AMS v AIF

1. The parties have joint decision-making responsibility for X.
2. The parties consult with each other about major long-term issues in relation to X and make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision about such issues, including issues about:

(a) X's education, including choice of school (both current and future);

(b) X's religious and cultural upbringing;

(c) X's health; and

(d) Changes to X's living arrangement that make it significantly more difficult for her to live with or spend time with the other parent.

1. The Mother and Father have sole decision-making responsibility for making decisions about X's day-to-day care, whenever she is in their respective care.

1. X shall live with the mother.
2. X shall live with the father during school terms as follows:

(a) Until the commencement of Term 3 in the year X turns 6 from after school or preschool Friday to before school or preschool Monday each alternate weekend and each Wednesday from after school or preschool to before school or preschool each Thursday

(b) Thereafter with the Father, from the conclusion of School on the Monday following the period in Order 6(a) until the commencement of School the following Monday, and each alternate week thereafter.

1. X shall live with the Mother and Father for half of each School Holiday Period as agreed subject to Order 7(c) and, failing agreement as follows:

(a) With the Mother:

(i) For the first half of each School Holiday Period in each year ending in an odd number and each alternate year thereafter, such period to commence at the conclusion of the School Term and to conclude at 12.30pm on the middle day of the School Holiday Period; and

(ii) For the second half of each School Holiday Period in each year ending in an even number and each alternate year thereafter, such period to commence at 12.30pm on the middle day of the School Holiday Period and to conclude at the commencement of the School Term.

(b) With the Father:

(i) For the first half of each School Holiday Period in each year ending in an even number and each alternate year thereafter, such period to commence at the conclusion of the School Term and to conclude at 12.30pm on the middle day of the School Holiday Period;

(ii) For the second half of each School Holiday Period in each year ending in an odd number and each alternate year thereafter, such period to commence at 12.30pm on the middle day of the School Holiday Period and to conclude at the commencement of the School Term.

(c) For the Christmas School Holiday Period 2025/2026 the Father and Mother shall spend time with X in alternating weekly blocks with the Mother for the first 7 nights from the last day of school/preschool and each alternate 7 days thereafter.

1. The Mother be entitled to elect, in relation to one of the School Holiday Periods following the conclusion of Term 1, Term 2 or Term 3 in each calendar year, to spend the whole of that School Holiday Period with X ("Travel Option"), provided that:

(a) The Mother only exercises the Travel Option in the event that she intends to travel with X to the USA during that School Holiday Period;

(b) The Mother gives the Father not less than 2 months' written notice of her intention to exercise the Travel Option; and

(c) In the event the Mother exercises the Travel Option, X spend the whole of that School Holiday Period with the Mother.

1. Notwithstanding any other Order to the contrary, X spend time on special occasions with the Mother and Father as follows:

(a) During the Christmas School Holiday period, X spend time with the parties as agreed, and failing agreement, as follows:

(i) With the Father:

1. From 4:00pm on 24 December until midday on 25 December in each year ending in an even number; and
2. From midday on 25 December until 9:00am on 26 December in each year ending in an odd number.

(ii) With the Mother:

1. From 4:00pm on 24 December until midday on 25 December in each year ending in an odd number; and
2. From midday on 25 December until 9:00am on 26 December in each year ending in an even number.

(b) On her birthday, X spend time with the party that is not otherwise caring for her, for at least 2 hours as agreed and, failing agreement:

(i) From 2.00pm to 4.00pm if the day is not a School day; and

(ii) From after school to 6.00pm if the day is a School day.

(c) On the Mother's birthday, if X is not otherwise in the Mother's care, X spend at least 3 hours with the Mother as agreed and, failing agreement:

(i) From 9.00am to 12.00pm if the day is not a School day; and

(ii) From after school to 7.00pm if the day is a School day.

(d) On the Father's birthday, if X is not otherwise in the Father's care, X spend at least 3 hours with the Father as agreed and, failing agreement:

(i) From 9.00am to 12.00pm if the day is not a School day; and

(ii) From after school to 7.00pm if the day is a School day.

1. If X is not already in the mother's care for the weekend incorporating Mother's Day, then the father's time with X be suspended from after school or preschool on the Friday before Mother's Day until school or preschool on the Monday;
2. If X is not already in the father's care for the weekend incorporating Father's Day, then the mother's time with X be suspended from after school or preschool on the Friday before Father's Day until school or preschool on the Monday;
3. For the purposes of facilitating changeovers:

(a) Where changeovers fall on a School day, changeover occur at School; and

(b) Where changeovers fall on a non-school day the father collect X from the Mother's residence at the commencement of his care period and return her to the Mother's residence at the conclusion of her care period.

1. X be permitted to communicate with each party at all reasonable times when they are not in that party's care by telephone or mobile as agreed and, failing agreement, each Wednesday and Friday from 6.00pm to 6.30pm.

1. Each party must notify the other of the name of any general practitioner, paediatrician or other specialist who treats X when X is in that party's care and provide to that person any authority necessary so that the other party can contact the person to obtain all information regarding the treatment and care of X.
2. Each party keep the other advised of their current residential address, email address and contact telephone number and advise the other of any changes within 48 hours of such change occurring.
3. Each party notify the other of any serious illnesses or injuries suffered by X while in that party's care as soon as reasonably practicable and shall provide reasonable particulars as to the name and contact details of X's treating doctor and any hospital, medical facility or healthcare provider to which X has been taken.

1. Pursuant to section 65(Y)(2)(b) of the Act, each party be permitted to take X out of the Commonwealth of Australia and travel with her during a period in which X is in that party's care, provided that the party wishing to travel with X:

(a) Gives the other party 2 calendar months' notice of the intention to travel overseas with X including the primary destination;

(b) Provides written confirmation to the other party that any travel overseas will be limited to countries which are parties to the Hague Convention and to countries where there is no current travel warning advising against non-essential travel to that country has been issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trading;

(c) At least 14 days prior to the departure, provides to the other party:

(i) Copies of return tickets for X;

(ii) A detailed itinerary including a specific return date, addresses and phone numbers for the accommodation in which X will be staying;

(iii) A list of all of the countries in which X will be visiting (whether in transit or otherwise); and

(d) The Father will hold X's Australian passport and will not unreasonably withhold the passport from the Mother upon the Mother giving the Father notice of any proposed travel in accordance with these Orders and the Mother will return the passport to the Father within 3 days of returning to Australia with X.

(e) The Mother will hold X's American passport and will not unreasonably withhold the passport from the Father upon the Father giving the Mother notice of any proposed travel in accordance with these Orders, and the Father will return the passport to the Mother within 3 days of returning to Australia with X.

(f) Until X turns 8 and thereafter as agreed between the parties, on one occasion each year, the Father pay 50% of the cost of a return economy airline ticket for X to travel to/from the USA with the Mother.

1. The Mother be restrained from relocating X's residence out of the Sydney metropolitan area, without the prior written consent of the Father.

1. That each of the parents do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to ensure that the child's school(s) from time to time, provides each parent with a copy of the child's school reports as well as any other written material relating to the child's school(s), academic, sporting, social or other extracurricular activities, including school newsletters and notices.
2. That this order constitutes an authority for the child's school(s) to provide to each of the parents any and all information requested by either one of the parties in relation to the child's education, attendance and progress upon request and provide to each parent, at their own expense, copies of all school reports, any other report on school progress and behavioural issues, and all school circulars and letters in relation to the child, including access to any online 'App' or Portal used to share information about the child.
3. That each of the parents be at liberty to attend and engage in any school, sporting, after school, recreation, educational or other activity in which the child is involved even if such events fall outside their usual time, and shall do all acts and sign all documents necessary to ensure that the other parent is informed of all such activities, and provide reasonable notice thereof to facilitate their attendance.
4. That each of the parents shall do all acts and things necessary to ensure that any enrolment form or such other document requiring information as a parent, emergency contact and/or authorised person to deliver or collect the child from school, extra-curricular activity or other activity in which the child may partake shall include the other parent's name and contact details and shall provide a copy of the enrolment form to the other parent within 24 hours of submitting same.

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

1. These are proceedings pursuant to Pt VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") in relation to the parties' only child X ("X") born 2021.
2. The mother sought orders in broad terms for sole decision-making responsibility, that X live with her, and that she be at "liberty to relocate the child's residence to the USA no earlier than 14 December 2025" (Exhibit 11). The mother put forward various proposals in relation to time with the father, if both parties lived in the USA, if the mother and the child lived in the USA and the father in Australia, or where both parties lived in Australia.
3. Essentially, the mother's proposal was that in the event she resided in the USA with the child and the father resided in Australia, the father would spend time with the child for a period of two weeks in the USA school holidays and two weeks in the Australian summer school holidays, albeit until the child turned seven, the father's time with the child during the two-week period would be broken up such that the father would spend one week with the child, who would then return to the mother for 48 hours before returning to the father.
4. In the event that both parties lived in Australia, the mother's orders provided for the child to spend time with the father on an increasing basis until she turned six years old by which time she would be spending four nights a fortnight with the father and half school holidays. The mother's orders were more precisely set out in Exhibit 11.
5. The father for his part sought orders for joint decision-making responsibility, for the child to remain living in Australia, and for the parties to have an equal-time arrangement including half school holidays. The father's orders provided a mechanism for the mother to have a longer school holiday period to enable her to return to the USA for a holiday. The father otherwise proposed that in the event that the child lived in the USA, he would have block periods of time in the USA and Australian summer holidays. The father's orders were more precisely set out in Exhibit 10.

1. Each of the parties filed Case Outline documents that recorded the evidence relied upon. In the case of the mother, the documents relied upon included an affidavit of herself, her mother, and her treating psychiatrist. Each of the mother, the maternal grandmother, and her treating psychiatrist were cross-examined. In the case of the father, the documents relied upon included an affidavit of himself and an affidavit of his psychologist. The father was cross-examined but the father's psychologist was not required for cross-examination.
2. A Specific Issues Report dated 10 September 2025 was prepared by Dr B (Exhibit 3). Dr B ("the Report writer") was cross-examined by both parties.

1. The father was born in 1982 and is 43 years old. He is English by birth.
2. The mother was born in 1986 and is 39 years old. She is American by birth.
3. The parties met in June 2013 in Country D while working for the same company and in late 2014, the parties commenced cohabitation in the USA. In mid-2016, the parties married in the United Kingdom, and they then moved to Australia a short time later in 2016.
4. They were each granted permanent residency in Australia in early 2021.
5. In 2021, the parties' only daughter, X, was born in Sydney. At the time of the hearing, X was four years old.
6. The parties are at issue as to the date of separation. The mother contends that the parties separated in February 2024, while the father contends the parties separated in August 2023. It is unnecessary to resolve this issue.
7. Upon the parties' separation, X lived with her mother and initially spent only daytime with her father. She transitioned to spending overnight time with the father up to five nights a fortnight. X had commenced daycare at the C School three to four days per week from 7 May 2024.
8. The parties are at issue as to the mother's time in the US and her plans on returning to Australia with X. The mother says that on or about late 2024, her family members told her that her father would likely pass away within two weeks. She says she told the father that she wanted to go to the US and that she did not commit to returning to Australia at any specific time. She says:
   1. I took leave without pay from my contract role with [a government health service] and purchased one-way airline tickets for X and me, departing Sydney on 13 October 2024. I informed [Mr Kristof] of this. I planned to return to Australia with [X], but did not know on what date I would do so. [Mr Kristof] drove [X] and me to Sydney airport.
   2. My Dad passed away [in late] 2024. The period since my Dad's death has been very difficult for me. In addition to the emotional toll involved in grieving, there are ongoing issues regarding the settlement of his Estate.

...

1. Throughout the time I was in the US, I continued to keep [Mr Kristof] updated as to the status of my Dad's Estate and reassured [Mr Kristof] that I would return to Sydney once my father's Estate had settled and I had the means to return as a single mother. I no longer consider this to be tenable. The trust between me and [Mr Kristof] has completely broken down. I was already struggling in Sydney prior to returning in [late] 2024, and now that my relationship with [Mr Kristof] has broken down further, I am struggling even more. I believe that continuing to live in Australia would be extremely detrimental to my health, which would be very adverse for [X], as well as exposing her to conflict. Further, the longer I spent in the US, the more I doubted that it was in [X's] best interests to return to Sydney.

1. While they were in the US, the father visited X on two separate occasions; for Christmas between 20 December 2024 - 3 January 2025, and for X's birthday in 2025.
2. In May 2025, the father commenced proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of State M City O Division ("US District Court") seeking X's return to Australia ("Hague Proceedings"). The father did not notify the mother that he intended to commence Hague Proceedings; however, he says that the mother was well aware that he did not consent to X remaining in the USA.
3. The mother says:
   1. [In] May 2025, and completely to my surprise, [Mr Kristof] filed a Hague Convention Application, alleging that I had wrongfully removed and retained [X] from Australia. I was served with [Mr Kristof'sHague Convention Application [in] May 2025.

...

1. I was blindsided by [Mr Kristof's Hague Convention application. At no point did [Mr Kristof] tell me that he would commence legal proceedings against me if I did not return to Sydney...

1. The mother agreed to return to Australia with X and consent orders were made to this effect in June 2025 by the US District Court. The mother and X arrived back in Sydney in July 2025.
2. The mother has lived in three separate places since her return to Australia with X and has sought financial assistance from the father to assist with paying her accommodations costs and to provide for the living expenses of herself and X.
3. The mother says that she currently does not have the capacity to obtain employment. She says:
   1. Since returning to Sydney [in] July 2025, I have not looked for employment. I don't consider that I currently have the capacity to obtain employment, and I do not know if I will be permitted to relocate to the US or not. At the moment, I find it a struggle to get out of bed. I am extremely stressed by these proceedings, my financial circumstances, and my lack of permanent housing. I am still grieving the loss of my father, and am worried about my mother. I am focused on parenting [X] and being available to her at all times, especially as I am conscious that she is facing significant change. As deposed herein, the latest [X] can finish school at the moment is 3:00pm. I am not in a position to afford childcare, which would make my ability to work normal work hours untenable.
   2. In the event that this Honourable Court does not permit me to relocate to the US, I will have to find a job. I do not believe that I currently have the capacity to find an executive job that is in line with my experience and qualifications. I would likely need to find a casual or a part time job, and I assume I would earn less money than I am accustomed to. I do not know how much I would be earning or where I would be able to afford to live.

...

1. I am concerned about how I will manage to care for [X if I am unable to return to the US, especially because I would be required to find a job. While [Mr Kristof] is currently providing me with physical assistance to care for [X] at times where, for example, I have been very unwell, I do not know how tenable this would be for [Mr Kristof] on a longterm basis moving forward. [Mr Kristof] works on a full-time basis. He also does not have a car and I do not know where I would be required to move to, and how we would facilitate transport and the like for [X]. We have historically relied on a nanny to assist us to care for [X] because neither of us have any family supports here. I believe our living standards and quality of life here in Sydney would be significantly lower than what could be offered to [X] in the US.

1. The father says the mother will not have difficulty finding work in Australia. He says:
   1. I do not believe [Ms Brittney] will face any difficulty finding work or financially supporting herself in Australia. [Ms Brittney] is an Australian citizen. She holds a [degree] from the P University and is a consultant by profession, specialised in complex change management. She has extensive employment experience in Sydney and a network of professional mentors in executive and partner-level roles in both private and government sectors. She is highly regarded throughout NSW [government agency] and in a number of large consulting firms. When she last sought employment in early 2024, I understand that she had made it through numerous second, third, and fourth-round interviews for roles with a salary in excess of $200,000 per annum. [Ms Brittney] and I work in the same industry, and should she wish, I can connect her with relevant recruiters. As far as I am aware, [Ms Brittney] has not taken any steps to try to find employment since returning to Australia in [mid] 2025.
2. The arrangements for the care of X as between the parties have been somewhat flexible following X's return to Australia with her mother. X has spent time with her father on at least Tuesdays and Thursdays from after pre-school until 6.30 pm and from 9.00 am on Saturday to 12.00 pm and for longer periods by agreement. The Report writer recorded that both parents stated that X appears to cope well in her father's care.
3. The mother's psychiatrist, Dr F, opines that the mother has ADHD and PTSD.
4. The father contends the emotional harm X may suffer as a result of international relocation are compounded by the mother's historical and current mental health issues.
5. He contends that the mother's relationship with her family in the USA is fraught, such that reliance on the maternal family to provide accommodation for the mother and X is uncertain. He says:
   1. Since I have known [Ms Brittney], she has always had a fraught relationship with various members of her family including her mother. Notwithstanding [Ms Brittney's] views about her family, we both acknowledged that it was important for them to maintain a relationship with [X].
   2. During the relationship, there were frequent and extended periods of time where [Ms Brittney] refused to speak to various extended family members, most notably her parents and sister. For example:

214.1. [Ms Brittney's] mother does not have any relationship with her sister ( [Ms Brittney's] aunt).

214.2. In October 2019, [Ms Brittney's] sister, [Ms H], obtained a restraining order for her protection against [Ms Brittney's] mother. [Ms H] and [Ms Brittney's] mother no longer see or speak to each other.

214.3. Since the death of [Ms Brittney's] father, [Ms Brittney's] relationship with [Ms H] and [Ms Brittney's] brother, [Mr K] known as '[...]' ("[Mr K]"), has been strained due to issues relating to the administration of her father's estate. I understand that [Ms Brittney] is no longer speaking to either of her siblings.

...

1. Based on my observations during our relationship, [Ms Brittney's] interactions with her family, particularly her mother and siblings, were often volatile and stressful for [Ms Brittney]. This history creates uncertainty as to whether her family members can provide reliable assistance if [Ms Brittney] and [X] were to reside near them. I hold concerns that [Ms Brittney] returning to live amongst her fractured family relationships will negatively impact [Ms Brittney's] wellbeing and her ability to provide consistent emotional stability for [X] without my support.

1. The mother contends that the father has perpetrated family and domestic violence against her and that she perceived him to be threatening. She says that he would hit himself in the face, pinch the bridge of his nose, and bite his fist. She says that this behaviour scared her and that she has witnessed X biting her fist when she is angry causing her concern that X is copying the father's behaviours. She says:
   1. 170. I consider some of [Mr Kristof's] behaviours towards me both prior to and following our separation to be manipulative, coercive and controlling. Since [Mr Kristof]Mr Kristof brought Hague Convention Application proceedings against me in the US, I have limited trust in him and I hold concerns about his ability to make child-focused decisions that are in [X's] best interests.
2. The father concedes that he engaged in behaviour such as biting his fists but says that he recognised that this was an inappropriate coping mechanism and has attended upon his therapist to rectify these behaviours.

1. Parenting proceedings are governed by Pt VII of the Act. In making a parenting order, s 60CA of the Act requires the Court to regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. In determining what is in the child's best interests, s 60CC(2) of the Act sets out the matters that are required to be considered. No one matter takes priority over the other.
2. The matters to be considered are:

60CC How a court determines what is in a child's best interests

...

General considerations

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), the court must consider the following matters:

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

(i) the child; and

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

(b) any views expressed by the child;

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

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

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

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

1. In considering the matters in s 60CC(2)(a) of the Act, the Court must, pursuant to s 60CC(2A) of the Act consider any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child together with any family violence order that applies in relation to the child or a member of the child's family.
2. Section 60CG of the Act requires the Court, when making a parenting order, to ensure the order does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence and is consistent with an existing family violence order. While the mother raised issues of family violence there was no suggestion of an unacceptable risk of family violence, nor is there an existing family violence order.
3. In a case where a party seeks to move to a different location, sometimes referred to as a relocation case, the Court has to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each party's proposals albeit it is not bound by those proposals in determining what is in the child's best interests (U v U [2002] HCA 36; (2002) 211 CLR 238 ("U v U") at [80]).
4. A relocation case is to be determined in the same way as any other parenting case, they are not a special category of case (Morgan & Miles [2007] FamCA 1230; (2007) FLC 93-343 at [72]; Sayer v Radcliffe [2012] FamCAFC 209; (2012) 48 Fam LR 298 ("Sayer v Radcliff") at [47]-[48]).
5. In Saar & Briedis [2025] FedCFamC1A 138 the Full Court recently observed as follows:
   1. Order 2, in terms, "permitted" the respondent to relocate the residence of the child. Whilst commonly used, it is an unfortunate word which tends to focus the case as to one of permission to move a child's residence, or even worse the parent's residence, and the reasons for the move, rather than on the fundamental issue which is what orders are in the child's best interests.
   2. In Babcock & Waddell [2019] FamCAFC 129, Aldridge J, with the agreement of Ryan J, raised this point at [140] and referred to the following:

I do not consider that the references in the reasons of the primary judge and in those of the Full Court to the provision of "permission" to the mother to return to the Northern Territory with her son indicated an erroneous understanding of the decision which had actually to be made. As I have shown, this was the very way in which the parties framed their respective affidavits and presented their arguments. It was unsurprising, therefore, that the judges should also slip into the same language. Notwithstanding this, it would be preferable that such references to "permission" to relocate be avoided. The word has a tendency to distract attention from the jurisdiction actually being exercised. In this case, it concerned the custody and guardianship of the child, residence arrangements and access and contact orders, all of which fell to be decided having regard to the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration. To treat the determination of the residence of the child, and the connected issue of custody, as dependent upon the giving or withholding of "permission" to a parent to relocate his or her residence may divert attention from the child's welfare, to the competing needs and demands of the parents in conflict.

(Footnotes omitted)

142 To a similar effect, Hayne J said at [217]-[218]:

... But that does not mean that the question for the Court is whether the mother is to be permitted to move to Darwin. And it does not mean that the question is whether the mother has shown a "good" or a "compelling" reason for wanting to move.

To translate the question into this form - has the mother shown a good, or good enough, reason for wanting to move - focuses attention upon the reasons and motives of the mother. But that is not the proper focus of inquiry. The proper focus is which is better for the child - to be in the custody of the father (in Perth) or to be in the custody of the mother (in Darwin). That, of course, requires attention to what benefits will the child have, and what detriments will the child suffer, from being in the mother's custody in Darwin ...

(Original emphasis)

1. While the Full Court in Sayer v Radcliffe observed:
   1. A requirement in relocation cases is that judges faced with a parent wanting to relocate must consider the competing proposals of both parents: see Palmer (No 2) at [76]; Morgan at [80]-[81]. It is not simply a matter of comparing the relocating party's proposal against the status quo and allowing or denying relocation. Rather the court must consider each party's proposal on its merits, in accordance with the prescribed legislative pathway.
2. In such a case, a parent is not required to establish "compelling reasons" in support of their proposed residence (AMS v AIF (1999) 199 CLR 160; U v U). In Franklyn & Franklyn [2019] FamCAFC 256, the Full Court explained the applicable law in these terms:
   1. There is an inherent tension between, on the one hand, separated parents being able to establish new homes wherever they like and, on the other, their restraint by injunction from living too far apart to avoid any impingement of their children's ability to retain meaningful relationships with both parents. The conflict is between the best interests of the children to know and have regular personal contact with each parent and the interests of the parents to enjoy a high measure of freedom of movement which is not lost by reason only of their parental responsibility for the children (see AMS v AIF (1999) 199 CLR 160 ("AMS v AIF") at 196, 206, 207-208, 210). The tension at the intersection of those conflicting interests is even greater when an order is sought, not just to restrain one parent's move further away, but to compel the parent who has already moved away to return and establish a new residence closer to the other parent.
3. The authorities make clear that while the child's best interests are the paramount consideration, it is not the only consideration.

1. I am satisfied that the Report writer prepared a well-reasoned and comprehensive report within the limitations she identified. I found her to be an impressive witness who listened carefully to the questions she was asked and provided insightful, helpful, and fulsome answers. I place great weight on her observations.
2. The Report writer recorded that X attends a C pre-school and that there were no developmental, social, or emotional concerns raised by the school. She observed that both parents provided a similar description of X and concluded that they both have a good sense of her personality and interests. Given her age, the Report writer decided not to interview her.
3. Both parents reported that X has a positive and secure attachment with each parent albeit the mother reported to the Report writer that since her return to Australia, X had been clingier, followed the mother around the house, tried to comfort the mother when she cries, wanted to be carried, and had begun hitting her mother. The Report writer recorded that the mother in the context of these reported behaviours:
   1. ... acknowledged that [X] has experienced many recent changes and would likely be picking up on [Ms Brittney's] distress which would be a reasonable explanation for this behaviour.
4. No party sought to suggest that such observation and/or conclusion was incorrect.
5. The Report writer observed that the mother's mood was low and she was teary throughout most of the interview, however, observed that her affect was reactive and mood congruent. She recorded that her thought content was primarily related to negative thoughts about herself and her difficulty in coping with the current situation. She records that she spoke respectfully about the father and concluded that she "presented as a loving mother who is struggling to cope having to return to Australia" (at paragraph 32). I agree with that last observation.
6. The Report writer recorded a history in relation to the mother's relationship with her family in the following terms:
   1. She said she was close to all her family and that the maternal grandfather had the ability to repair and would sit with her and apologise whereas the maternal grandmother didn't have the capacity to say she made a mistake and apologise for it. She said she had a different relationship with each parent but was equally close to both.

...

1. [Ms Brittney] said her family started to crumble in 2018 and hasn't recovered. She reported that she spent a lot of time in couples therapy unpacking her family of origin issues because in her mind it had been perfect, she had predictability and consistency with her parents always available to her, the maternal great grandfather lived next door, and she had a close relationship with the maternal extended family.
2. She stated that there were no interactions with the maternal grandmother that stood out to her as traumatic until it came up during Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) treatment and it was pointed out to her.

1. In relation to her mental health history, the Report writer recorded as follows:
   1. [Ms Brittney] described finding leaving home to study at college difficult and overwhelming due to the change in what she was familiar with. She reported that this settled with social support. In 2010 her GP diagnosed her with adjustment disorder and panic and prescribed Lexapro and alprazolam (Xanax). She was told to take Xanax as needed whenever she felt panic and to help her feel calmer when flying. She was not given any psychoeducation or psychological intervention to learn how to manage the anxiety and panic leading to a dependence on medication. She saw a psychologist later after a GP recommendation but did not find it helpful.
2. She reported to the Report writer that in 2014 she was diagnosed with ADHD and prescribed lisdexamphetamine and currently takes 10 milligrams two to three times daily. The mother has over the years engaged with a number of psychologists including Dr G, Ms J, and most recently Ms L and Dr F, psychiatrist.
3. In relation to her current mental health, the Report writer recorded as follows:
   1. [Ms Brittney] described her mood as "not good". She said she has no energy, hasn't been leaving the house and that she feels like a fish out of water. She reported that it gets worse every day but that she has been faking being ok in front of [X]. She described being in shock since the Hague Convention proceedings and said she feels constantly under threat because the one person she can rely on in Sydney wants to hurt her. She stated that there are days when she hasn't been able to speak. She was teary frequently throughout the interview.
   2. She reported that she has experienced suicidal ideation in the past and these thoughts have reemerged recently. She denied plans or intent but stated that she feels alone, can't see a way through this and thinks what is the point. She denied any self-harm or thoughts of harm to others.
   3. [Ms Brittney] said she is "beyond feeling stressed" and is "just so overwhelmed and feels more shut down". She continues to experience panic attacks. She stated that she can't be present with [X] at these times, is finding it hard to function and feels like she can't do anything. She has no appetite but is trying to eat and is having difficulty sleeping both due to her brain feeling unable to shut off, and connecting with supports in the United States which occurs late at night due to the time difference. She denied experiencing nightmares but stated that she wakes up drenched in sweat. She denied ever experiencing symptoms of psychosis.
   4. She denied many current symptoms of PTSD including re-experiencing or avoidance but does present with sleep disturbance, feelings of estrangement from others, persistent negative beliefs about herself, a persistent negative emotional state and marked diminished interest and participation in significant activities. It is possible that her current presentation could be diagnosed as major depressive disorder or adjustment disorder, however, for the purpose of this short form Specific Issues Report the main consideration is that her current mental state is characterised by persistent distress, low mood, anxiety, feelings of hopelessness, withdrawal and suicidal ideation that is causing significant impairment in her current functioning.
   5. Whether this would resolve by returning to the United States is difficult to predict, however she reported that she felt more stable and was working on reducing her diazepam use prior to the Hague Convention proceedings being initiated. She also reports having supports in the United States whereas she considers that her previous support system in Australia appears to have reduced since her return. [Mr Kristof] stated that they have excellent supports in Sydney, have built a community and that he has encouraged their friends to remain supportive of [Ms Brittney].
   6. [Ms Brittney] appeared to hold the view that [Mr Kristof] initiated the Hague proceedings to hurt her and expressed feelings of abandonment regarding the separation. She did not appear able to consider [Mr Kristof's] perspective, the impact on [Mr Kristof] of her and [X] staying indefinitely in the United States or of the impact of relocation on the relationship between him and [X]. [Ms Brittney] presents with a history of distress and difficulty coping with change. This may suggest underlying personality vulnerabilities or be linked to her childhood experiences and likely exacerbated the impact of separation and of the current situation on [Ms Brittney]. The recent passing of the maternal grandfather is another factor impacting on her coping.
   7. She appears to be well supported by [Ms L] and [Dr F], however it was difficult to ascertain how much she has benefitted from psychological intervention to address her coping strategies given her current presentation.
4. In relation to the father, the Report writer described his mood as euthymic and his affect was reactive and mood congruent. She reported that he spoke respectfully about the mother and presented as a loving father, distressed at the thought of X relocating to the USA. I accept this last observation.
5. In relation to the father's mental health, he reported to the Report writer that he commenced attending his current psychologist in December 2020. In relation to his attendances upon her, the Report writer recorded as follows:
   1. Initially he attended sessions with [Ms N] monthly but increased the frequency to weekly for a period when he was finding issues in the relationship difficult to manage and said they were "white knuckling" things and trying to work around [X] because [Ms Brittney] hadn't wanted to employ a nanny. He described the situation feeling unmanageable and unsustainable and acknowledged that this started to manifest in physical behaviours such as hitting himself and biting his fist as described by [Ms Brittney]. He said, "it was a terrible, horrible coping mechanism and not at all constructive, but I didn't have any other strategies". He stated that noticing [X biting her fist was a huge part of his reason for resolving these behaviours.
   2. He reported that [Ms N]helped him to notice his feelings and physical sensations and put in place different coping mechanisms. He said he feels more capable now, no longer struggles with the same feelings of frustration and powerlessness and can cope if these feelings arise. [Ms N's] report is consistent with this assertion, and she states that at their last meeting on 31 July 2025 he was not suffering from any psychological condition, did not meet the criteria for any diagnosis and does not require further psychological treatment other than support with the current stressors relating to the family law proceedings. She asserts that he will most certainly go through a significant period of grief if [X] relocates to the United States (Affidavit of [Ms N], p 10).
6. The Report writer recorded that there were no current concerns evident with regard to the father's emotional regulation or distress tolerance. I accept this conclusion.
7. The Report writer expressed no concerns about any impact of the father's mental health on his parenting capacity. She described him as showing good insight into the impact of parental conflict and parental distress on the child and appeared conscious of the impact of his parenting style and use of language. I accept this evidence.
8. The Report writer expressed no concerns with either party's general parenting capacity but did conclude that the mother's current mental state was impacting on her parenting capacity. In relation to the mother's use of prescription drugs, she reported as follows:
   1. [Ms Brittney's] dependence on diazepam or other benzodiazepine medications as a coping strategy is concerning as she does not appear to have any other coping strategies and these medications are considered drugs of dependence and addiction. While it is acknowledged that her current mental state makes it difficult to build new coping strategies, and how the initial reliance on medication occurred, it is unclear why this hasn't been addressed previously.
   2. Long term benzodiazepine use has been linked to cognitive deficits (Zetsen et al., 2022), and withdrawal can lead to an increase in anxiety, insomnia and irritability as well as other physical symptoms (Chapoutot et al., 2021), all of which are likely to impact on [Ms Brittney's] parenting capacity. Her current dependence on medications also impacts on her capacity to support [X] to manage stressful situations and develop helpful coping mechanisms.
   3. Her connection with [Dr F] and [Ms L] is positive and protective, however her capacity to continue to engage in these therapies will be impacted by relocation to the United States or by her financial capacity if she remains unemployed in Sydney.
9. In relation to the mother's proposals for time between X and her father, she recorded as follows:
   1. [Ms Brittney] seeks to limit [X's] time spent with [Mr Kristof] if they are to reside in the same location citing [X's] difficulty settling on her return to [Ms Brittney]'s care and [Mr Kristof's] previous self-harm type behaviours when he was feeling frustrated.
   2. X has spent extended periods in Mr Kristof's care since returning to Sydney due to Ms Brittney's ill health and neither parent reported any difficulties in X transitioning between the parents or coping with her time spent with Mr Kristof and therefore it is difficult to understand why Ms Brittney's proposal for time spent would be in [X's] best interests compared to that proposed by [Mr Kristof].
10. Under the heading of "Evaluation", the Report writer observed as follows:
    1. It is difficult to predict whether [Ms Brittney's] mental health would continue to deteriorate if she was required to remain in Australia or whether she would be able to stabilise once the family law proceedings are finalised and she can access appropriate supports and continue therapy with [Dr F] and [Ms L].
    2. While it seems reasonable to assume that there would be an initial improvement in her mental health if she returns to the United States, it is difficult to predict whether she would maintain this improvement. It would be essential that she is able to connect with appropriate psychological and psychiatric support when she is there to continue to address the underlying causes of her distress and develop appropriate coping strategies.
    3. If [Ms Brittney] can relocate to the United States, she will have the support of the maternal family and friends as well as accommodation in the maternal grandmother's home. This would enable her to get out of debt and reduce her financial stress as well as having childcare options for [X]. This is likely to have a positive impact on her mental health and psychological wellbeing, at least initially, which in turn would have a positive impact on her parenting capacity. [Ms Brittney] also notes that if [X] was to live in the United States, she would be closer to [Mr Kristof's] extended family in the United Kingdom, potentially meaning that she would be able to spend time with them more frequently than if she is in Australia.
    4. If [Ms Brittney] and [X] remain in Australia there is a possibility of an ongoing, detrimental impact on [Ms Brittney's] mental health and financial stability and the risk of homelessness should she not be able to secure employment that allows her to afford rental accommodation. She is likely to remain living in an ongoing state of anxiety at least until she can find employment and more stable accommodation. The stress arising from this has potential to impact on her physical health, further impacting her parenting capacity. This view is supported by [Dr F].
    5. It is likely that should [Ms Brittney] have to remain in Sydney, she would feel resentful towards [Mr Kristof] which may lead to further coparenting difficulties and increased levels of parental conflict which would be detrimental to [X's] wellbeing.
11. She observed that in the event that X relocated to the USA there would be an impact on X's relationship with her father and that given her young age concluded that "it is unclear how well she would retain an attachment with him and how easily she would be able to reengage during her brief visits to Australia" (at paragraph 102). She concluded as follows:
    1. ...Given the short periods of contact, [Mr Kristof] will be unable to participate meaningfully in any aspect of [X's] life including her schooling and general parenting.
12. I accept this evidence. The Report writer identified that:
    1. Research has shown having an absent parent is associated with negative psychological, interpersonal and relational consequences including an increase in depressive symptoms, low academic achievement and high rates of self-criticism.
13. I accept this evidence. The Report writer opined that if the parents and X were able to reside in the same location then X's age and positive connection with her father as well as the overnight time she has spent with her father, suggests "that she is capable of coping with more regular overnight time" (at paragraph 106). In that respect, she opined that predictability and consistency are important for young children and that would help alleviate any distress X may be experiencing. She observed in relation to the father's proposal for a transition to a week-about arrangement occurring prior to X commencing school in 2027 as positive because kindergarten can be a big change for children.
14. The Report writer observed that the key consideration in this matter is having a mother who is mentally well, "including the assumption that returning to the United States will enable this to occur" (at paragraph 107) as against the impact on her relationship with her father should he not be able to relocate to the USA. The Report writer observed that in the event that X remained in Australia, the father's proposal would allow for him to be more involved in X's life including her schooling and be more consistent with the previous spending-time arrangement of five nights a fortnight. She opined that given the father's stable mental state, accommodation, and employment as well as secure social network, X would benefit from time spent with him and their community.
15. During her cross-examination, the Report writer agreed that if the mother's psychosocial stressors remained unresolved then she was at risk of having a major depressive disorder. In relation to the mother's current mental state, she said:

It indicated to me that her mental health is currently in a poor state.

Yes? --- Yes, and it appears as though it has declined since she found out that she was going to need to return to Australia.

Okay. And if it's the case that she were to continue to have these suicidal ideations, would that cause you any concern in terms of her mental wellbeing into the future? Potentially. Many people have suicidal ideation without any plans or intent to follow through with that, which is how the mother presented. You know, it's a common experience when people are feeling stressed and depressed.

(Transcript 24 September 2025, p. 5, lines 25-35)

MR BATEMAN: In terms of - I will move on, your Honour. You appreciate - and one diagnosis you do accept, is that the mother has anxiety? ---Yes.

And I'm not sure there is some form of scale, but in terms of, you know, out of one to 10, where would you place the mother's anxiety at the moment? That's probably a question for the mother rather than for me. It does seem to be quite severe at the moment, but it also seems that that has been the case frequently throughout her, at least, adult life.

(Transcript 24 September 2025, p. 7, lines 30-35)

1. The Report writer was cross examined on the parent' capacity to coparent. She opined:

I think what it appeared to me was that prior to this current source of stress and her having to return to Australia, that they had a pretty reasonably solid co-parenting relationship.

(Transcript 24 September 2025, p. 18, lines 37-40)

1. It was suggested to the Report writer that the mother's PTSD, allegations of family violence, and the father's poor mental health issues which the mother found intimidating would make it unlikely that the parties could effectively coparent to which she replied:

Not necessarily. I - I think the father appears to have addressed those issues in therapy and - and continues to see the same therapist, so if his capacity to communicate has changed and they're not living together and he's no longer using those type of behaviours, then I think that risk would be reduced.

(Transcript 24 September 2025, p 19 lines 11-20)

1. I accept her evidence.
2. The Report writer was asked by the mother's counsel, the following:

And in terms of [X's] wellbeing, is it fair to say that the mother's mental health and that improving and becoming stable and all these sorts of things is the most vital aspect in this case? I don't know that - it is an important aspect. I'm not sure it's the most vital aspect. I would say that her capacity to have a relationship with both parents would be equally if not more important.

(Transcript 24 September 2025, p. 23, lines 1-5)

1. In response to questions by the father's counsel about an improvement to the mother's mental health by moving to the USA, she said:

I think that historically the mother has had issues with coping with changes to her circumstances and coping with stressors and new environments. So there's been many occasions throughout her life, not limited to her being in Australia, where she has had an increase in distress, her moving to college, her first job. So I think that while moving back to the States would definitely - or likely give her a reprieve from those current stressors, my current concern would be that when the next situation occurs that we may see a resumption of distress.

(Transcript 24 September 2025, p. 23, lines 21-30)

1. In respect of the competing proposal, the Report writer responded to the father's counsel question as follows

In terms of the optimal result for [X] and for this family, albeit separated family, is not the best way forward to put in place a period of time of some financial security for the mother, say, six or eight months where her rent is covered and she knows she's getting some periodic child support, she has the capacity to do what she hasn't done, which is make that Centrelink application, to give her the breathing space and stability, as it were, to keep working with [Dr F] and [Ms L]? That's the best, I'm going to suggest to you, plan for the mother to get to the best place she can with her mental health. Do you agree or disagree? I think if that was an option, yes, that would be a very good option.

(Transcript 24 September 2025, p. 24, lines 35-47)

1. In relation to the mother's proposals of living in the USA, the Report writer was asked:

Yes. If it doesn't turn out to be the panacea that she perceives it to be---? Yes.

Then is she - is there risk that she's in the same position as she is here? Yes.

But without the support of the father? Yes, absolutely.

And that would be a diabolical position for [X]? That would be my concern, yes.

(Transcript 24 September 2025, p. 16 line 46 to p. 17 line 10)

Is it naive to assume that everything will just be rosy by returning to the United States? Yes, I would say so.

Right. And it's very much dependent, isn't it, in the United States, on the availability of treaters? Mmm.

The assumption that the mother's relationship with her mother is functionally sound? Yes.

And is maintainable. And in relation to the matters that Mr Bateman asked you questions about, financial security, it's entirely dependent, is it not, on her being able to obtain secure accommodation in the United States, either with her mother or with somebody else, or somewhere else, correct? Yes. Yes, absolutely.

(Transcript 24 September 2025, p. 26, lines 10-20)

1. In relation to time between X and her father in Australia, the Report writer said:

In relation then to the time that [X] has with her father, is it one that you think should move more towards the five-night arrangement, or should it progress beyond that to an equal-time arrangement, or somewhere in between? I mean, there's no magic, whether it's six nights or seven? Yes. I mean, she's very young for an equal-time spend arrangement.

Yes? And again, noting I didn't do observations or meet [X] for the purposes of this.

No? But I think, definitely given that the father is the more stable environment at this point in time, that, yes, there would be some benefit to an increase in that time spent.

All right. And so - and the benefit of that increase is that it gives the mother some respite? Yes.

...

If, as Mr Bateman seemed to be asking questions, that [X] might be impacted upon it, then it gives [X] some respite? Yes.

And does it also provide for [X] a different form of parenting? Yes, it does, and I think it provides as well for [X] connection with the community that the parents did build in Sydney.

Yes. And does it also provide for [X] a role model of how to cope with stresses ---? Yes.

--- different to that of how her mother presents? Yes.

All right. And that's probably, without being too critical of the mother, a better way of managing and functioning with stress than how the mother has currently to date? Yes, I would say that.

(Transcript 24 September 2025, p. 26 line 45 - p 27, line 30)

1. The mother's treating psychiatrist, Dr F, described the mother as meeting the diagnostic criterion for chronic post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD").
2. In his report, he said:

Over the course of treatment, [Ms Brittney] appeared to become significantly more anxious. This was in the context of the end of her marriage and subsequent stressors, including single parenting, a period of unemployment (she eventually found a new role but had to leave it to return to the USA), and dealing with what she described as her former husband's erratic interactions and limited financial support.

When seen [in August] 2025, she described herself as "exhausted" and "super emotional". She was very tearful when discussing her father's death and the subsequent family and legal machinations. Her speech was again rapid but coherent. She was very distressed about having to return to Australia "under duress", following her ex-husband filing a suit under the Hague Convention for international child abduction while she and their daughter, [X], were in the USA. She stated this was despite him having driven her to the airport for that trip, visiting them in the US, and sending her flowers [...] shortly before filing the suit.

1. Dr F described the medication that he had prescribed to the mother and observed that it had been difficult to reduce the medication as previously planned, given the constant psychosocial stressors she had faced over the last two years.
2. In relation to her capacity for work, he opined as follows:

In her current circumstances, with the amount of anxiety she is enduring, I am doubtful that [Ms Brittney] would be able to obtain employment at her previous executive level. She may be able to work in a less cognitively demanding and less stressful role, should one become available, but this would be associated with a significant drop in income. At her reassessment last week, she was highly anxious, tearful and distressed. This, of course, represents a snapshot of her presentation while discussing the most stressful matters in her life.

1. He described the mother as perceiving her relationship with her ex-husband as psychologically abusive and financially controlling and stated that she had no social supports in Australia. He described her primary support network, including her mother, being in the USA. He recorded that she had become closer to her mother during her recent time there which followed therapy sessions based on their past relationships. He opined that he believed that her mental health is likely to improve should she be permitted to relocate with X to State M.
2. His opinion as to the impact upon the mother if she is permitted to relocate to the USA or required to remain in Australia was as follows:

Based on what I have been told, it seems the ideal location for [Ms Brittney] to live with [X] would be one where she can access the support of her family in a familiar environment where she would eventually be able to secure well paid work. At this time, her hometown of [City O], [State M], appears to be the best place for this. Relocation would likely benefit her level of anxiety and general mental health. It should be noted that she would be able to stay with family in [City O], which would solve the problems of severe financial stress and technical homelessness that she faces presently in Sydney. This would attenuate the immediate risks to her mental health.

...

If forced to remain in Australia, it appears [Ms Brittney] will be socially isolated with no family support. Her relationship with her ex-husband has broken down and she perceives him to be erratic, controlling, financially unsupportive and untrustworthy. While she has made some friends, they are busy with their own lives. She is unemployed and her financial resources are diminishing. There is a risk she will become so anxious that she is unable to function without significant increases in medication, which may in turn be sedating. She is also at risk of developing depression should she find herself isolated, homeless, and financially insolvent in a foreign country while supporting a young child. Furthermore, it will be very difficult to effectively treat any remaining PTSD symptoms if she is living in a state of perpetual anxiety and uncertainty.

1. He opined that the mother was a resilient person and that her current level of anxiety and distress appeared to be a direct consequence of the difficult circumstances in which she currently finds herself; being forced to return to Australia without work, a reliable source of income, or social support while parenting her daughter. He observed as follows:

She has previously demonstrated that, despite early adversity, she can manage her symptoms and function at a very high level in the workplace. I have never had any concerns that she was in any way struggling to provide emotionally and materially for her daughter.

1. In cross-examination, Dr F admitted that the maternal grandmother had been a source of trauma for the mother. He agreed in cross-examination that the evidence of the mother's continuing use of medication and texting to the father that she was not okay and seeking alternative accommodation away from her mother when she was in the USA suggested that there was an instability in the mother/maternal grandmother relationship.
2. He acknowledged that the relationship had been very problematic albeit that the mother reported to him that it had improved. He said it was unlikely to ever be perfect.

1. The father's psychologist, Ms N, prepared a report on the father's mental health. She was not required for cross-examination.
2. In her report, she recorded as follows:

[Mr Kristof] has consulted with me intermittently over the past few years. The sessions have usually been prompted by acute issues/conflicts in his relationship with his wife. In June 2022, [Mr Kristof] reported that he was acting out his frustration with his situation by inflicting pain on himself. This involved hitting himself or banging his head against the wall, usually after the two bad experienced conflict. [Mr Kristof] bas bad a tendency to lack assertiveness in his relationship with his wife and to self sacrifice and subjugate his own needs in the relationship. His tendency to avoid difficult conversations with her, is an area we have addressed. Our sessions have involved managing his assertiveness and understanding this reluctance in regard to his own issues from his family of origin.

...

[Mr Kristof's] results on the DASS-21 indicated that he fell into the mild category for depression, the normal category for anxiety and the severe category for stress. Around this time we worked on using other coping strategies to manage his stress and a s a result this self destructive behaviour ceased over the following months. He no longer engages in this behaviour when stressed or frustrated.

As a Clinical Psychologist I don't prescribe medication and 1 am not aware that [Mr Kristof] has ever been prescribed any psychiatric medications. When I last met with [Mr Kristof] (July [...], 2025) he was not suffering from a psychological condition. He was obviously distressed by the court proceedings and his fear that his daughter would be permitted to return to the US with her mother. However, he described how much he was enjoying regular (though limited contact) with his daughter since her return. I don't believe [Mr Kristof] currently meets the criteria for a diagnosis of a mental illness, and does not as such require any further psychological treatment. However, he would benefit from support as he navigates the legal process which will involve not only psychological but financial stress for him. Overall, his prognosis is good. However, if his daughter is forced to return to the US with her mother, he will most certainly go through a significant period of grief.

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF EACH PARTIES' PROPOSAL

1. The evidence of the parties, cross-examination, and subsequent submissions raised a broad range of issues which included allegations of family violence, financial problems, employment, housing, mental health, parental communication, Hague proceedings, ability of X to maintain a relationship with both parties, capacity to parent, and whether the father is able to live and/or work permanently in the USA.
2. The Report writer recorded the mother's position as presented to her as follows:
   1. [Ms Brittney] considers that continuing to live in Australia is no longer tenable due to her lack of supports, employment and stable accommodation as well as the current relationship between her and [Mr Kristof]. She describes feeling distressed and overwhelmed, states that she is not coping since her return and asserts that having to remain in Australia would be detrimental to her wellbeing, that [X] would be exposed to conflict between the parents and that this would not be in [X's] best interests.
   2. [Ms Brittney] asserts that she felt more settled in the United States and her emotional and psychological wellbeing had improved. She stated that [X] thrived there and that they have both practical and emotional support from the maternal extended family and friends which she does not have in Sydney.
3. The advantages of a move to the USA are said to include but are not limited to the likely improvement in her mental health as suggested by Dr F, a corresponding increased capacity to parent X, the support of her mother and extended family and friends, an environment that would be familiar, and a surrounding where she says she feels safe. It is said that she would be able to begin the process of decreasing her reliance on prescription medication. Her need for housing would be met as she could live rent free with her mother who could provide her with financial assistance, and she says she would be able to find employment and eventually improve her financial position. The mother puts forward a parenting proposal which she says permits X to maintain a relationship with her father and the distance apart would, it is said, address the communication issues.
4. The disadvantages of a move to the USA are said to include but are not limited to the impact on X of losing the relationship she has with her father, the risk identified by the Report writer at paragraphs 102 and 103 of her report and that the contended support from her immediate family given the past pattern of the mother's fractious relationship does not materialise such that the mother and X are without the stability and support the immediate presence of the father offers. A further disadvantage is that given her long history of anxiety and stress and on occasions depression, there is a not the maintenance of the likely improvement in her mental health that is suggested, and the mother may not find employment and improve her financial position. The mother also does not have access to government supports such as Medicare and pensions that are available in Australia, and the mother will not be able to maintain her current therapeutic relationships. The mother's hope that a move to the USA sees a decrease in her prescription drug use may be aspirational rather than actual given her long history of use and associated anxiety and stress.
5. The advantages of remaining in Australia are said to include but are not limited to the benefit to X of having the presence of a stable and functioning parent who does not have any current mental health problems, a parent who is available to assist the mother on a daily basis if called upon to assist and has shown a willingness to assist, and that the mother is capable of finding employment albeit not at her past level of seniority and does have some financial resources available to meet her needs and the father is able to offer some financial assistance. In Australia, the mother is able to maintain her therapeutic relationship and access government supports such as pensions and Medicare.
6. The disadvantages to remaining in Australia are said to include but are not limited to that she has no job, and her psychiatrist is "doubtful" she would be able to find employment at the level she previously held. She is living in temporary housing and is at risk of being homeless, her fiscal situation is dire and as such she has no financial security. Her mental health has deteriorated such that her psychiatrist opines she is at risk of becoming so anxious that she is unable to function and at risk of developing depression and it is impacting on her capacity to parent. She feels socially isolated and has no family support. Remaining in Australia it is submitted would see her having to coparent on a regular basis with a person whom she views as a perpetrator of family violence and perceives as financially controlling and psychologically abusive. The mother's Notice of Risk and affidavit addresses at some length issue as to the father's mental health and his capacity to parent X. The mother submits the father has no capacity to address her financial needs.
7. Each of the above point to an advantage and in most instances a corresponding disadvantage associated with each party's proposal.

1. The mother through her counsel contended that she had been a victim of family violence. According to the mother's documents the mother observed the father to hit himself in the face, pinch the bridge of his nose and bite his fist during periods that she describes him as angry, upset or not in control. The father acknowledged in his cross-examination that the mother would have found his behaviour intimidating but could think of only one occasion when he hit himself in the presence of the mother. He said that these events occurred in early to mid-2023, that he started working on it in May 2023 with his psychologist, and apart from incident in November 2023 has not done it since. The father was not challenged on this history which I accept.
2. The mother in her affidavit at paragraph 48 said, "I describe this period, and thereafter, as involving emotional abuse from [Mr Kristof]." The mother's psychiatrist recorded in his report that the mother perceived the father to be financially controlling and psychologically abusive. As an evidential proposition these are so devoid of supporting probative evidence and bereft of questions in cross examination as to be meaningless and no weight can be attached to them. As the Full Court observed in Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249; (2024) FLC 94-230:
   1. However, 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 (Edinger & Duy [2023] FedCFamC1A 194; (2023) 68 Fam LR 55). The party alleging the fact bears the burden of proving it (Wallaby Grip Ltd v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd (2010) 240 CLR 444 at [36]) and the standard of the burden is the balance of probabilities (s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)). The same point was recently made by the Full Court, though perhaps in less robust terms (Leventis & Leventis [2024] FedCFamC1A 141; (2024) FLC 94-204 at [13]-[19]).
3. I am not persuaded that the evidence permits a finding that the father had been financially controlling, emotionally or psychologically abusive. Nor is there evidence to support the mother's assertion that the father wants to hurt her as reported to the Report writer at paragraph 58.
4. The mother's counsel submitted that one of the disadvantages to the mother remaining in Australia is the mother would have to coparent and negotiate with a person with whom she perceives as perpetrating family violence. The dilemma posed by this submission is that the mother seeks to move to the USA and live in the home of her mother in circumstances where her counsel conceded that the mother's relationship with her own mother was problematic, a trauma-based relationship and that her PTSD might have arisen from that relationship. Consequentially on the mother's case she seeks to leave one scenario involving family violence to only move to one that causes her anxiety, stress and has caused her trauma.
5. The mother also expressed concerns about the father's lack of insight including having exposed his naked body to the mother and the child during videocalls. I accept the father's explanation during cross examination and am not satisfied this poses any future risk of harm to the child. Given the father's evidence which I accept, the injunction the mother seeks is unnecessary.
6. The mother in her Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence, or Risk contended that she sought orders for the safety of her and the child being sole decision-making responsibility, orders for changeover to occur at the child's school and an order for non-denigration. I am not satisfied that the evidence establishes that the mother or the child's safety requires the making of an order for sole decision-making responsibility or these injunctions.
7. I am not satisfied that there are issues of family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm that require the making of orders to promote the safety of the child or any party.
8. Each party has filed a Financial Statement. The mother's Financial Statement reveals she has approximately $103,000 in her bank accounts and solicitor's trust account but outstanding legal fees of a similar amount. She has an entitlement to receive approximately $80,000 from her father's estate at some future time. She has personal and credit card debts of in excess of $70,000. There is no evidence that the mother has to immediately pay her debts but beyond her inheritance she has no capital to meet them. She has superannuation of approximately $126,000 but there is no evidence it is immediately available to support her.
9. The mother is not in employment in Australia and has no other form of income. The evidence of the mother's psychiatrist is that whilst she has some residual capacity for employment, her current emotional and mental state would render her unfit for employment for a period of time. She is in very temporary accommodation, has moved a number of times and her psychiatrist opines that she faces "technical homelessness" in Sydney. Whilst the mother's evidence reveals that she receives some financial assistance from her mother (mother's affidavit paragraphs 149 and 151) the extent of this assistance was not explored in cross-examination. There is no reason to believe it would not be extended to the mother in Australia but whether it would be dependent upon the mother and her mother maintaining good relations is unclear.
10. The father's Financial Statement discloses that his expenses exceed his income, and the total value of his property is less than $10,000 and has liabilities of $96,000. It is unclear how he will meet his outstanding legal fees.
11. The Report writer recorded the following in respect of the father's financial position:
    1. While there appears to have been an expectation from [Ms Brittney] that [Mr Kristof] would financially support her on her return to Australia, [Mr Kristof] stated that he hasn't been able to give much financial support because he has had to pay legal fees since [Ms Brittney] initiated the current proceedings. He stated that it is unrealistic for him to be able to afford two apartments rent and that he is paying off legacy debt from the marriage when [Ms Brittney] wasn't working and he was made redundant which has used up his savings.
12. Despite telling the Report writer this, his counsel at the close of submissions made an open offer that the father would pay $10,000 to the mother within seven days of judgment, a further $10,000 by 1 December 2025 and a further $10,000 by 1 March 2026, conditional on the basis that the child remained in Australia. It was submitted that this would enable the mother to pay rent for approximately eight months.
13. The mother receives from the father Child Support in excess of the amount that he is required to pay under the assessment. The mother has spousal maintenance rights under the Act. A cursory examination of the father's financial circumstances reveals that there are claimed expenses that would not pose an impediment to the making of a spousal maintenance order. The mother can access government assistance in the form of Medicare and social security in Australia. In that respect, I note the evidence of the Report writer at paragraph 65 of her report.
14. Whilst the mother's financial position is dire, I am not persuaded that it would, taking all matters into consideration, be better in the USA. The mother was asserting in December 2024 that she could not at that stage afford flights back to Australia (mother's affidavit, paragraph 90). There is no evidence that her capital position would improve in the short to medium term by moving to the USA. There is no evidence that government assistance of the type available to the mother in Australia is available to the mother in the USA.
15. Whilst her mother offers her rent-free accommodation, the question as to how long the mother would avail herself of rent-free accommodation with her mother must be inexplicably entwined with the state of her relationship with her mother. The evidence reveals that in the past the mother has not been able to remain living in her mother's home for anything other than a short period of time after which she has sought to leave. While the mother asserts, she would be able to obtain employment in the USA, there is no evidence of an available job and her ability to seek and maintain a job is on the evidence associated with an improvement in her mental health. The mother's evidence is that even in the USA her mental health would need to improve so that she is able to properly function in the workplace (mother's affidavit, paragraph 238).
16. Part of the mother's evidence addressed the Hague proceedings and what she described as being blindsided by the father's application with her counsel in his Case Outline describing it as a "traumatic event." Whilst the father should have given the mother advance notice of the application I am satisfied that the filing of the application needs to be seen in the context of the mother's statements to the father in the period up until the date of filing (father's affidavit, paragraphs159 to 161, 165 and 167) where the mother would not give a definitive date of return and the father's repeated statements to the mother that he did not consent to the child remaining in the USA. I am not persuaded that this is a consideration upon which I should place much weight.
17. The mother seems to advance a case that the father can obtain a US Green Card and work and live in the USA. In that respect, her counsel submitted in his Case Outline as follows:
    1. In March 2025, the Mother indicated to the Father that she would arrange for him to obtain a US Green Card, which was declined by the Father. The Mother followed up the issue on 3 April 2025, encouraging the Father to reconsider. It is contended that the Father has failed to properly explore options which would permit him to reside and work in the US. It is uncontroversial that he has previously worked there and engaged in the visa application process.
18. There is no evidence upon which I could place any weight that the mother has the capacity to obtain a US Green Card for the father. The mother's counsel agreed that there was no evidence that the father can work or live in the USA on a permanent basis.
19. A significant aspect of the mother's case is her belief that in the USA the mother will be able to access the support of her family. Dr F expresses it in the following terms:

It seems the ideal location for [Ms Brittney] to live with [X] would be one where she can access the support of her family in a familiar environment where she would eventually be able to secure well paid work. At this time, her hometown of [City O, State M], appears to be the best place for this.

1. The mother describes in some detail in her affidavit the friends and family support that is available to her in the USA. She says:
   1. I share a close and loving relationship with most of my family members. At present, I have a strained relationship with my sister as a result of the events that transpired between my parents. My sister currently does not speak with my Mum. I am hoping that my relationship with my sister, as well as my Mum's relationship with my sister, improves with time.
   2. I share a close and loving relationship with my mother. She has a heart of gold. Historically, there have been times where we have had our differences and disagreements, which I consider to be normal parent-child differences. As I've gotten older, I have explored some of these dynamics and disagreements in therapy, which has been really helpful.
2. Whilst I accept the mother perceives that there is available to her a significant well of family support provided by her mother and other family members, the history of her relationship with her mother and the evidence in relation to immediate family suggests otherwise.
3. As the mother frankly conceded she and her mother have historically had difficulties in their relationship. Her counsel conceded in submissions that it was trauma-based relationship and a possible foundation for her PTSD.
4. The father's affidavit at paragraph 215 lists a series of communications between he and the mother between 2021 and 2023 highlighting problems in the relationship between the mother and her mother. The father's evidence was unchallenged, and I accept his evidence.
5. The clinical notes of the mother's attendances upon doctors and therapists (Exhibit 7) are replete with references to the difficulties she has with her mother and family of origin. Exhibit 7 contains a medical report prepared by Ms G who was the mother's psychologist. The report records as follows:

[Ms Brittney] has been attending therapy intermittently since late August 2017. Attendance has occurred at times when she has experienced a period of heightened anxiety which tended to be mostly induced by overwhelming and at times catastrophic thinking about her family of origin, her relationship and fears of worsening anxiety symptoms.

Based on [Ms Brittney's] description of her mother, she also has issues with pharmaceuticals and alcohol overuse and creates drama for attention and deflection. It is unsurprising that [Ms Brittney] has adopted some of these learnt coping strategies.

1. In 2022 the notes record "issues with family at home and issues on return" (Exhibit 7, p. 24). In October 2022 the notes record "isolated from family (who are not that supportive anyway)" (Exhibit 7, p. 26). Again, in October 2022 the notes record "[...] has BPD and this impacts [Ms Brittney]" and "[...] is very manipulative and unfiltered" and "long chat re boundaries esp with mother" (Exhibit 7, p. 27). In February 2023 there is a reference to the maternal grandmother's dysfunctional behaviour (Exhibit 7, p. 28).
2. A report by Dr J dated 28 August 2023 (Exhibit 7, p. 33) records as follows:

[Ms Brittney] attended with significant distress around her marriage and her family situation which has been historically difficult with her mother due to her strong personality and lack of empathy and has worsened with her father becoming unwell, her parents separating and the impact of her own security network...

1. The mother visited the USA for about two months between September and November 2023 staying with her parents. In an email to her psychologist dated 1 November 2023 (Exhibit 7, p. 51) while the mother was in the USA, the mother reported:

I'm scared. I feel paralysed. I'm in constant fight or flight or freeze around my mum and in her house. My brain honestly goes offline and I'm unable to speak or answer questions or think.

I feel like she has all of my power when I'm around her. Like I'm helpless incompetent kid again. And I let her just take the lead with [X] because I am so frozen/overwhelmed.

... I dread waking up each morning right now because I have no clue what I am doing. I only feel better when I'm running from this feeling by leaving my mum's house and travelling somewhere else. Or when I am not alone with [X] and someone else is helping me entertain her.

1. In an email dated 3 November 2023 (Exhibit 7, p. 53) while the mother was in the USA, the mother writes to her psychologist:

I wish I could see past all of this. I can't stay here and yet I need to move forward and back to reality in Sydney (I think that is physically the best environment for my mental health & [X's]) ... but I can't imagine being back in the same apartment with [Mr Kristof] and cohabiting with him still saying all the very confusing things he says to me.

1. The father's affidavit refers to communications between he and the mother during that visit. In those communications, the mother refers to getting into a fight with her mother. The affidavit records the following during that visit to the USA:

94.2. On 16 November 2023, I received a text message from [Ms Brittney] stating: "Just got in a fight with my mom. It's time to go. She said awful things. I'm her daughter. I would never treat [X] this way. No matter what age or situation I was in. ... I asked her to stop yelling and she said, "It's my house," To which I childishly replied, "I know. Where you're going to be all alone because of this." To which she replied, "And you're going to be all alone in yours with a two year old. I can see why [Mr Kristof] want to leave you."

...

94.4. On 19 November 2023, I received a text message from [Ms Brittney] stating: "I'm not ok today, [Mr Kristof]. I've gotta get [X] & me out of my mom's house."

...

94.6. On 20 November 2023, [Ms Brittney] texted me a further text stating: "I need to get out. I need to get out. I need to get out." I responded: "I totally agree." [Ms Brittney] then sent me text messages stating: "I need a lot from you when you get here. I just need you to be prepared. Can you please try to put aside your anger and any other emotions you may have towards me right now and just show up as my husband? I know I always ask too much of you. I am learning that ... I have some serious work to do after this trip. I'd like you by my side doing it. With no expected ultimate outcome. Just love and friendship and warmth and help. I have not gotten that from my blood family while here. Quite the opposite. It's broken my heart wide open. In a way I never imagined possible. I need to get better for [X]...

94.7. On 22 November 2023, [Ms Brittney] sent me a text stating: "I've never been in this state before ... This stuff with my family has fucked me up in a way I can't articulate. Way worse than 2021/22. I'm desperate to not feel this way anymore. I'm going to ask [...] if [X] & I can come stay at her house tomorrow, and then we will do Thanksgiving lunch there on Thursday. I hope you can be in [City O] by Friday. If not, I will need to leave and fly back on my own with [X]. And then we need a night/day in [...] before we fly so I can try to settle my nervous system and hopefully sleep some before we travel. I'm not in this state because of [X] and not sleeping (even though she was up at 5am today). I'm in this state because of trauma."

1. The clinical notes of Dr F record the mother reporting to him that her mother hit her with a belt at the age of six. The note records, "Reflects on breaking the generational cycle of trauma."
2. During the time the mother was in the USA between October 2024 and July 2025, the relationship with her family had its problems. The clinical notes of Ms L record the mother contacting her on a Zoom call on 10 October 2024 as follows:

[Ms Brittney] feels her sister has been aggressive and contributed to her father's decline in her not coping. Her brother is also behaving in unhelpful ways and she finds them challenging at this time of huge stress. [Ms Brittney] discussed how to keep separation with her goal of saying goodbye to her father and not engaging in old family patterns.

1. While on 5 June 2025, Ms L's notes record as follows:

[Ms Brittney] has had difficulty with family, needing some space also from this at times. [Ms Brittney] discussed planning and finding work/apartment for short term to get stability for [X] and herself.

1. I am not persuaded on the evidence as a whole that the mother's family are as supportive as Dr F believes or the mother presents. She is presently estranged from her sister, and the evidence suggests her brother behaves in ways she finds "unhelpful". I am satisfied that they, and in particular her mother, have been a source of considerable stress and anxiety for the mother. On balance I am satisfied that upon a return to the USA given the history to date the probability is that the mother's relationship with her mother would again break down and that the mother, and more particularly X, would find themselves without that support which Dr F assumes is available. More concerningly, the mother and X would be without the support and stability that the father offers as well as his capacity to care on a day-to-day basis for X.
2. The mother advances a case that she will be able to work in the USA. While Dr F says (based solely on what the mother tells him) that in the USA she would eventually be able to secure well paid work, he provides no yardstick by which "eventually" can be measured nor is it explained what he understood "well paid" work means relative to what is available to her in Australia. The available evidence is that the mother has no employment in the USA or Australia. I am not satisfied that the evidence establishes that the mother is able to secure better paid work in the USA to that available to her in Australia.
3. I accept the evidence of the Report writer that she had no concerns with either party's general parenting capacity but observed that the mother's current mental state was impacting on her parenting capacity. The mother in her affidavit and in her counsel's, submissions contended that the difficulties in the co-parenting arrangement and communication were such that there should be an order for sole decision-making responsibility. I do not accept the evidence provides a foundation for the orders the mother seeks. There has undoubtedly been some issues and much hurt occasioned by the separation, the Hague proceedings and the positions in which they each find themselves. However, the evidence demonstrates that the mother has turned to the father for help and support and he has provided it on most occasions. In that respect, I accept his evidence at paragraphs 92.1, 93, 94.1, 94.4, 94.6, 119 to 121, 124, 131 and in his affidavit sworn 19 September 2025 at paragraphs 17 to 28 and 31 to 34. These paragraphs despite the mother's evidence show her reaching out to the father for support and assistance with many of the occasions demonstrating her seeking his support when she is the USA with her mother.
4. I also accept the Report writer's observation that each parent spoke respectfully of the other parent and acknowledged the importance of the other parent in X's life. I accept the Report writer's conclusion that the father showed good insight into the impact of parental conflict and parental distress on the child and appeared conscious of the impact of his own parenting style and use of language. I accept her evidence that the parties have in the past had a reasonably sound coparenting relationship. I am satisfied that they can share decision-making responsibility.
5. The mother in her Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence and Risk contended the father had mental health issues and that such issues had caused harm or posed a serious risk of harm to the child. I am not satisfied there is any evidence that is a present risk of harm. The mother's affidavit addressed at length issues of mental health in relation to the father. Despite such contentions the father's psychologist was not required for cross examination. I accept the evidence of the father's treating psychologist that the father does not meet the diagnosis of a mental illness and does not require psychological treatment. I accept the evidence of the Report writer that there were no current concerns evident with regard to the father's emotional regulation or distress tolerance.
6. The mother's counsel in his Case Outline submits in the following terms:
   1. The Mother deposes to feeling more settled the longer she spent in the US, so much so, that she told her GP in the US that she wanted to wean herself off Diazepam and wanted to be able to handle any future issues without medication. She deposes: "At the time, I felt safe and positive about the future."
7. The mother's use of benzodiazepines dates back many years. It is something she has been conscious of for many years and has not been able to deal with. Dr F's evidence is:

At present, [Ms Brittney] is prescribed dexamphetamine 10mg two to three times per day for ADHD. I reassessed her for this disorder during our treatment and concluded that she did meet the criteria. This medication has been helpful for her concentration. She also takes escitalopram 30mg daily; I increased the dose from 20mg in early 2024 due to her increasing anxiety. Furthermore, she takes diazepam 5mg tablets, three to four times per day as required. Diazepam is a longer-acting benzodiazepine that I prescribed to replace alprazolam, which is a Schedule 8 drug in Australia and is now rarely used. It has been difficult to reduce this medication as previously planned due to the constant psychosocial stressors she has faced over the last two years.

1. The mothers use of medication is associated with her longstanding history of stress and anxiety. I accept the longer the mother has to deal with stress and anxiety the more likely it is there will be a delay in the commencement of any treatment to withdrawal from benzodiazepines. However, her anxiety and stress is long-standing. The assumption that her stress and anxiety would reduce over the longer term if she lived in the USA and there would be then an ability to deal with a reduction in her use of benzodiazepines is dependent upon a number of factors about which there is no certainty.
2. The mother has a therapeutic relationship with her treating psychiatrist, Dr F, and her psychologist, Ms L. Whilst the evidence is that the mother has always sought out medical/therapeutic assistance, there is no evidence of any existing therapeutic relationship in the USA. Thus, a disadvantage of the move to the USA is the cessation of the relationship that she has with Dr F and Ms L. Whilst Ms L provided some Zoom meetings whilst the mother was visiting the USA, there is no evidence that Dr F or Ms L would be able to provide her with therapeutic assistance if she moved to the USA permanently.
3. The mother's anxiety and stress has been a significant feature of the mother's presentation for many years. She has been diagnosed with ADHD and PTSD. Dr F described her PTSD as explaining the high levels of anxiety she endures. The mother's counsel conceded the possible foundation for the PTSD was the trauma-based relationship with her own mother.
4. I have considered what Dr F says at paragraph 11 of his report and in particular the risk that she would become so anxious that her medication would need to be increased and was at risk of depression if she found herself isolated, homeless and financially insolvent in Australia. I also have considered the evidence of the Report writer as to the current severity of the mother's anxiety in conjunction with her evidence that it has been frequently severe throughout her adult life.
5. I recognise that the mother has in the past suffered stress and anxiety while in the USA in the period before separation when interacting with her family and in those instances turned to the father for assistance in removing her from the situation. In that respect, I refer to the father's affidavit at paragraphs 92 to 94 and accept the father's unchallenged evidence.
6. The mother contends that she feels socially isolated in Australia and that many of the friends that she had in Australia were associated with her relationship with the father. She points to an extensive network of friends in the USA. The mother's evidence is that she has struggled in Sydney feeling alone and without 'community' for some years and refers to an email communication she sent to the father's mother in September 2022. I infer from that email and the evidence the mother's sense of social isolation in Australia is not necessarily a function of the current application but something of more longstanding duration. That said there are some social supports available to the mother in Sydney and refer to the evidence of the text communications forming Exhibit 9. It is possible that the mother may feel less socially isolated in the USA however there is no capacity for the court to assess the various supports that the mother has available to her in the USA, albeit I accept that the mother perceives them to be supportive of her.
7. I also accept what the Report writer says as follows:
   1. It is difficult to predict whether [Ms Brittney's] mental health would continue to deteriorate if she was required to remain in Australia or whether she would be able to stabilise once the family law proceedings are finalised and she can access appropriate supports and continue therapy with [Dr F] and [Ms L].
8. Dr F says that it is likely there will be an improvement in the mother's mental health if she moves to the USA. This conclusion is informed by a number of factors including that her primary support network, including her mother, is in the USA. Dr F expresses the opinion that the "ideal location" for the mother based on what the mother reports is the USA. That conclusion assumes the existence of familial support, the mother in a familiar setting and her securing well paid work.
9. I have made findings earlier as to the extent of the family support. I accept that the USA is a familiar location to the mother but so is Australia where she has lived since 2016 and is a citizen. There is no evidence that there is presently available secure paid work in the USA or that it is any more secure or well paid to that she might obtain in Australia.
10. While Dr F opined that it is "likely" there would be an improvement in the mother's mental health on moving to the USA. I am not persuaded for all of the above reasons that the indicia that underpin the opinion of a "likely improvement" will be maintained. I am satisfied that it is more probable than not that the mother's relationship with her mother will break down, the mother will remain severely stressed and anxious, be in an equally bad or worse financial position without the social security and Medicare assistance in Australia, without her existing therapeutic supports and without the reliable support of the father.
11. A significant disadvantage of the move to the USA is the disruption to the child's relationship with the father. I accept the evidence of the Report writer that there would be an impact on X's relationship with her father in the event that she moved to the USA and accept her evidence that it was "unclear how well she could retain an attachment to him and how easily she would be able to re-engage during brief visits to Australia" and that the father would be "unable to participate meaningfully in any aspect of X's life including her schooling and general parenting" (at paragraph 102).
12. I also accept her evidence that "research has shown having an absent parent is associated with negative psychological, interpersonal and relational consequences including an increase in depressive symptoms, low academic achievement and high rates of self-criticism" at paragraph 103). I am satisfied that if the mother were to move to the USA with X, then the father would be very much an absent figure in her life. He provides a good role model to X and provides a caring parenting arrangement that is reliable and dependable.
13. Whilst the mother contends that the X will be able to maintain a meaningful relationship with her father through videocalls and trips to the USA, I do not accept that proposition. Videocalls are no replacement for weekly face-to-face contact and physical engagement. Trips of short duration interspersed with long periods of absences are not in her best interests.
14. This loss needs to be balanced against what the mother asserts as to the suggested improvement to her mental health in the USA and the fact that at present in Australia her capacity to parent is compromised by her mental health with direct consequences for X.
15. The factors pursuant to s 60CC of the Act as are relevant to my determination and which have not otherwise been considered are addressed below.

s 60CC(2)(a) - what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of:

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

s 60CC(2)(b) - any views expressed by the child

1. X is four years old. There is, consistent with her age, no evidence upon which any weight could be placed as to her views.

s 60CC(2)(c) - the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child

s 60CC(2)(d) - the capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child to provide for the child's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs.

1. This has been addressed extensively above.
2. I am satisfied that the child's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs are currently being met by each of her parents being present in her life on a weekly basis and each have the capacity to provide for her stated needs. The mother's proposal to move to the USA would involve not just a change to her day-to-day routine but would have more substantial long-standing impact upon her. In that respect, I place significant weight upon the evidence of the Report writer at paragraphs 102 and 103. This has real consequences for X's emotional and psychological health as she develops. Her relationship with her father would substantially diminish and she would be without the support that he can offer both her and her mother as a reliable, stable, and predictable carer.
3. I am satisfied that there is no aspect of the father's mental health or capacity to parent that means he is unable to provide for the child's stated needs.
4. I accept the evidence of the Report writer and the mother's psychiatrist that the mother is currently compromised in her parenting capacity as a consequence of the psychosocial stressors she is experiencing. This impacts upon the child's emotional and psychological needs and impacts on the mother's capacity to meet the child's stated needs. The mother has appropriately responded to this by providing for the child to spend more time with the father.
5. However, it is reductive to assume given the mother's long-standing history of anxiety, stress, and the fractious relationship she has had with her mother that all will be better in the long term in the USA. While the mother proposes in the near term to live with her mother and the benefits financially that brings, the history of their relationship suggests that it is also a source of significant stress and anxiety to the mother.

s 60CC(2)(e) - the benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child's parents and other people who are significant to the child where it is safe to do so

1. I am satisfied that there is a benefit to X in having a relationship with each of her parents. The section talks of a "relationship" simpliciter and at its most basic level the child can maintain a relationship with her father if she is in the USA, but it will be a relationship that is lacking the richness and closeness of the relationship she has and can have if she remains living in close proximity to him. The child's relationship with her mother is also affected by the mother's mental health. I am not persuaded that the assumptions that underpin the "likely" improvement opined by Dr F will maintain.

s 60CC(2)(f) - anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the case

1. A relevant consideration is a parent's right to live in a location of their choosing. It is not suggested by any party's proposal that the orders the other is seeking is coercive and I am satisfied that each party is bona fide in their positions. While on the mother's orders she proposes to live with the child wherever the child is, the evidence is that the father does not have a visa that would permit him to live and or work permanently in the USA. There is no expert evidence before me that would enable the court to conclude that it is even possible for the father to live and or work permanently in the USA.

1. I am of the view that the determination in this case is finely balanced. X is blessed to have two parents who love her and want the best for her.
2. The Report writer identified the dilemma posed to the Court as follows:
   1. The key issue in this matter is the competing priorities for [X] of having a mother who is mentally well (including the assumption that returning to the United States will enable this to occur) vs the impact on her relationship with [Mr Kristof] should he not be able to relocate to the United States.
3. The Report writer said that if orders were made that X stay in Australia, the orders for time the father proposed (which was an equal time arrangement from Term 4 2026) was one that would be more consistent with the previous time arrangement and that X would benefit from time spent with him.
4. While Dr F opines that it is likely there will be an improvement in the mother's mental health, I am not persuaded that the foundations for that improvement over the longer term are made out. Her relationship with her mother has been an ever-present feature of her mental health described in terms of trauma. The relationship is productive of stress and anxiety. The theme of the mother's reports to her therapists and the father over the years is that it is not a supportive relationship. I am not persuaded that it will remain an ongoing source of support for the mother. As for other immediate family, the evidence is she is presently estranged from her sister and has had difficulties in her relationship with her brother.
5. The mother describes support from other family members and friends contending:

For example, my friend [...] has cared for [X] on her own, as has my friend [...,...] and my cousin [...]. I do not have this support network available to me in Australia.

1. Whilst the mother says that she has no such support in Australia, it ignores both the availability and presence of the father and the evidence of support by way of assistance from other parents at the child's school (Exhibit 9). While Dr F says, based solely on what the mother tells him, that in the USA she would eventually be able to secure well paid work, he provides no guide by which "eventually" can be measured, while the available evidence is that the mother has no work available to her in the USA. Dr F opines that there is a risk if the mother stays that she will become so anxious that she is unable to function without increasing her medication which he says could be sedating and she could become depressed but that must be balanced against the risks for X of relocation.
2. Courts are required to make orders that are in a child's best interests in the longer term, not the short term. In such a finely balanced determination, I am persuaded for all the reasons addressed above that the move to the USA comes with more risk for X given the absence of her father from her life and the reliable and consistent parenting he has to offer.
3. Whilst the mother's financial position is precarious in both locations; in Australia, I am satisfied it is less precarious where there is the availability of Medicare and a social security system as well as the provision to the mother of lump sum financial support from the father. Whilst the mother's counsel expressed some dissatisfaction with the lateness of the offer made by him, it was not suggested that I should not accept the father at his word, no application was made to cross-examine the father on the offer nor was any undertaking sought. I accept the father is genuine and bona fide and will make the payments. In Australia, the mother can maintain her current therapeutic relationships. There is no evidence that the mother can access an equivalent Medicare or social security system in the USA.
4. I am not satisfied that the parent's relationship is so conflictual that an order for sole decision-making responsibility should be made. There is a disconnect between what the mother says and what the evidence discloses. The evidence, despite assertions by the mother to the contrary, is that the parties have been able to functionally parent as disclosed by the mother's numerous texts to the father dating back to late 2023 for assistance, the mother's reliance upon the father's assistance in the period post her return to Australia for care of X, and the evidence of the Report writer.
5. The parties are at issue as to the time arrangement for X in the event that she is to remain in Australia. I accept the evidence of the Report writer that X would benefit from more time with her father. There is an inconsistency in the orders the mother proposes. The mother proposes that if the parties are in Australia, then X should eventually see her father at most 4 nights a fortnight. But if X were in living in the USA and not seeing her father every week, the mother proposes that she can spend a week overnight with him if he visits. I am as perplexed as the Report writer at paragraph 96 is with the mother's proposals for time.
6. I am satisfied consistent with the evidence of the Report writer that X's time with her father should increase. I am satisfied that her time with her father should promptly return to the arrangement that she had with him prior to October 2024. To give effect to that arrangement, she should immediately commence spending time with her father for five nights a fortnight with that time increasing to an equal time arrangement in the third term of the year she turns six. That gives her time to settle into school before moving to an equal time arrangement.
7. I am satisfied that the parents have the capacity to make such an arrangement work. I am satisfied that such an arrangement is in X's best interests as it provides time for her to engage with her father while providing respite to her mother, affords X the opportunity of consistent stable parenting, and minimises the changeovers which the mother seeks, albeit I am not satisfied the evidence demonstrates is an issue of such magnitude that it requires orders to avoid it. Otherwise, she will spend half school holidays with each parent with a provision that permits the mother to travel to the USA for a longer period in the shorter school holidays.
8. I am satisfied, considering all of the evidence and subject to the matters referred to above that orders substantially in accordance with those sought by the father are ones that are in X's best interests.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and sixty-five (165) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Schonell.