Andrewson & Trudeau (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 677 (25 September 2025)

(a) 1 October 2025 at 12.00 pm, for up to one (1) hour; and

(b) 16 December 2025 at 10.00 am, for up to one (1) hour.

1. For the purpose of time occurring as ordered in Order 2:

(a) the father shall attend at Level 3, Court Children's Service at the Brisbane Registry, no later than fifteen (15) minutes before the time ordered at Order 2(a) and (b); and

(b) the mother, or a nominee of the mother if they are known to the children, shall bring the children to Level 3, Court Children's Service at the Brisbane Registry, no earlier than ten (10) minutes before the time ordered at Order 2(a) and (b); and

(c) the mother, or a nominee of the mother if they are known to the children, shall collect the children from Level 3, Court Children's Service at the Brisbane Registry, no later than one (1) hour after the commencement of the ordered time provided for in Orders 2(a) and (b); and

(d) the father shall leave Level 3, Court Children's Service at the Brisbane Registry, no earlier than ten (10) minutes after the children have been collected by the mother or her nominee.

1. The Court Child Expert shall prepare a written report in the proceedings following the children spending time with the father.
2. For the purpose of Order 2 only, the mother and father are restrained and an injunction issue restraining them from:

(a) contacting or approaching each other in any way or means at the Brisbane Registry or in its surrounds; and

(b) having any other person contact or approach each other in any way, or by any means at the Brisbane Registry or in its surrounds, on their behalf.

1. Pursuant to s 65DA(2) and s 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders and details of who can assist parties to adjust to and comply with an Order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached and these particulars are included in these Orders.

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

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

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

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

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Andrewson & Trudeau (No 3) has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. These proceedings, which involve the determination of those parenting orders which are in the best interests of the children X (who was born 2012), Y (who was born 2014) and Z (who was born 2015), are listed for final hearing for nine days commencing on 19 January 2026.
2. The parties were previously offered trial dates in November 2025 and December 2025; for a variety of reasons, these were declined.
3. The existing interim parenting order, made by Baumann J on 16 August 2024, provides for the children to spend supervised time with the father as recommended by B Contact Service but no more frequently than for two hours per fortnight. The order also provides that, to give effect to the order, the parents sign all documents necessary to enrol for intake at the contact centre, attend any intake sessions, share the costs of attendances subsequent to the intake and attend and facilitate the children personally attending.
4. The mother opposed an order being made on an interim basis for the children to spend time with the father;[1] on 12 September 2024, she filed an Application in a Proceeding by which she sought, amongst other things, that the time ordered by Baumann J be suspended until X and Y were psychiatrically assessed;[2] on 13 September 2024, she filed a Notice of Appeal in relation to the August 2024 interim parenting orders.
5. On 21 November 2024, Baumann J made orders which stayed the operation of those orders which would see the children spend supervised time with the father pending determination of the mother's appeal.
6. On 10 December 2024, the Full Court of this Court heard the mother's appeal; on 26 February 2025, the Full Court dismissed the mother's appeal.
7. Despite the above, the children have not spent time with the father at the contact centre as provided for by the August 2024 orders or at all.

1. The mother seeks that the operation of the August 2024 interim parenting orders be suspended until Dr O undertakes psychiatric treatment of all three children.
2. The father opposes the mother's application; he remains willing and ready to spend time with the children as provided for by the August 2024 orders.

Some of the evidence which was before Baumann J prior to him making the August 2024 orders

1. A Family Report was prepared by Ms E[3] in this matter; for that purpose, the children were interviewed on 14 May 2024, at which time X had not spent time or communicated with the father since 1 August 2020 and Y and Z had seen him only at the first Family Report interviews in April 2021.
2. When interviewed by Ms E, the children expressed the following views, as reported by Ms E, about spending time with their father.
3. After having seen the father for the first time since 2020, X said she thought it would be a lot worse; she was open to seeing him again and she had enjoyed seeing him - she denied having any worries about him and said she was "just nervous about the whole thing having to see him after so long but once I did, it was fine". She also volunteered that she would not mind if she saw the father "every other weekend or something. If we saw him a few times". She also said that, whilst she had initially missed her father "a little bit" after the parental separation, she had then put him out of her mind - but, when she saw him during the interview, "it made me miss him a bit".
4. According to Ms E, Y told her, in response to her asking how it felt to see her father, that at first she was nervous but, once they got warmed up, it had felt better; in response to Ms E asking how she would feel about seeing her father regularly, she said "I don't think I'd want to see him regularly. I would be fine seeing him around. I don't want to like, always see him. I don't really know why I don't feel the best around him and I feel better around Mum". She said that at first, after the parental separation, she had missed her father but that she had moved on and learned to live without him. She also said her mother had told her that she was "doing a lot of Court and Lawyers and stuff and she didn't get to decide if we asked to see him"; she said Z had asked a lot about when they would see their father again - she did not think "anyone asks now".
5. According to Ms E, Z told her, in response to her asking how it felt to see his father, that it was "good" and the idea of seeing the father regularly was "okay". He shared that he felt a little unsure and sometimes worried about seeing the father "but not usually" and explained it was because he was away from the girls or his mother. He reported that not seeing his father for nearly four years was okay because "once he's out of the house for three months it was kind of okay"; he said he "kind of a little bit" missed his father when he did not see him and that he had sometimes asked about seeing the father - his mother had not really answered him or had said "I don't know or in a bit".

1. Counsel for the mother submitted, in essence, that Dr F's intervention by way of his letter on 3 September 2024 to the former Independent Children's Lawyer to obtain urgent treatment for X, and his report which offers an opinion about the children, constituted "new facts" or "changed circumstances" as it did not form part of the evidence which had been before Baumann J.
2. It was also submitted that, as well as the intervention by Dr F, B Contact Service had determined, following an intake assessment process, that, given the children's mental health concerns and how long it had been since the father had spent time with the children, the service would not allow them to start to spend time with the father - rather, the service required that the children first participate in a counselling course. Counsel submitted that, on 21 November 2024, Baumann J clarified that this was not something he had intended to form part of the supervised time which he had ordered take place.
3. In the mother's case, details were provided about the children's mental health and therapeutic engagement after the August 2024 orders were made - these included that:

(a) X had attended her first appointment with Dr O on 1 October 2024, albeit that the mother had experienced immense difficulties getting her to that appointment - at this appointment, Dr O told the mother that: if X's anxiety continued to prevent her from going to school, he would have to admit her to hospital and she would need to do her schooling from there; X's anxiety and school refusal was a medical emergency and, if her mental state continued, it would be "difficult for her to come back from this"; he recommended that X be medicated and, if this did not work, she would have to be hospitalised; following reviews of the medication, the dosage of Lexapro had been increased from 5mg to 20mg per day; the mother's report included that Dr O had expressed that X may have other neurotype difficulties and he had asked that both she and X's school complete a questionnaire - after this data had been received, he had recommended, on 11 August 2025, that X commence on 5mg of Dexamphetamines; and

(b) Y's mental health had declined rapidly over the past year and this had included increased issues with her school attendance, where she would have emotional outbursts and become distressed; her school attendance was now 70 percent; she has issues sleeping, experiences negative self-talk and had recently expressed suicidal ideations (writing phrases which included: "I shouldn't be alive", "I'm ugly", "I'm too loud", "go to school" and "why was I ever born"); she had started to see Dr O in February 2025, after which the mother said he informed her that some of the things that Y did with her hands could be signs of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder - whilst she was initially started on a dosage of 5mg of Lexapro per day, this has increased over the course of her appointments with Dr O to a dosage of 20mg per day; and

(c) Z had exhibited themes of seeking out protection and safety and had told his mother that his continued use of and gathering of weapons was to feel safe; he had struggled with X and Y's school refusal - which had led to him having outbursts and subsequently refusing to go to school and his school attendance was now 70 percent; he started to see Dr O in February 2025 - whilst Dr O initially recommended that his behaviour be monitored, he was now taking 10mg of Lexapro per day.

1. Counsel for the mother submitted that, given the serious concerns about X's mental health, anything that jeopardises her ability to obtain treatment would be detrimental to her wellbeing and jeopardise her safety. It was submitted that all of this constitutes new evidence from which the Court must conclude there is a significant change of circumstances which supports the decision to suspend the operation of the August 2024 interim parenting orders and relieve both the children and, importantly, the mother from the obligation that the children spend supervised time with the father.
2. Counsel for the mother further submitted that the Court could not simply assume that the children's functioning would not be further adversely affected by the introduction of time with their father. It was also submitted that the mother is the only person responsible for the children's care, and she is "hanging by a thread" - if she fails, there is no other alternative for the children. It was ultimately submitted that, absent further expert evidence about the issue, the burden of getting the children to attend a contact centre to spend time with the father and then having to deal with the children thereafter was too large for the mother to carry when added to the burdens she is currently required to carry vis-à-vis the children's care and she would be left to continue to absorb this "soul-destroying life".
3. Counsel for the father submitted, in essence, that the mother had, at each step, sought to ensure that the children do not spend time with the father; it was submitted that the nature of the concerns about which submissions were made on her behalf are not new - rather, they have been repeatedly ventilated throughout the entirety of the proceedings.
4. Counsel submitted that the mother had asserted that, on 8 August 2024, Dr F commented to her that X, in particular, was suffering a "psychiatric emergency requiring intervention", which was later reiterated in correspondence of 3 September 2024 directed to the then Independent Children's Lawyer - this had formed the basis for the mother's urgent application for an order suspending the operation of the interim parenting order. It was submitted that it was then that the parents agreed that the children should engage with Dr O, to receive treatment.
5. It was submitted on behalf of the father that the children's issues with mental health were not new - they had been considered both by Baumann J when he made the August 2024 orders and the Full Court of this Court on appeal. In addition, both parents had given evidence about the improvements that the children had experienced since starting to see Dr O - albeit that, in particular, X's presentation continues to fluctuate, particularly in relation to her school attendance.
6. The father's evidence about what he has been told by Dr O included that the doctor had told him that things were not severe or "incapacitated" and that it was "not a medical emergency".
7. Counsel for the father submitted, in essence, that it was accepted that the predominate feature of the issues surrounding the children are school refusal and, for Z, behavioural issues and dysregulation. It was accepted that the children have been engaged in some form of therapy for anxiety since 2020 - although it was also noted that the mother's evidence included that both X and Y have now sought to have a break from counselling.
8. Whilst Counsel for the father submitted that, given the mother's appeal was wholly unsuccessful and the August 2024 orders remain in force, the court would not be persuaded that awaiting the determination of her current Application in a Proceeding provided a proper basis for her failure to comply with the August 2024 order for the children to spend supervised time with the father, the court is not currently dealing with a application for contravention.
9. Counsel for the father ultimately submitted that the mother's application ought to be dismissed because: there was no new evidence which would warrant the suspension of time; the mother has never complied with the August 2024 order and her application is yet another iteration of her attempts to ensure that the children spend no time with the father.

1. As noted earlier, this matter will proceed to trial in January 2026. The reasons provided to explain why I have concluded that it is not in the children's best interests for the August 2024 order, which provides them the opportunity to spend supervised time with their father within the confines of a contact centre, to be discharged need to be considered in this context. The comments expressed are also made cognisant of the fact of the impending trial and of the associated necessity to reserve the expression of whatever findings of fact may ultimately be made then until then.
2. Whilst the evidence appears to show that, shortly after X's engagement with Dr O, there was some improvement in her overall functioning and school attendance, the most recent reports show that her school attendance has now significantly worsened - by way of broad summary, she most recently attended about five days of school in almost five weeks. This has occurred absent her having the opportunity to spend any time with the father - the same can be said in relation to the reports about how Y and Z have been functioning more recently.
3. The current circumstances differ from those in which the introduction of interactions between children and an absent parent can arguably been seen to be casually responsible for disruptions (of whatever kind) to those children's functioning. The terms of the August 2024 interim parenting orders for the children's supervised time with the father have never been put into effect or, beyond the intake process, even attempted.
4. As a consequence of the actions taken by the Drs F and O, the children have had the benefit of engaging with Dr O. Whilst such engagement appears to have provided them all with some support, the longevity of the positive impacts of the same appear unclear.
5. Even having regard to the evidence about the children's current functioning, I am not persuaded at present that their best interests will be met by removing from them the opportunity to spend supervised time with the father at a contact centre. Given the views Ms E reports the children to have expressed when interviewed in May 2024 (which included X saying that she would like to see the father every other weekend, Y saying that she would be happy to see her father around and Z asserting that the idea of seeing his father regularly was okay, although this was later accompanied by the thought that he would feel "safe" if his mother was with him too), it seems to me that it may be possible that, absent the opportunity to spend time with the father, the children may be experiencing a repeat of the circumstances which followed the parental separation - or such musing may prove to be entirely erroneous.
6. When the matter was argued, I raised with Counsel the possibility of a Court Child Expert providing assistance to the parents and the children in the implementation of the August 2024 order via the facilitation of two engagements between the children and the father, for no longer than one hours duration each, during school holiday periods which fall before the trial. The dates of 1 October 2025 and 16 December 2025 were chosen, purposefully, as being dates which fall during the Queensland school holiday periods in the hope that doing so may alleviate some of those anxieties which the children bear in relation to school; it was also hoped that providing for observed interactions to occur within the school holidays would acknowledge the mother's evidence about the burdens which the children's current described functioning has placed on her.
7. Arranging for such time to occur in school holidays will obviate the need for the children to miss further school attendance; it will also mean that the children are not inadvertently sent a message that school commitments are those commitments which are always expected to yield to other commitments; it will also mean that the mother is not required to arrange for the children to attend at the Brisbane Registry for those appointments during school terms.
8. In addition, the facilitation of the children's interactions with the father on these occasions will be supported by a Court Child Expert, will occur within the Registry (and, therefore, under supervision) and will be of limited duration. The report which will subsequently be prepared by the Court Child Expert entrusted with the task of facilitating the children's time with the father will enable the parents to receive the same information about whatever observations occur.
9. I note the submissions made by Counsel for the mother to the effect that a requirement for the children to spend time with the father facilitated by a Court Child Expert would impact significantly upon the mother and, potentially, on her ability to prepare for the trial. The knowledge of the matters summarised briefly above and the continued support from those from whom she has obtained support to date will, I hope, provide further succour.
10. In addition, in an attempt to further alleviate at least some of the practical burdens about which the mother has given evidence, orders will be made to enable her nominee, known to the children, to convey the children to and from the Brisbane Registry building for the purpose of the Court Child Expert facilitated interactions with their father and to ensure that, if the mother accompanies the children, she and the father will not interact.
11. For these short reasons then, I consider that the orders set out at the commencement of these Reasons are orders which are in the children's best interests and proper.

I certify that the preceding thirty-seven (37) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Hogan.

[2] This Application in a Proceeding was amended on 7 November 2024 to, amongst other things, include Z.

[3] Affidavit of Ms E sealed 23 July 2024.