned to Country B in October 2024. When she later returned to Australia in March 2025, she rented a room in what sounded as though it is privately provided temporary student accommodation. She said that her accommodation is such that she has been unable to have X spend overnight with her.
11. Whilst others may disagree, I was left with lingering doubts about the mother's asserted inability to afford to stay in accommodation in which she could have X stay overnight (even if only for one night at a time), particularly noting that her casual employment results in her receipt of about $1,200 to $1,500 net per fortnight. I was also left with lingering doubts about the extent to which the mother's desire to take up offers of casual employment has impacted upon her availability to spend time with X, particularly by having him stay overnight with her.
12. In any event, whatever the cause, the time that X has spent with his mother when she has been in Australia since about the end of September 2024 has been limited to daytime time - the father has remained entirely responsible for ensuring that X's overnight needs are met and that he attends school and his therapies and participates in those extra-curricular activities which it has been decided will assist his development.
13. The absence of overnight time between X and the mother since about late 2024 has not been in any way the result of the father's opposition to the same; I accept that he has always been supportive of X spending overnight time with the mother; I also accept that he has been supportive of X spending consecutive nights in his mother's care and that the absence of this has also been the consequence of the mother's accommodation.
14. It appears to be established that, until late 2023 when the mother updated the relevant application and advised that the parental relationship had ended, X and the mother were included in the father's application for a partner sponsorship visa. The father has not withdrawn or changed this application in any way; he understands that the mother has continued to pursue it. He has also lodged a Child Visa application for X and this remains the subject of consideration by the Department of Immigration.
15. As I appreciated the evidence, the mother's continued presence in Australia when she is here is permitted by a bridging visa which will expire in about mid-2026. Whilst there is no evidence to establish what the consequences of this will be for the mother, it was not suggested that she would thereafter be unable to visit Australia.

Some of the rationales underpinning the competing parenting proposals

1. By way of broad summary, the father's contention was, in essence, that the Court would not be persuaded it is in X's best interests to return to live in Country B with his mother because the child is well settled, stable and secure living with him in Australia in what is a familiar environment to him; he has established and predictable routines which are beneficial to him and, given his diagnoses, support him; he has access to necessary medications, is engaged with several allied health professionals, is assisted by inclusion teachers and by receiving learning support at school, attends group therapy sessions to support the development of his social and communication skills, attends Country B church services in Region E and has strong support from his school friends - disrupting these services and supports, severing his established therapeutic and social relationships and removing him from his known environments would be adverse to him and may result in him regressing.
2. The father also contended that X has been able to communicate with his mother when she is in Country B and has been able to spend time with her when she in Australia and, consequently, has been able to maintain his relationship with her. His opposition to X returning to live in Country B with the mother encompassed his concerns about whether the child would ever return to Australia, his views about the relative stability of Australia and the educational, health and disability support services offered here vis-à-vis Country B and his fears that disrupting X's well-established daily routines and living environment, in place in an overall sense since the then family unit moved to live here in 2020, would cause the child significant distress and pose significant challenges for him.
3. By way of broad summary, the mother's contention was, in essence, that the Court would be persuaded it is in X's best interests to return to live in Country B with her because such a move would see him return to the place in which he lived until he was five years old: he would have access to similar supports and services as those available to him in Australia (including from the paediatrician with whom she has consulted), he would return to her primary care and would be able to spend time with members of the extended maternal family as he had done before he left Country B in 2020. She also asserted that X's relationship with his father would be supported by the father spending time with him in either Australia or Country B and by communicating with him by electronic means in the same way that she has done when in Country B. The mother did not think that moving to live in Country B now would be a big move or change for X.
4. By way of broad summary, the Independent Children's Lawyer contended that X's best interests would be met by him continuing to live with his father in Australia; it was submitted that his relationship with his mother could be maintained by him communicating with her when she was in Country B and by him spending time with her in Australia (including overnights and for consecutive overnights if she could accommodate him) when she visited this country. The Independent Children's Lawyer also submitted, amongst other things, that the likely negative impact on X of being removed from his current secure, stable and known living environment and supports meant that the Court would not be persuaded that it was in his best interests to permit the mother to relocate him to live with her in Country B.

1. The statutory framework does not deal differently or specifically with cases involving the proposed relocation of children. Therefore, the well-known statutory provisions provide that, having had regard to the Objects of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act"),[3] and, subject to s 65DAB[4] of the Act, such parenting order as thought proper may be made.[5]
2. In deciding whether to make a parenting order, I must regard X's best interests as the paramount consideration.[6] Such interests should not be viewed in the abstract or separate from the circumstances of his parents;[7] the statutory exhortation to regard his best interests as the paramount consideration does not mean that the legitimate desires and interests of his parents are to be completely ignored - rather, where legitimate parental interests conflict with X's best interests, the former must give way.[8] All relevant factors must be taken into account in deciding what parenting orders are in X's best interests[9] such that the determination of those parenting orders which are in his best interests may well mean that one parent's "choice" is effectively outweighed in the balance; from a parent's perspective, the outcome may not be optimal. Whilst any parent enjoys the right of freedom of mobility to live wherever the parent chooses to live, that right must defer to the expressed paramount consideration - the welfare of a child - if the same was to be adversely affected by a movement of a parent.[10]
3. The matters to which regard must be had in determining those parenting orders which are in X's best interests are found in s 60CC of the Act. The requirement to "consider" each of these matters does not necessarily mean that each must be the subject of any specific discussion, particularly where the evidence leads inexorably to a particular conclusion.[11] Similarly, it is unnecessary to refer specifically to the evidence of each of the witnesses called in each of the parties' cases: I have had regard to the same in arriving at those findings which must necessarily be made, in the context of the parenting orders proposed by each of the parents and the Independent Children's Lawyer, in determining those parenting orders which are now in X's best interests.

The arrangements which will promote X's safety and that of each person who has care of him, including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm;[12] the benefit to X of being able to have a relationship with his parents and other people significant to him, where it is safe to do so[13]

1. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that X's safety would be compromised in any way by him spending time or living primarily with either of his parents. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest other than that X would benefit from being able to continue to have a relationship with both of his parents. Both parents propose that, irrespective of the location in which he lives and the parent with whom he primarily lives, he will continue to communicate and spend time with the other parent.

X:[14] his views;[15] his developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs;[16] and the likely impact any proposed parenting order would have on that right.[17]

1. The evidence establishes that X's behavioural history includes reported inflexible adherence to routines, "abnormal" fixated interests, difficulty persisting with tasks and some hyper‑reactivity to sensory input.
2. It is clear that X has a well-established network of supportive clinicians in place - for example, he first saw Dr H, a consultant paediatrician who diagnosed his ASD and supported his engagement with allied health professionals and a psychologist and his application for NDIS funding to ensure his receipt of such services, in late 2020 and remains under his care; similarly, he first engaged with allied health professionals via G clinic in early 2021 and continues to receive therapeutic support from that service which has sought and received input from his teachers.
3. Dr H has previously supported X's diagnoses of global developmental delay with significant social communications difficulties. He has expressed concerns about the impact on X's future functioning if he cannot continue to receive the support and treatment which has been provided to him to date and which the doctor regarded as being amongst the best in the world.
4. I accept Dr H's evidence, which included that:

(a) X has delays in multiple domains of development, with severe delays in his speech, language, social communication, and daily living skills - his ASD and ADHD conditions affect his communication skills, social interactions and ability to focus and regulate his impulses and his challenges in these respects are exacerbated when he is in unfamiliar or stressful situations; and

(b) X requires additional support at school around his attention, concentration, and hyperactivity to assist with his learning and participation in various school activities; and

(c) whilst X has made some improvements in his developmental domains as a result of the therapies in which he has engaged, he remains significantly behind his peers and requires ongoing therapeutic support - including from allied health professionals and a psychologist; he also needs ongoing support with his social communication and daily living skills to enable him to participate in day-to-day activities; and

(d) X continues to need an enormous amount of support at both school and home - however, with this, he has slowly been making improvements in his day-to-day life; and

(e) X is well supported in his local community - both as a result of his access to the NDIS and as a result of the efforts made by the school at which he attends; and

(f) it was crucial for X's ability to continue to improve and to reach his full potential that he continue to have access to the types of resources and interventions which have been available for him to date; and

(g) it is very important that X continue to have routine and stability because, absent these, it is likely he will experience regression in his social and emotional functioning; and

(h) given that X has struggled to form and maintain relationships, changes which require him to form new relationships could see him struggle to adapt - consequently, he may well struggle to adapt to a new environment, friends and school.

1. I also accept that Dr H will continue to ensure, as has previously been the case, that both parents continue to receive a copy of his correspondence about X. I also accept that, as he has done since he first saw X, he remains very willing to correspond in the future with both parents about their child and his progress.
2. In addition to the therapeutic supports in place to assist his development, X has been on, and continues to have the benefit of, an Individual Behaviour Support Plan at school; he also has support in attending to his personal care needs. It seems that the school has been providing him with a highly differentiated curriculum and significant support to help him try to focus during class and that, absent such support, he is unable to work independently on most tasks. He has also required the support of a teacher assistant when going to the toilet and visiting the sandpit during breaks and in transitioning from classes during the breaks across the school day.
3. The evidence also establishes that the school has also provided X with support via its inclusion team, individual reading intervention support on three occasions each week (supported by a teacher and teacher assistant), additional support in the playground setting, referral to a therapy service for help with his fine motor skills (intended to help him continue to develop handwriting and keyboard skills) and the opportunity to participate in a spelling intervention programme. In short, he requires and receives intensive support for all of his learning at school - his need for additional guidance across all areas of learning, which has so far necessitated him being provided with this highly individualised and differentiated learning plan to better meet his unique needs, will persist into the future.
4. I accept that Ms D, the author of the Family Report, interviewed X and observed his interactions with each of his parents on 30 January 2024. I accept her evidence that:

(a) X unmistakably demonstrates how the ASD and ADHD with which he has been diagnosed impacts on his daily functioning and how it affects various aspects of his life: for example, he struggles to communicate, has a team of medical professionals and requires regular supports from treating specialists; and

(b) it was evident that X presented with specific needs and requirements which are inherent to autism and that, because of this, his care needs require careful attention and consideration.

1. I accept Ms D's recounting that X expressed to her that he enjoyed time with both his mother and father. I also accept that, when she asked him who he turned to when experiencing various emotions, X consistently mentioned his father. I accept Ms D's assessment that the interview revealed a distinctive and close attachment between X and his father and that X consistently referred to his father during all activities, games or drawing. I accept Ms D's opinion that it was apparent that X shares a strong and affectionate bond with his father; I accept her recounting that X engaged with his father in a manner that reflected a positive and supportive relationship and that she thought, and I accept, that Xs' responsiveness to his father's guidance demonstrated the depth of their connection.
2. I also accept Ms D's assessment that X engaged well with his mother and that it was evident he had a positive and secure relationship with her.

The father: his capacity to meet X's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs;[18] members of the extended paternal family

1. As already noted, the father was born in Country B; he lived there until he completed Year 9, at which time he moved to live with his family in Region E, where he completed his secondary schooling. After he completed his tertiary studies at a local university, he returned to City F; shortly thereafter he re-established contact with the mother, whom he had known in high school.
2. Whilst he accepted that there was nothing to prevent him from returning to live in Country B, he intends to continue to live in Region E as he considered it to provide better opportunities than those available in Country B.
3. I accept that, since the mother returned to Country B in December 2023, the father has assumed the responsibility of X's day-to-day care and has ensured that he has attended those appointments necessary for the management of his health and wellbeing - including at times when the mother has been present in Australia and spending time with X. I accept that he has sent weekly emails to the mother, by which he has provided her with photographs and videos of X's development. I accept that, on occasion, the mother's response to these has been less than satisfactory. I accept that, whilst the father has blocked the mother's telephone number on his own phone, he has not done this in relation to X's phone - instead, he has facilitated regular and frequent telephone or video communication between X and the mother as required by the operative interim parenting order. I accept his evidence that X uses his own phone, with assistance, to contact the mother and other paternal family members whenever he wishes.
4. I accept that the father has supported and will continue to support X spending overnight time with the mother whenever she is in Australia. I accept that he is supportive of the mother spending more time with X when she is in Australia than she has done since about late 2024. I also accept that he is critical of the fact that X's time with the mother has been limited to approximately four hours per day, rather than encompassing the overnight time provided for in the existing orders.
5. I accept that the father is frustrated by the mother's failure to provide him with the required notice of her impending arrival in or departure from Australia because this has limited his capacity to prepare X to spend time with her. I accept that, whilst frustrated, he has agreed to the mother's requests on occasion to spend time with X other than as has been prescribed by the operative interim parenting order. Given what I accept as his focus on ensuring that X receives the benefit of ongoing relationships with both parents, I think it much more likely than not that he will continue to accommodate at least some of any similar requests if made by the mother in the future.
6. I accept that, after he returned with X to Australia in 2023, the father has, with the assistance of various family members on occasion, ensured that all of X's day to day needs have been met; I accept he has supported X financially without contribution from the mother and that he is happy to continue to do this. I accept that he has structured his paid employment around X to a large extent and that where this has not been possible, he has obtained appropriate support from people known to X.
7. I accept the father was genuine when he expressed his concerns to Ms D about X moving to live in Country B with the mother and that these included:

(a) the potential for difficulty to arise in obtaining appropriate medication, medical treatment and specialised care for X in Country B; and

(b) that moving back to Country B would completely disrupt X's current environment and would potentially adversely impact the child's physical and mental health and emotional wellbeing; and

(c) the possibility that X's relationship with him would be adversely impacted.

1. I accept Ms D's assessment that, during their observed time together, the father adeptly reassured X; I accept her opinion that the father demonstrated sensitivity to X's developmental needs, skilfully managed X's transitions between activities, demonstrated the existence of a dynamic and supportive interaction between them, fostered an environment in which X felt secure and confident enough to participate in the play activity, demonstrated appropriate scaffolding, encouraged prosocial behaviour (such as packing up and playing gently) and made encouraging statements to X.
2. Whilst I also accept Ms D's account that the father was always appropriate and respectful toward X and spoke positively about the mother to him, I consider, as I noted during the trial, that the evidence clearly establishes the existence of a significant degree of animosity and judgement between the mother and the paternal aunt. Theirs appears to be a reasonably difficult relationship, at least now.
3. Given Ms D's assessment of the nature of X's relationship with her (the mother), I am not persuaded that the mother's criticisms of the father's efforts to support X's communication with her are justified. Whilst the mother's concerns about the degree to which the father will continue to support X's relationship with her if she lives in Country B and the child remains living in Australia are understandable, such concern seems to me to ignore the fact that the father has continued to facilitate X spending time with her even when the time she has proposed has not been in accordance with the terms of the existing interim parenting order. Whilst I accept that X's electronic communications with his mother are often short, I am not persuaded that the relatively limited duration of the same has anything to do with the father's conduct: it is, it seems, a consequence of X's diagnosed conditions.
4. I am not persuaded that the father has spoken to X about relocating to Country B in any way that caused the child to be upset or distressed; I am not persuaded that, by telling X that the mother was in Country B for work, the father spoke inappropriately - rather, I suspect that such comment was intended to provide X with an entirely reasonable explanation for the mother's absence. Given that the mother has always been able to be in contact with (and has been in contact with) X's paediatrician and his school, I am unpersuaded that the father has failed to ensure that the mother is able to remain informed about X and his progress, whether that is medical or from an educational point of view.
5. I am not persuaded that the fact that he suffers from Diabetes means that the father does not have the capacity to continue to care for X or to ensure that all his needs are met. There is nothing in the evidence to persuade me that the father inappropriately relies on medication to assist him in parenting X or that he inappropriately relies on the support of friends or family. I accept that the father has followed, and will continue to follow, the recommendations made by X's paediatrician in relation to the child's medication regime. I am not remotely persuaded that the father has injured X in any way and I accept his account that any injuries X has suffered have been the consequence of accident, such as falling from a scooter, or the usual actions of a child of X's age with his diagnoses. Similarly, I am not remotely persuaded that the father has neglected X's needs in any way.

The mother: her capacity to meet X's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs;[19] members of the extended maternal family

1. The mother completed her education in Country B; she has tertiary qualifications. She has, since the father returned with X to Australia in 2023, been able to spend a reasonably significant amount of time in this country. During that time she has spent time with X, although not to the extent provided for by the operative interim parenting order.
2. Aspects of the mother's evidence were troubling - for example, her affidavit included the assertion that, in early 2025, she was told by members of the Country B community in Region E that the father had travelled to Country B for several days to accompany his mother (whose visa had expired) and that, during this time, X had remained in Australia under the care of another individual; however, when cross-examined, it was revealed that she (the mother) had been in Australia and in Region E when the father left with his mother to travel to Country B for three days and that, during his absence, she had collected X from the paternal uncle who was staying at the home: that is, the father had not left X in the care of a stranger, but a family member, and she knew that this was the case when she returned X to his home.
3. Despite the niggling reservations that this example of the mother's evidence has engendered, I accept Ms D's assessment that, when interviewed, the mother was genuine in providing the account that she did. Whatever may be my reservations about aspects of the mother's veracity, I also have no hesitation at all in accepting that she loves X and wants what she considers to be the best for him.
4. Whilst the mother clearly advised Ms D of her view that she was more attuned to X's needs than the father was, it seems more likely than not that any previous disparity in the parents' ability to perceive X's needs has evaporated since the father returned with X to Australia in 2023 and assumed primary responsibility for ensuring that his needs have been met.
5. I accept Ms D's account that, despite not being physically present for the observations, the mother actively participated online in the session with X; I also accept the recounting that the mother notably employed a redirection strategy (which appeared to be familiar to X) as a means of enhancing their engagement. I accept Ms D's assessment that X was evidently comfortable in his interaction with the mother and that he has a positive and secure attachment with her. I also accept that Ms D thought that the mother and X had a demonstrated ability to connect and communicate despite the physical distance between them and that the mother demonstrated good scaffolding.
6. I also accept, despite the criticisms she expressed about the father's parenting in her affidavit, that the mother spoke positively about the father to X during Ms D's observations. Unfortunately, such positivity has not always found expression in the mother's electronic communication with the father; I accept that, on occasion, she has told the father that he is "stupid"; I also accept that she has expressed the view that poor X has nothing to be proud of in having a father like his father. Not only are such comments no doubt hurtful and untrue, they are unlikely to do anything to encourage the father to engage in anything but the most perfunctory of communications.
7. I accept that, if X moved to Country B to live with the mother, he would be able to again spend significant amounts of time with his maternal grandparents (with whom he had spent significant time prior to moving to live in Australia in 2020) and other members of his extended maternal family.
8. I accept that the mother has contacted a paediatrician in City F who has advised that, if X moved to live there, he would be able to provide appropriate care for him. I also accept that the mother has made inquiries about the school into which she would enrol X, although it appeared that, rather than raising this with the father, she had simply assumed that the parents would share equally in the costs of the same. Whilst the mother also said that X would be able to receive the same level of therapeutic support in Country B as he has been receiving since living in Australia, this assertion was not supported by any specific evidence about that.

1. It is well settled that the exercise of the discretion involved in determining those parenting orders which are in any child's best interests "necessarily involves, because of the focus upon the future, significant elements of value judgments; assumptions; necessarily uncertain predictions and intuition".[20]

1. I accept Ms D's summary that both parents exhibit the capability and competence to foster a caring and nurturing environment for X. Given this, I accept her assessment that, if both parents and X remain living in Australia, it would not be unreasonable - even taking into account the communication difficulties the subject of consideration in her report -to consider a week about arrangement provided that appropriate supports and interventions were in place.
2. However, and whilst this seemed to be something that the father supported, the combination of:

(a) the evidence given by X's paediatrician about the necessity for any change to his current living and care regime to be undertaken slowly and carefully and in what he described as a "bland" manner; and

(b) Ms D's evidence to the effect that it would be necessary for all of X's treating specialists and care team to first consider whether such a regime would best meet his needs and how to support him in any transition to the same,

has persuaded me that it is inappropriate at this time to make an order for an equal-time regime, even in the provisional sense of it coming into operation only if the mother lives in Australia.

1. I accept that the support systems with which X has engaged since moving to live in Australia in 2020 should properly be regarded as being vital contributors to his developmental progress and as essential to his prospects of achieving to his highest potential. I accept that he has established routines, which provide him with predictability and security and that his autism makes both of these things crucial to his wellbeing.
2. I accept the evidence given by X's paediatrician to the effect that, for a child like X, the overarching requirement is for the maintenance of routine and stability, predictability, consistency and familiarity in his care providers and regime; I accept his evidence to the effect that children like X struggle with social and emotional regulation and struggle to form and maintain relationships - they can struggle to adapt to new environments, friends, school and, I infer, therapists; I accept his evidence to the effect that, for it to be successful, any change should be carefully managed, planned and gradual so as to, I infer, minimise the potential adverse impacts on X, which may include what I will describe as generalised regression.
3. I do not join in the mother's view that moving to live in Country B with her now would not be a big change or move for X. The reality is that, for X, Australia is now his home - he has lived here for approximately half of his lifetime; he has only ever participated in the Australian education system; he has received significant therapeutic and educational support here in a way that is now familiar to him; he has his home, his friends, his routines, his therapists, the familiarity of the care provided by his father and, in essence, his life in Australia. Moving now to live in Country B - even though it would see him return to the country of his birth and the care of his maternal family - would, in my view, result in the complete destruction of the very stability that is so important for him to achieve his potential.
4. Further, the complete destruction of his routines and his stability would, I consider, be highly likely to cause X significant anxiety and regression and would likely lead to substantial disruptions to his physical, psychological, and emotional well-being. I think it highly likely that he would struggle significantly to cope with the myriad of changes which moving now to live with his mother in Country B would require him to manage - he would be required to adapt to a new education system; he would be required to deal with the loss of his friends and to engage in the process of making new friends; he would lose the therapeutic supports that have been available to him and he would be required to negotiate all that is involved in engaging with new therapists and, potentially, a different way of receiving therapeutic inputs and support; he would lose his relationship with the paediatrician who has overseen his management since 2020 and he would be required to engage with a new paediatrician; he would have to get used to living in City F again rather than in Region E and he would lose the familiar care of his father - everything which constitutes his life at present would be gone.
5. None of his routines would remain; nothing would be familiar and, I suspect, nothing would feel as safe as it currently does.
6. Given all of these matters, the advantages to X of moving to live in Country B with his mother now would, in my view, have to be far more overwhelming than they are to justify the complete disruption of his life. Consequently, I consider that his best interests will be met by continuing to live in Australia with the father and by being afforded the opportunities to continue to communicate with his mother while she is in Country B and to spend time with her when she is in Australia.

1. I accept that each parent told Ms D, in essence, that they have struggled to co-parent effectively.
2. Whilst I accept Ms D's assertion that it is imperative for the parents to acquire effective communication and co-parenting skills, each parent agreed, when cross-examined, that their communication is very poor. Such does not augur well for the prospects of effective and efficient joint decision making about the major long-term issues relating to X; consequently, I consider that his best interests will be better met by according sole decision making responsibility to the father. In this way, decisions about such matters can be made in a timely fashion, albeit with the benefit of input from both parents.
3. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the father has any intention of moving X to live in any country other than Australia. However, given the impact any such move would almost inevitably have on X's ability to spend time with the mother in accordance with the orders which will be made, it is, I think, appropriate and proper to exclude this aspect of the major long-term issues relating to X from the scope of his sole decision-making responsibility.

1. Given X's need for routine, I think it appropriate that the mother is required to provide the father with notice of her presence in Australia (and also of her intention to spend time with X in the manner which will be provided for in the order) so that the father can properly prepare him to spend time with her. It is also appropriate that, if the mother fails to provide the required notices, the father has the liberty to make alternative arrangements for X's care and is not required to, in essence, wait around in case she wants to spend time with X.
2. Whilst the father proposed that X spend time with the mother in Australia until he is 12 years of age, after which the mother be at liberty to spend time with X in a country which is a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, I am not persuaded that such an order is one which is currently in X's best interests. I have arrived at this conclusion because of the difficulties which can attend attempts to ensure, once a child has left Australia, that the child's travel is restricted to only "Hague Convention" countries and my residual concerns, following the mother's evidence, about the possibility that, if permitted to remove X from Australia, she may not return him to this country.
3. Of course, if a particular occasion arises for which either parent would like to remove X from the country, they would be able to apply in relation to the same, no doubt supported by appropriate evidence.
4. Given that it is agreed that X currently does not have a passport, it is, I think, appropriate that his parents take all steps necessary to obtain one for him. If a parent does not sign whatever documents necessary to obtain a replacement Country B passport, then a Registrar of the court shall be empowered to sign such documents in lieu of that parent. As I intend to make an order restraining both parents from removing X from the Commonwealth of Australia without further order of the court (and that his name is placed on the watch list maintained in force at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia), there can be no difficulty, in my view, with the father retaining possession of the passport once it has issued.
5. For the reasons expressed above, the orders set out at the commencement of these Reasons are the orders which I consider to be in X's best interests and to be proper.

I certify that the preceding seventy (70) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Hogan.

[1] Provided he gives appropriate notice and X continues to attend school if it is during term time.

[3] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60B.

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

[6] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CA and s 65AA.

[7] See, for example: AMS v AIF (1999) 199 CLR 160 at 207-208.

[9] Bolitho and Cohen [2005] FamCA 458; (2005) FLC 93-224 at [72].

[10] See, for example: U v U [2002] HCA 36; (2002) 211 CLR 238 at [89] per Gummow and Callinan JJ with whom Gleeson CJ, McHugh and Hayne JJ agreed.

[11] See: Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36; (2015) FLC 93-637 (whilst said in the context of a consideration of interim proceedings, there is no reason why the underlying principle does not apply to the final disposition of proceedings).

[12] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC(2)(a) and s 60CC(2A).

[13] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC(2)(e).

[14] With whom the Independent Children's Lawyer met on 18 July 2024 and 3 July 2025.

[15] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC(2)(b).

[16] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC(2)(b) and (c).

[17] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC(3)(b).

[18] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC(d).

[19] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC(d).

[20] Morden & Coad [2019] FamCAFC 233 at [13] and the reference to U v U [2002] HCA 36; (2002) 211 CLR 238 per Gummow and Callinan JJ (with whom Gleeson CJ, McHugh and Hayne JJ agreed) at [90]; CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172 per the plurality at 218-219.