Argo & Argo [2025] FedCFamC2F 1601 (18 November 2025)

(1) Affidavit of Mr Argo filed 21 March 2025;

(2) Affidavit of Mr Argo filed 10 (sic) May 2025; and

(3) Family Report of Family Consultant, Ms B dated 22 March 2024.

1. In addition, the father relied upon the following document:

(1) (Amended) Initiating Application filed 21 March 2025;

1. The father also tendered and relied upon Exhibits F1 to F18 inclusive.
2. The mother filed an (Amended) Outline of Case Document (Final Hearing) on 16 May 2025 which outlines at Part B that she relies upon the following documents:

(1) (Amended) Response to Initiating Application filed 5 December 2024;

(2) Second (Amended) Response to Initiating Application filed 23 April 2025;

(3) Affidavit of Ms Argo filed 23 April 2025; and

(4) Affidavit of Ms C filed 9 May 2025.

1. The mother also tendered and relied upon Exhibits M1 to M17 inclusive.
2. The Independent Children's Lawyer filed an Outline of Case Document (Final Hearing) on 15 May 2025 which outlined at Part B that they rely upon the following documents:

(1) Child Impact Report dated 6 July 2023;

(2) Family Report of Family Consultant, Ms B dated 22 March 2024;

(3) Affidavit of Denise Rieniets filed 7 February 2025;

(4) (Amended) Initiating Application filed 21 March 2025;

(5) Affidavit of Mr Argo filed 21 March 2025;

(6) (Amended) Response to Initiating Application filed 23 April 2025;

(7) Affidavit of Ms Argo filed 23 April 2025;

(8) Affidavit of Mr Argo filed 9 May 2025; and

(9) Affidavit of Ms C filed 9 May 2025.

1. The Independent Children's lawyer also tendered and relied upon Exhibit I1.

1. In his (Amended) Application for Final Orders filed 21 March 2025, the father seeks final orders in the following terms:

Decision Making

1. That the parties have joint decision-making responsibility for major long-term decisions affecting the children [X] born [in] 2016 and [Y] (sic) born [in] 2018 ("the children").

Care arrangements

1. The children live with the mother.

2. The children spend time with the father as follows:

   1. For a period of six weeks, the children will spend time with the father from 11am until 2pm each alternate Saturday; with such time to occur under the supervision of [MS D] from [F Services].
   2. After compliance of paragraph 3 a herein, the children shall spend time with the father from 11am until 4pm each alternate Saturday on two occasions.
   3. After compliance with paragraph 3 b herein the children shall spend time with the father from 9am until 5pm each alternate Saturday for a period of two months.
   4. After compliance with paragraph 3 c herein the children shall spend time with the father from 9am Saturday until 5pm Sunday each alternate weekend for a period of 3 months.
   5. After compliance with paragraph 3 d herein the children shall spend time with the father from the conclusion of school Friday (3pm on a non-school day) until 5pm Sunday each alternate weekend for a period of three months.
   6. After compliance with paragraph 3 e herein the children shall spend time with the father from the conclusion of school Friday (3pm on a non-school day) until the commencement of school Monday (5pm on a non-school day) each alternate weekend for a period of three months.
   7. On such other occasions as agreed in writing between the parties.

3. That all handover that do not take place at CCS (sic) or at the children school shall take place at the McDonald's on [G Street, Suburb H] unless otherwise agreed in writing by the parties.

4. That the father shall ensure that he facilitates the children's extracurricular activities while the children are in his care.

5. Commencing April 2026 school holidays the children's time with the father increase by one night each school holiday until such time that the children ae spending week-about time with each parent in the school holidays.

Special Occasions

1. In respect to Mother's Day, if Mother's Day falls on a day when the said children are with the father then the said children shall spend time with the maternal grandmother (sic) from 9:00am to 5:00pm on Mother's Day, with the father having liberty to join the festivities.

2. In respect to Father's Day, if Father's Day falls on a day when the said children are with the mother then the said children shall spend time with the maternal grandmother (sic) from 9:00am to 5:00pm on Father's Day.

3. In respect to Christmas Day 2025, the father shall have the said children from 10:00am to 2:00pm Christmas Day and with the maternal grandmother (sic) from Christmas Day 2:00pm until Boxing Day 2025 that the parties shall alternate each year thereafter.

4. That the said children spend Easter 2026 and each year thereafter with the father from 10:00am to 2:00pm Easter Day and all other Easter Days with the maternal grandmother (sic).

5. In respect of the children's birthday, the children shall spend time with the party that is not caring for them in that week from 3:30pm to 6:30pm or as otherwise agreed in writing and this agreement shall alternate each year so that each party can spend time with the respective child on their birthday.

Communication

1. That communication between the parties occur by text message unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing.

2. In the event either party changes their mobile number and/or email address, they are to notify the other parties within forty-eight (48) hours of same.

3. That the father shall be at liberty to contact the children via telephone every Wednesday and Sunday at 5:00pm, with the father to SMS the maternal grandmother (sic) if he is not able to facilitate the call, and for that purpose the father shall initiate the call to the maternal grandmother's (sic) telephone number UPON NOTING that the children will take the telephone call as expressed by their wishes.

Schooling and Authorities

1. These orders do act as authority for each party to receive education record and/or information as well as any record maintained by any educational school the children may attend from time to time regarding the children's attendance and education including school reports, newsletter, awards at the requesting party's sole expense.

2. Both parties are at liberty to attend all school functions and extra-curricular activities for the children's which parents are permitted and/or are invited to attend.

Medical and Authorities

1. In the event of a medical emergency involving the children, or either of them, the party in whose care they are in will notify the other parties as soon as practicable via mobile telephone and the parties be at liberty to attend upon the children in the event of hospitalisation.

2. These orders do act as authority for each party to receive medical and/or dental records and information as well as any record maintained by any health professional, therapist or counsellor regarding the children's attendance or treatment, at the requesting party's sole expense.

Injunctions and Restraints

1. The parties be restrained and an injunction is hereby granted restraining each of them from:
   1. Abusing, denigrating or threatening the other person in the presence of the said children.
   2. Abusing, denigrating or criticising the other party's family in the presence of the children, or from allowing any other person to do so.
   3. Publishing anything about the other party, their family or this matter on social media or allowing anyone else to do so.
   4. Consuming any illicit substance or drink alcohol twenty-four (24) hours before the children coming into his or her care, or allowing any other person to do so.
   5. Discussing these proceedings with or in the presence of the said children.
   6. Physically discipling the children, or from allowing any other person to do so.
2. That the ICL be discharged.
3. All applications be dismissed.
4. Such other Orders that this Honourable Court deems fit.

1. In her Second (Amended) Response to Initiating Application filed 23 April 2025, the mother seeks final orders in the following terms:
   1. That the mother have sole parental responsibility regarding the decision making for the long term issues with respect to children [X] born [in] 2016 and [Y] born [in] 2018 ("the children").
   2. The children live with the mother.
   3. The children spend no time with the father.
   4. That the father pay the mother's costs of and incidental to these proceedings.
   5. Such further Orders as this Honourable Court deems fit.

1. In their Outline of Case Document (Final Hearing) filed 15 May 2025, the Independent Children's Lawyer did not promote any resumption of time spending between the father and the children but did support an order for sole decision-making responsibility in favour of the mother.
2. During closing submissions, the Independent Children's Lawyer promoted orders as tendered in Exhibit I1 as follows:
   1. All previous orders are discharged.
   2. The Respondent Mother shall have sole parental responsibility for the children.
   3. The children shall live with the Respondent Mother.
   4. The Applicant Father shall spend time with the children, subject to the following:
      1. In the event that the children express a desire to spend time with the Applicant Father, then the Respondent Mother shall advise the Applicant Father and shall thereafter facilitate same.
      2. In addition the Applicant Father shall be at liberty to send cards, gifts and letters on no more than 4 occasions per year, and the mother shall ensure that the children receive all such cards, gifts and letters in a timely manner.
   5. The Respondent Mother shall forthwith advise the Applicant Father and keep him advised of her current address and contact details.

AND UPON NOTING THAT:

1. The Applicant Father and the Respondent Mother shall undertake co-parenting counselling with [Ms J] or such other therapist as may be agreed at the joint and equal expense of the parties which shall continue with such regularity as may be recommended by the therapist with each party to contact the nominated therapist within 7 days of the making of this order to make appointments for same, and the father's solicitor to provide the therapist with a copy of these orders;

2. The Applicant Father and the children shall undertake reportable reunification therapy with [Ms L] at the sole expense of the father which shall continue with such regularity as may be recommended by [Ms L], and the parties shall comply with the recommendations of [Ms L] including whether the following time spending provisions can commence or should remain suspended.

3. [Ms J] and [Ms L] shall be at liberty to confer regarding the parties and the children.

4. The parties shall be at liberty to provide copies of the following documents to the therapists -

   1. The Family Report
   2. The Report of [Ms C]
   3. The Report of [Ms K]
   4. All Contact Centre Reports

5. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 6 herein, within seven (7) days of the date of these Orders the parties shall do all things necessary to re-enrol in the Children's Contact Service for the Applicant Father to commence supervised visits with the children at such dates and times as advised by the service at the father's expense with the visits to commence when advised by [Ms L].

6. In the event that the Respondent Mother fails to or refuses to comply with paragraph 5 (a) herein, then the Order for the children to spend time with the Applicant Father pursuant to paragraph 13 herein shall take effect forthwith.

7. The Applicant Father shall spend time with the children on a supervised basis at the (sic) an agreed Children's Contact Centre for a total of six (6) visits.

8. All handovers for time spending at to take place at the [PLACE] (sic) or such other venue as may be agreed from time to time in writing.

9. At the conclusion of the 6 sessions of supervised time at the Children's Contact Service, the children spend time with the father each alternate weekend from ..... (sic) Friday night to ...... (sic) Sunday night; and half of all school holiday periods on a week about basis commencing the second week of the school holiday period.

10. On special occasions:

    1. With the Applicant Father for Christmas in even years from 3pm on Christmas Eve until 3pm on Boxing Day PROVIDED THAT the said child spend time with the Respondent Mother from 3pm on Christmas Eve until 3pm on Boxing Day in the odd years;

    2. With the Applicant Father for Easter in odd years from 5.00pm on Maundy Thursday until 5pm on Easter Monday;

    3. With the Respondent Mother for Easter in even years from the conclusion of school on Maundy Thursday (or 3.00pm if a non school day) until the commencement of school Tuesday (or 9am if a non school day);

    4. With the Respondent Mother for Mother's Day from 12.00pm until 5.00pm Sunday;

    5. With the Applicant Father for Father's Dat from 12.00am (sic) until 5.00pm Sunday; and

    6. Such further or other times as agreed between the parties in writing.

(Emphasis in original)

1. The orders promoted by the Independent Children's lawyer in Exhibit I1 are referred to further in these Reasons.

1. The central issues in dispute at Trial were the following:

(1) Parental decision-making;

(2) Time spending considerations with the father; and

(3) If time spending was ordered by the Court, any conditions to attach thereto.

1. The father seeks to resume a relationship with X aged nine years and Y aged seven years. The mother opposes any form of time spending or communication between the father and the children.
2. A central issue for consideration in this case is family violence, specifically family violence perpetrated by the father to the mother and in the presence of, or in the vicinity of, the children. There are also ancillary issues including but not limited to the poor co-parenting relationship, the inability of the parties to communicate with one another, lack of trust and the capacity of the father to abide by the terms of a final Intervention Order ('the final Intervention Order') made for the protection of the mother.
3. The father does not deny that a violent incident occurred between the parties at their home in July 2021, with this incident heralding the end of the parties relationship. The father was convicted of aggravated assault in late 2023 arising from this incident. For a period thereafter the father did not see or communicate with the children who were initially included on an interim Intervention Order ('the interim Intervention Order').
4. Time spending between the father and the children resumed on 6 November 2021, shortly after the children were removed from the interim Intervention Order. It is the father's case that when time recommenced, it was controlled by the mother who dictated the terms and conditions and with that time being restricted to unsupervised daytime contact. The mother does not agree with the father's complaints.
5. On 10 July 2022, the father spent time with the children and visited a venue known as the M Venue. The mother approved of this venue where the children could interact with, and ride on, animals such as small ponies. After M Venue, the father and the children visited the father's grandparents' home. The second venue had not been approved by the mother. Shortly thereafter, in person time spending was withdrawn by the mother. FaceTime communication also petered out before ending in early October 2022.
6. It is the father's case that the mother has deliberately obstructed any attempt by him to re-establish his relationship with the children and that she has used her knowledge as a worker employed by N Organisation to strengthen her position before the Court. The father contends that he has taken steps to address his behaviour and is deeply remorseful for his actions which led to the end of the parties relationship. The father argues that the children met with him for the observed interactions with the Family Consultant. Whilst the children refused to see him at the Children's Contact Service, he promotes an alternate independent supervisor before ultimately moving to unsupervised time.
7. The mother's case is the opposite. She maintains that the incident in July 2021 was a traumatic event for herself and the children which reverberates to this day. The mother argues that her attempts to reestablish the children's relationship with the father were unsuccessful and that the father is being disingenuous in his position put before the Court. The mother contends that the father has learnt nothing from his past behaviour and that the counselling undertaken by him has not addressed his underlying problems. Importantly, the mother contends that the father will not abide by Court orders in the future which will put the children's safety at risk.
8. In support of her position the mother refers to an incident which occurred only weeks before the Trial commenced before this Court whereby the father attended unannounced at the children's dance concert and breached the final Intervention Order in place for the protection of the mother.
9. At the date of Trial, the father had not spent time with the children for over three years save for a brief period of observed interaction as part of the Family Report. Attempts to reunify father and the children at the Children's Contact Service had been unsuccessful. No further attempts had been made to reintroduce the children to the father prior to Trial.
10. At Trial, the father proposed that time resume under the supervision of a Ms D ('Ms D') from an organisation called "F Services." The father's proposal was opposed by the mother. Surprisingly given the importance of the father's proposal, there was no evidence before the Court from Ms D or "F Services." Nor did the father propose any other alternate supervisor such as a family member who could have given evidence and been scrutinised by the Court as to his or her appropriateness to fulfill that role.
11. In these difficult circumstances, the Court is left with trying to determine the dispute in making orders that are in the best interests of the children where the evidence promoted by the father in support of the orders that he seeks is patently deficient.

1. The father was born in 1980 and is 45 years of age. He is a professional transport worker.
2. The mother was born in 1984 and is 41 years of age. She is employed by N Organisation as an allied health worker. The mother has qualifications in allied health.
3. The parties formed a relationship in 2011 and commenced cohabitation in January 2012.
4. In 2012, the father was acquitted of a charge of rape against a former domestic partner following Trial.
5. Also in 2012, the father was convicted for trafficking a commercial quantity of a controlled substance, namely, cocaine and ecstasy and sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
6. Upon the father's release from prison, the parties were married in 2015.
7. The children were born in 2016 and 2018 respectively.
8. In mid-2019, the mother commenced employment with N Organisation.
9. In July 2021, an incident occurred between the parties at their home which resulted in final separation. On that day, the South Australia Police issued the interim Intervention Order against the father for the protection of the mother and the children.
10. From July 2021 to 6 November 2021, the children did not spend time or communicate with the father.
11. From August to December 2021, the father attended therapy with Ms O ('Ms O'), Psychologist.
12. In or about October 2021, the father forwarded handwritten correspondence to the mother expressing remorse for his behaviour in relation to the events that lead to the breakdown of their relationship.[1]
13. In late 2021, the children were removed from the interim Intervention Order issued in July 2021.
14. From 6 November 2021 to 10 July 2022, the children spent time with the father by agreement with the mother.
15. On 10 July 2022, the father visited M Venue and later visited his paternal grandparents with the children. The father sent the mother a text message enclosing photographs of the children at M Venue.
16. In July 2022, the father sent a text message to mother enclosing photographs of the children with their great paternal grandparents.
17. On 3 August 2022, the parties exchanged text messages regarding the father's request to spending time with the children. The mother told the father that his time with the children would not be continuing because the father had "lied" about where the children had been taken on the weekend of 10 July 2022.
18. From 15 August 2022 to 1 September 2022, the children communicated with the father via FaceTime calls.
19. On 10 September 2022, the father's FaceTime communication with the children ceased, save for a FaceTime call with X for her birthday.
20. On 20 February 2023, the father filed an Initiating Application seeking final and interim orders for parenting of the children.
21. On 18 April 2023, an interim order was made by consent for the parties to enrol at P Contact Service ('the Contact Service') for time spending with the father and the children, noting that the father was not to spend time with the children until the outcome of his criminal proceedings (likely to be sometime in September 2023) was determined. A further order was made by consent for the father to communicate with the children via FaceTime each week.
22. On 6 July 2023, a Child Impact Report ('the Child Impact Report') was released by the Court.
23. On 28 July 2023, FaceTime communication between the father and the children ceased. The mother alleged that the father had been unreliable in his FaceTime communications, that the father made negative comments about the mother to the children during the FaceTime calls and that the children were fearful. The mother also relied upon the contents of the Child Impact Report.
24. From August 2023 to March 2024, the children attended counselling sessions through the "Q Program" at S Centre.
25. In late 2023, the father pleaded guilty to aggravated assault against the mother arising from the incident in July 2021 on an agreed set of facts. The father received a without conviction good behaviour bond for a period of two years in the sum of $500. The final Intervention Order was confirmed for the protection of the mother on this day.
26. On 13 October 2023, the father put forward a proposal to the mother that his time spending with the children resume on one occasion each week, with time to be supervised by the paternal grandfather, and that FaceTime communication resume in accordance with the orders of 18 April 2023.
27. On 26 October 2023, the mother declined the father's proposal for time spending supervised by the paternal grandfather.
28. On 27 October 2023, the father received a certificate of completion for the Circle of Security parenting program.
29. On 31 October 2023, the father proposed that his time with the children be supervised by a professional social worker, namely, Ms D. The mother did not accept this proposal.
30. On 5 December 2023, orders were made for the appointment of an Independent Children's Lawyer and the preparation of a Family Assessment Report. The orders for FaceTime communication between the children and the father were discharged. Further orders were made for the father to spend time at the Contact Service and for an Observational Report to be obtained after six visits. The father was further ordered to engage in anger management therapy with Mr K ('Mr K') of R Centre at the father's sole expense, and all interim applications were otherwise dismissed.
31. On 18 March 2024, Panel Family Consultant Ms B ('Ms B') undertook interviews with and observations of the parties and the children.
32. On 19 March 2024, the father unilaterally sent a letter to Ms B.[2]
33. On 22 March 2024, the Family Assessment Report ('the Family Report') of Ms B was published. The Family Report recommended that the supervised time at the Contact Service proceed with handovers to be facilitated by the maternal grandparents on the mother's behalf. The Family Report recommended a gradual increase in time to three overnights on each alternate weekend and additional time in school holidays subject to the father's employment.
34. At the date of publication of the Family Report, the children had not yet commenced time with the father at the Contact Service as ordered.
35. On 22 May 2024, the mother unilaterally referred the children for therapy to T Centre. Whilst the initial intake was undertaken by a provisional psychologist, the primary purpose of the therapy was for the children to attend upon Ms C, Clinical Psychologist ('Ms C'). Ms C has a specialist practice treating trauma and has undertaken work for N Organisation.
36. There is no dispute that the referral to Ms C was made without the knowledge, consent nor imprimatur of the father, the Independent Children's Lawyer nor the Court.
37. On 2 June, 16 June and 30 June 2024 respectively, unsuccessful attempts were made for the children to spend time with the father at the Contact Service. The Contact Service thereafter terminated all future visits.
38. In June 2024, the Observational Report from the Contact Service in relation to the father's visits with the children was released.
39. In late 2024, the father was charged with two counts of breaching the final Intervention Order against the mother. These charges were withdrawn in early 2025.
40. In April 2025, the father attended at the children's dance concert where the mother was present. The mother telephoned police, and the father was arrested and conveyed to the City Watchhouse. The father was charged with contravening a term of an intervention order pursuant to section 31(2) of the Intervention Orders (Prevention) of Abuse Act 2009 (SA). This charge had not been resolved by the date of Trial.[3]
41. On 23 April 2025, the report of Ms C in relation to her counselling with the children was prepared.
42. On 1 May 2025, the father unilaterally forwarded further email correspondence to Ms B.

1. The father was cross-examined at length regarding his criminal antecedent history and allegations of violence involving former partners and members of his family.
2. The father's evidence as to the specific incidents involving violence is summarised below:

(a) The father admitted to an argument with his mother on 5 June 2000. He denied punching glass or using swear words. The father stated he was estranged from his mother at the time of the incident but is now close to her.

(b) The father admitted having had argument with his grandfather on 1 August 2000 but denied throwing his grandfather to the ground. He described his grandfather "stumbling" but not falling to the ground. The father denied a physical fight.

(c) The father admitted having been in a domestic relationship with Ms U ('Ms U'), and that in 2002 she had obtained an intervention order against him. The father denied placing his hands on her throat. The father admitted to breaching the intervention order against Ms U. The father denied entering Ms U's home in late 2002. The father stated that he admitted to allegations made by Ms U because he wanted the charges to "go away." In doing so, the father now admitted that he had lied to the Court. The father stated that what he had admitted to in the criminal proceedings he did not actually do.

(d) The father admitted having been in a domestic relationship Ms V ('Ms V'). The father denied holding Ms V by the throat and further denied assaulting her. The father alleged that the mother was aware of the criminal allegations concerning Ms V during their relationship because she had read the police material. The father alleged that the mother had used elements of the allegations made by previous domestic partners (such as grabbing by the throat) because she had read about it in his police material.

(e) The father denied being a violent man. He admitted throwing a mirror toward the mother in July 2021 but denied that the mirror hit her. The father alleged that he threw the mirror in frustration against a wall and denied any intention to hurt or frighten the mother. The father agreed that the mother had backed away into the ensuite to get away from him. The father admitted that in hindsight, his actions would likely have terrified her.

(f) The father considered it likely that X remembered the event of July 2021. The father said that he is remorseful of those events.

(g) In relation to the photograph of the mother's injuries, the father admitted grabbing the mother and holding her by the hair. The father said they fell over the bed, that he kept telling her to stop and that she had tried to hit him in the groin. The father described that the parties were rolling around in the chaos of it all, and that he accidentally grabbed her hair. He said that he was defending himself from the mother.

(h) The father admitted that it was "quite possible" that the mother was now frightened of him. The father denied being frightened of the mother. The father admitted to pleading guilty to assault, the factual basis of which was that he threw a mirror. The father agreed that he and the mother had ended up on the floor, that X was crying, that he had been yelling at the mother to stop and that she had been trying to "break my hold."

(i) As to the incident in July 2021, the father said it was possible that he had "placed" the mother on the ground but denied throwing her, he said that they both ended up on the ground in the glass at the end of their bed. The father said that X was crying, and the mother had picked her up. The father had asked the mother to give X to him which she had done and the mother then left the room. X was calling for her mother. The mother then called the police.

(j) The father believed that the marks on the mother's neck as show in Exhibit M3 came from him restraining her during their scuffle.

(k) The father accepted that this Trial was likely to have a negative impact on the mother having to relive the events of July 2021 all over again.

1. The father said that the mother "knew all my history" and was aware that he was on home detention bail when they met in late 2011 after he was accused of rape by Ms V. The mother had asked him to telephone her father and tell him of the criminal allegations made by Ms V as her father is a former community worker.
2. The father described the mother as "very switched on."
3. The father admitted that prior to his relationship with the mother, he was "quite irresponsible." He agreed that in the past he did not follow Court orders or intervention orders, and that he had not taken "the system" seriously.
4. Prior to separation, the father said he had attended concerts for X at W Venue. The father had been following the children's dancing on Instagram and had contacted the club several weeks before the event on 6 April 2025 to make enquiry about the concert details. He admitted that the concert was an important event for the children, and that he should have sent a letter in advance advising that he wished to attend.
5. The father admitted attending at the dance concert on 6 April 2025. He described entering the theatre and taking a seat at the rear of the venue. The father explained that his parents had accompanied him as witnesses.[4]
6. The father said he then saw the mother enter the theatre and sit eight rows in front of him. Initially he did not recognise her. The father said that he was "shocked" because he had considered that the mother would be backstage and not seated in the auditorium.
7. The father said that he wanted to attend the concert to prove that he was still supporting the mother and the children, and to watch the concert. The father described undertaking his own "risk assessment" and having done so, considered that he would not be breaching the final Intervention Order because the mother would be behind the curtains and therefore not near him.
8. The father explained that the mother came up to him and asked him why he was there. The father said that he remained seated between his parents so that "he did not look aggressive." The mother then exited the auditorium and went into the foyer where he assumed (correctly) that the mother was calling the police. By this stage the father considered that the "worst option" would be to try and leave the venue. The father denied saying the words in paragraph 130 of the Trial affidavit of the mother filed 23 April 2025. The father admitted being arrested on what he said the police described as a "geographical technicality." The father was kept in custody overnight.
9. When challenged by the Court, the father agreed that it had been very imprudent of him to attend at the dance concert and described his decision to attend the dance concert a "massive mistake of judgement" on his behalf. The Court agrees with his self-assessment.
10. The father admitted that he could have ordered a DVD of the concert but did not do so because he missed the children. He said that he considered he would not be in breach of the final Intervention Order by attending. When the father was challenged about taking such a significant risk, he responded by saying that had he thought it was a significant risk, then he would not have been there.
11. The father contended that he is not a violent person but agreed that he had displayed some violent acts by throwing the mirror. The mirror in question was described by him as being about 5 foot in length and 2 foot wide.
12. The father admitted that he had accidentally pulled out some of the mother's hair during their scuffle. He thought that the hair had come out when he attempted to restrain her. In relation to the photographs in Exhibit M2, the father believed that some of the hair samples came from wigs that the mother had retained from her cancer treatment. The father said that the mother would be "lying" if all the hair in the photographs was said to have been ripped out by him.
13. In relation to the letter the father sent directly to Ms B on 19 March 2024, the father stated he sent the letter because he had been "overwhelmed" on the day of interview and did not think that he had been able to verbally state all that he needed to. The father agreed that he had not sent a copy of the letter to the mother or her solicitors. The father denied attempting to influence Ms B. The father believes that the mother had lied to prosecution as stated in his email to Ms B. He described the mother as being "dishonest about a lot of things."
14. The father agreed he had sent a second email to Ms B on 1 May 2025. The father said that the purpose of the email was to highlight the lies that had been told, and to express his frustration in not seeing the children. The father again denied that it was an attempt to influence Ms B.
15. In relation to what had occurred at the Contact Service, the father stated that the workers had informed him it was "not normal procedure" for a parent to sit with the children. The father considered that there was a "conflict of interest" because the mother worked next door at N Organisation. The father admitted that he had not previously complained to the Court about any perceived conflict of interest at the time the order was made for time at the Contact Service.
16. The father thought that finances were a "part" of why the mother was opposed to him spending time with the children. When asked by the Court as to what might be the other reasons why the mother was opposed to time spending, the father considered that the mother disliked his parents, and that after she learnt of the children's visit to his family following their time at the M Venue, she stopped him seeing the children because he had defied her.
17. The father admitted that the interim Intervention Order had been made by police in July 2021, and that he had breached the order the following day when he attended at the mother's residence for three minutes to collect his belongings. The father had thought the mother would not be at home. The father described himself and the mother having a civil conversation for 20 to 30 minutes, and the mother had allowed him to retrieve his personal belongings. The father admitted that he knew he would be breaching the interim Intervention Order by attending at the house the following day.
18. It was alleged that the father had breached the interim Intervention Order a week later by sending the mother an eight-page letter.[5] The father said the letter was sent in October 2021, and not July 2021 as asserted by the mother. The father said that he sent the letter to try and restore his relationship with the mother and the children.
19. When cross-examined by the Independent Children's Lawyer, the father agreed that he had made a deliberate decision to write to Ms B on 1 May 2025, despite being told by her on 19 March 2024 that all communication was to occur through the parties' solicitors.
20. The father said that in his opinion the mother has "knowledge of the system" and has used it to her advantage due to her employment with N Organisation.
21. As to the letter the father sent to the mother in 2021, the father acknowledged that the letter was sent in breach of the interim Intervention Order. The father said that he sent the letter "in faith" after the mother had told him to write a letter to her, which she had asked for in the weeks leading up to the letter being prepared by him. The father alleged that the mother had spoken to his friend Mr Z requesting a letter and that Mr Z had then in turn asked the father. The father agreed that he was alleging that the mother had "set him up" by asking him to send the letter knowing that he would be in breach of the interim Intervention Order by doing so.
22. The father acknowledged that there was no therapeutic report from Mr K before the Court at Trial. He said that his new solicitor Mr AA had suggested seeing Mr BB ('Mr BB') a social worker at CC Services to "be a better dad."
23. As to the children's diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ('PTSD') made by Ms C, the father said he was concerned with the diagnosis which he could not dispute. The father thought that X may have been affected by the incident in July 2021, but he could not explain why Y would have been diagnosed with PTSD because she was not present in the room when the incident took place.
24. The father agreed that he had not asked to see Ms C, nor had he asked for school reports because in his opinion the mother "shuts everything down" and threatens him.
25. In relation to the time spending following separation, the father stated that the dates and times in his affidavit were true. The father contended that the mother maintained the final Intervention Order for "control reasons" and "not due to fear." The father said that he considered the final Intervention Order was "tactical."
26. The father agreed that he had breached the final Intervention Order by talking to the mother at the end of a conversation which did not relate to the children. The father alleged that the mother had been recording the telephone calls using a separate device. The father denied calling the mother "a cunt."
27. The father admitted that he had not completed the Violence Prevention Program because it was impacting on his employment.
28. The father denied that he had "family violence issues" with his domestic partners. The father said that the complaints made by former domestic partners against him were largely "just allegations." The father said that his frustrations and anger issues "got the better of me" in July 2021.
29. The father denied that he was "victim blaming" the mother. The father considered that he was partially a victim but acknowledged that this all started from him throwing the mirror.
30. The father agreed that the parties should not have done what they did in front of the children and said that he accepted responsibility for escalating the dispute by throwing the mirror in the mother's direction.

1. The mother alleges that the father is an unsafe parent for the children. It is not in dispute that the father has been convicted of several serious charges including but not limited to, trafficking a commercial quantity of a controlled drug, driving offences, assault, trespass, attempted damage of property and failing to truly answer.[6]
2. The mother further alleges that the father has no respect for orders of the Court and has a long history of breaching orders, in particular intervention orders.[7]
3. The mother denied being aware of the father's history of domestic violence with former intimate partners at the time of cohabitation. The mother said that she had been aware of the drug charges and the rape allegations in 2011 but not the historical allegations against the father made by members of his family or his intimate partners. The mother agreed that she had supported the father through those criminal proceedings.
4. The mother denied asking the father's friend Mr Z to have the father write her a letter.
5. The mother stated that she thought the children would be at risk in the father's care with those risks being:

(1) Security;

(2) Safety;

(3) Psychological, emotional and developmental harm;

(4) Possible physical risks;

(5) Coercive control; and

(6) Concerns that the father "deminimises" the children's characters.

1. The mother said that the children should feel secure in their environments. In the mother's opinion, this does not happen with the father because he takes the children to places where they do not know where they are going, and to meet people who they do not know. She complained that the father had taken the children to places not approved of by her, and he had brought the children home late.
2. The mother considered that there was a "security risk" for the children in not knowing who they would be seeing and when they were coming home. The mother was not sure how this risk could be managed in the future. The mother agreed that it would be a "big risk" if the father deviated from a set itinerary and took the children to another location, because the children are always highly vigilant in relation to their environment.
3. The mother denied that her work as an allied health worker at N Organisation impacted on her decisions about the children. The mother considered that the father is not attuned to the children's needs. She believed that since final separation, the children had "regressed further" and that the father had done nothing to improve his parenting capacity.
4. In 2022 the mother had stopped contact because the father had been lying to her and the children about where they had gone during contact visits which she described as "more trauma and regression." The mother considered it very important that the children knew where they would be going during visits with their father. The mother complained that the children were being introduced to people they had never met and gave an example of the children meeting people at car shows when taken there by the father.
5. The mother said that she did not have "an issue" with the paternal grandmother nor the paternal great grandparents. Her concern was because the children did not know them and the father had taken them to visit the paternal family without the children knowing where they were going. She said that she has "nothing against them [the paternal family] per se."
6. The mother stated that it was not her role to maintain a relationship with the paternal family as she was busy dealing with the children's "trauma, school and sports."
7. The mother said that the children had told her there was no visit to M Venue in July 2022 and that she "always believes" what her children tell her. The mother said that the children were "very distressed" because they thought they would be spending the whole day at the M Venue, but the father had taken them to visit his family. In other words, the father did not do what he had told the children he would do.
8. The mother had opposed the children seeing their father on Father's Day in September 2022 due to concerns about "trauma and regression" and considered that a safer environment for the children would be preferable.
9. The mother agreed that the father had been spending time with the children post-separation as identified in the Trial affidavit of the father filed 9 May 2025. The mother complained that the children had returned following a visit to "DD Play Centre" with the father where they had allegedly been left on a trampoline alone. The mother asserted that the children were upset because they did not know where their father was at that time, describing the children as "hyper vigilant about their surroundings." The mother described the children as being "traumatised" by the "DD Play Centre" event.
10. During this period the mother described the time spending as "flexible and fluid" and said that the parties had been trying to "make it work."
11. The mother said that when time was stopped in August 2022, this was a positive change for the children because they did not want to see their father and had been co-sleeping with her. The mother said that Y had no relationship with the father and described X as having a "better" relationship, but this was to do with the father being a "fun" parent.
12. The mother said that she had undergone successful counselling at S Centre in 2023 and 2024 and did not consider that she needed further therapy. The mother did not consider the counselling with Ms C to be negative for the children.
13. The mother stated that X was receiving therapy with Ms C called "Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing" ('EMDR') to deal with trauma which requires a "verbal narrative" of the incident. The mother agreed that the EMDR was used to bring "trauma" to the fore, process it, and then to "remove it to the back of the brain."
14. The mother denied that she had implemented the therapy with Ms C because of the positive interactions and recommendations contained in the Family Report. The mother became aware of Ms C because she was helping a work colleague's child in therapy. After the appointments with Ms B, the mother said that the children had not been eating, were not attending at school and were wetting the bed.
15. The mother agreed that she had arranged the counselling with Ms C without a Court order and had not included the father in those sessions. The mother admitted that she had provided Court documents to Ms C's offices without asking her solicitor if this could occur.
16. The mother agreed that Y had now been diagnosed with PTSD by Ms C after Y had witnessed damage to the walls and heard comments from X. The mother explained that her describing to Ms C that Y had witnessed an assault on X by the father was because Y was in the home at the time of the incident and therefore was a witness.
17. The mother admitted that she had provided a photo of the father to the school as the school had requested it. She was unaware if the photo remained hanging up in the school front office.
18. In relation to the "physical risks" for the children the mother said she had concerns because the father could be physically violent. In support of this the mother gave an example whereby the father "threw" X forcefully onto the bed in July 2021. She described him as being "rough" to the children.
19. The mother denied that the father had "placed" X on the bed despite this being the words used in her South Australia Police affidavit.[8] The mother stated that she was aware her description of X being placed or thrown on the bed in July 2021 was in issue. The mother said that the words in her South Australia Police affidavit were wrong. The mother blamed the police officer saying that he had informed her that she would have "another opportunity" to rectify the error but agreed that she had affirmed the affidavit knowing that it was incorrect.
20. The mother stated that in July 2021 the parties had had an argument about a "missing tooth" for X which cost $1,500. The mother said she was frustrated by the father having lost the tooth and that the parties had a "conversation" about the missing tooth when he got home, which had developed into an argument.
21. The mother said that the father had hit her hard on her chest and used his chin to headbutt over her head. The mother said that the father had carried the mirror into their bathroom, she had ducked down, and he had put the mirror over her head. The mother had then got to the end of the room, and the father had thrown X on the bed.
22. The mother admitted that Y was not a witness to the incident in July 2021 because she was watching television in another room but stated she might have overheard the altercation. The mother admitted that she had not obtained medical treatment after the assault and that the police had taken photographs of her injures. The mother said that during the assault she thought she would die, and she was frightened. The mother said that she now considered Y had been impacted by the incident, but she did not realise it at the time.
23. The mother agreed that her South Australia Police affidavit made no mention of her being punched or headbutted or that X had been thrown onto the bed by the father.
24. The mother was asked what her understating of "coercive control" was. The mother stated that the father was using coercive control to "control the narrative" and "control with intent but not physical." The mother alleged that the father intended to control the narrative of what went on. The mother denied that she did not know what coercive control was, saying that she was "struggling to interpret it" during her evidence.
25. The mother denied that she had been "gatekeeping" or trying to set boundaries in relation to the father's time spending. She said that she had stopped time in July 2022 due to the children's "regression" and being "traumatised" and because the children had said that they "could not trust him" (i.e. the father). She explained that the children had come home to their mother (being a "safe place") and had made disclosures about time spending.
26. The mother's complaints about the father not abiding by her preferred venues during time spending are clearly recorded in Exhibit F14 at the initial appointment with T Centre. Further and perhaps more importantly, the mother's negative response to the father's request for time as evidence in her SMS messages, clearly shows her view given that the father had "lied" about the visit on 10 July 2025.[9]
27. In relation to M Venue, the mother said the children had described a "negative experience" from their time at M Venue. The mother was shown pictures of the children riding ponies at M Venue which was contrary to the children's version of events as conveyed to their mother. The mother stated that X was upset because she had been unable to ride a pony called "..." that she was waiting to ride. The mother denied challenging X about her assertion that she had not ridden a pony when the photos clearly show the children riding animals. The mother stated that her issue was that the father had lied to her about where he was, and that he had not told the children where he would be going. The children were said to have taken "many months" to "calm down" after this weekend.
28. The mother did not accept the children had experienced a "nice time" with their grandparents. The children had apparently complained to her that they had asked their father to go home and were not permitted to see the pool. The mother stated X had complained and was upset because she did not get to ride the pony and that she is hyper vigilant about her surroundings. Extraordinarily, the mother described X as being so hyper vigilant that she (the mother) would be unable to stop at a bakery without informing the children in advance.
29. When asked if she could identify three positive things about the children's relationship with the father, the mother said that the father played with the children and cooked for them. The mother agreed that the father loved the children, but this love was "distorted" due to his "parenting template." The mother described her parenting template as "secure and attached" whilst the father's parenting template was described as "broken at times." The mother graciously stated that the father was "doing the best with the template that he has."
30. When asked if the children love their father, the mother said that now, they do not. X was described as definitely having had love for the father and said that Y did too when she was younger. The mother stated that the children's love for their father had stopped after the incident in July 2021.
31. When asked if there was any value with the children having a relationship with the father, the mother said, "that's my plan" and that she believed it would be positive, but when safe to do so.
32. The mother agreed that she had not experienced violence from the father in the 10 years of their relationship until July 2021, save that the father had respectively thrown a remote control in September 2017, and a bottle in 2020. Following the throwing of the remote control in 2017, the mother had attended at a local police station and after waiting for two hours had been told to return home.
33. When asked why it was that there should be no time spending, the mother stated that the children should be allowed to "repair themselves" and that they need to be "ready" to have a relationship with him.
34. The mother sought sole parental responsibility but was prepared to let the father know details regarding any medical issues. The mother considered that the parties could communicate by email, SMS or a parenting App, and she agreed to share school photographs and school reports.
35. The mother agreed that the father had not been able to access information from the children's schools to date because he was not on the enrolment form. She agreed that the father could go to parent teacher interviews at times separate to her. The mother was happy to consider the father having input regarding the children's high school. The mother said that she did not know how the children would feel about the father having their school reports and that she "needed to ask them."
36. The mother described the Family Report process as "extremely traumatic" for the children. The mother said that the interviews with Ms B had been "horrendous", and the children had needed more help, so she had arranged for Ms C to become involved. The mother said that the children had told her a different version of what had happened with Ms B from what was reported in the Family Report. X had complained to her mother that the father had "touched her face" which she did not like, and the mother thought that this was "traumatic."
37. The mother stated that she and the children had not been aware that the children might interact with the father during the Family Report process, and that the children had been "forced" to see him. Because of this, the mother said the children's behaviour had deteriorated since their interaction with the father during the observed session.
38. The mother considered that the father was "playing" for the assessor and that he was "smart enough to hoodwink" Ms B.
39. After the appointments with Ms B, X had apparently complained to her mother that she did not like how her father had touched her face because it reminded her of when her father "had hurt her." The mother thought that it was concerning that the children had been described as "compliant" by Ms B in the Family Report. The children had asked her for the picture they had given to their father at the Family Report to be returned to them.
40. The mother wants the father to do parenting courses, to express remorse to the children and then, if the children expressed a wish to see their father, she would consider it.
41. The mother did not know at what age the children should be able to choose to see their father. The mother said she had asked the children to let her know when they wanted to see their father, but until he showed remorse, she was unlikely to let that happen.
42. If orders were made for the children to spend time with the father, the mother said she would have "no choice" but to support them and she would have to explain to the children the reasons why the Court had made the order.
43. The mother admitted that she had been recording the FaceTime calls on advice from the police and had made two recordings of the father speaking with the children. She said that the father had been convicted of breaching the final Intervention Order after the mother gave the police 125 messages sent to her by the father on a USB stick. The mother said that she stopped reporting to the police because they had informed her that the messages were not threatening, even though she considered they had not been about the children.
44. The mother was critical of the father showing off the children to others, as she considered it was not in the children's best interest for the father to seek attention from people they don't know. The mother described the father's behaviour as "extreme", explaining that the father would seek reassurance to "look like a good father." The mother said that her main concern was that the father was "seeking validation through the children."
45. The mother accepted that there was a possibility that the children were telling each parent what they wanted to hear.
46. The mother agreed that the children had sleepovers at the home of their maternal grandparents and at the home of their neighbours, the mother said this is because those adults are "safe people." The mother further said that the children felt "let down" by not being able to ride the pony at M Venue.
47. The mother admitted that the children had nothing to fear by seeing their paternal grandparents but commented that the children had "related the events" of July 2021 to his family when they visited there.
48. The mother agreed that the father had not been aggressive to the children during their relationship.

1. Ms C is a clinical psychologist employed with T Centre. She holds a Master of Psychology and has a specialist practice treating trauma and specialist training in EMDR therapy. Ms C described herself as a very experienced and highly trained trauma therapist.
2. She has prepared two reports on instructions of the mother dated 2 December 2024 and 23 April 2025.
3. The mother self-referred the children for treatment with Ms C in May 2024. Ms C was known to the mother as a clinical psychologist specialising in trauma through her employment with N Organisation.
4. Ms C was provided with copies of Court orders, the Child Impact Report, the Family Report and the Observational Report from the Contact Service prepared in June 2024 by the mother.
5. There is no dispute that Ms C's engagement with the children has taken place without the knowledge, consent, imprimatur or input of the father, the Independent Children's Lawyer or the Court. Nor has any order been made by this Court permitting the mother to provide Ms C with Court orders and reports.
6. For the most part, the children have been seen together during sessions with the mother in the same room. Ms C stated she does not usually see children under the age of approximately 11 years without a caregiver present. She described this as "best practice" adding that she needed the parent present in the room particularly when undertaking trauma focused therapy because the parent is needed to provide emotional co-regulation and support to the child as traumatic memories are "unpacked."
7. The report dated 2 December 2024 ('the first report') states that upon initial assessment on 22 May 2024, the children were assessed to meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD with a high level of trauma related distress.[10] The first report states that the mother and the children were seen at their initial appointment by Ms EE ('Ms EE'), a mental health social worker. In her oral evidence, Ms C stated that the reference to Ms EE was wrong and that the initial consult was undertaken by Ms FF, a provisional psychologist. At the initial appointment the children were described as experiencing upsetting thoughts, memories, images or dreams in relation to past events, negative moods and thoughts regarding their trust in others and symptoms of hyperarousal. The mother also reported that the children are "tired" of talking about what happened with the father.[11]
8. Following the initial intake session in May 2024, the children met with Ms C on 7 August 2024. She confirmed that at this appointment, the answers to the questionnaires were read to the mother with the children present. This included an open discussion about issues pertaining to violence and risk. In response to a question put by the father's counsel, Ms C expressed no difficulty in having conversations about violence, risk and assaults in the presence of the children because the purpose of her therapy is:

"... to gradually expose the children to these thoughts that they avoid in order for them to overcome their fear of it. ... it is an important part of therapy that we have these open conversations with the children as well as it is their experience that they are treating. ... the purpose of my assessment is to begin the process of gradual exposure to their traumatic experiences in a... supported way in order to help them overcome that. ... it is part of my therapeutic process to have the conversation with the support of their mother."

1. The children were said to have engaged well in the Trauma-Focussed Cognitive Behaviour Therapy ('TF-CBT') provided over six to 12 sessions. In the first report, Ms C observed that therapy would likely require 10 to 12 sessions, with some follow up required and a consideration of switching from TF-CBT to an alternate therapy such as EMDR if required.[12] EMDR is described as involving the use of "bilateral physical stimulation" whereby the patient is asked to focus on the trauma-related imagery and the associated thoughts, emotions or body sensations while bilateral physical stimulation, such as moving their eyes back and forth, occurs.[13]
2. In her second report dated 23 April 2025 ('the second report'), Ms C reports that given Y's young age at the time of the traumatic events and her "reluctance to speak in detail regarding her distressing memories", she had elected to use EMDR because it could rely more upon a visual image than a detailed verbal narrative.[14]
3. A further six sessions took place between 11 December 2024 and 7 April 2025. Ms C reported the children engaging well in therapy, with four sessions using EMDR. Subject to reductions in the children's traumatic memory, Ms C foreshadowed moving to present triggers and future feared scenarios (e.g. contact with their father) in the hope of decreasing their avoidance and fear.[15]
4. Despite initial optimism about the number of sessions required for successful treatment, Ms C now hypothesised that therapy would require more than 12 sessions. To feel safe, the children were said "to need to feel safe in reality." Unplanned contact with the father (such as the father attending unannounced at the dance concert) undermined attempts to reduce their trauma symptoms because the father may continue to appear "without warning and without their consent."[16]
5. Whilst it had been hoped that processing memories in a safe environment may reduce the children's fear, leading to the possibility of reinstating contact with the father, his uninvited contact with them was reported as having "undermined their sense of safety and control."
6. On page six of her second report Ms C offers the following:

It might be helpful for [X] and [Y]'s therapeutic progress if [Mr Argo] were to acknowledge their trauma and the impact of his violence upon them, apologise to them for hurting their mother and scaring them and offer them reassurance that he understands now, has sought help to change and will never do anything to hurt their mother or scare them again, and will not pressure them for contact until they are ready and willing. However, this would need to be accompanied by genuine change in his behaviour, including refraining from trying to make contact without their consent. Given [X] and [Y]'s continued fear and reluctance to have contact with him, he may need to offer this apology via letter or recorded audio or video.

1. Ms C said that the children's behaviour each time they discussed something about their father was "very obviously distressed." She went on to describe the children hiding behind their mother, biting their lip, becoming quiet and that the children "pull behind things." Otherwise, Ms C said that the children could present as bright and exuberant but become very different children when the incident is mentioned.
2. Ms C explained that the criteria for PTSD in children under six is only that they are aware of someone, a caregiver, being subjected to violence. It is not necessary for the child to have necessarily witnessed the violence, only that they are aware of it. A child can therefore be diagnosed with PTSD and meet the diagnostic criteria because they are aware that there has been violence. The fact that the children may not have seen, heard or been aware of anything but have simply been told about an incident of violence involving their parent is sufficient to meet the diagnostic criteria for a child aged six years and under.
3. When asked by the Court if there was any intention to continue treatment with the children, Ms C confirmed that the purpose of the recent review was to assess the children and following on from that review it appeared to her that while there had been some modest improvement, there was still a need for intervention.[17] The children have had 15 appointments thus far. As their distress had started to reduce, Ms C hoped that she could achieve a good outcome within another six to 12 sessions. She could not confidently predict future sessions because "I am not really sure I am making a huge amount of progress." The lack of progress was thought to be because the children "... have this sense that dad could show up."
4. Ms C was asked by the Court to explain how it could be that the children were showing no signs of trauma during the period that they were spending unsupervised time with their father but are now so traumatised as to require therapy. Ms C said that she did not think that the mother realised the level of the children's PTSD until they were screened by her. She described the mother as being "a bit surprised that they met the criteria for it." Ms C explained that after the assessment with Ms B, the mother was self-reported as worried about the assessment process having undermined her relationship with the children because X had queried why they were not told by their mother that their father would be present. These things combined had escalated to the point where the mother wanted to seek help.
5. Ms C confirmed that if she had been undertaking a Family Assessment Report she would have structured the appointments very differently. The nature of trauma based therapy requires the allegations of violence to be discussed over and over again ( and with the mother present given the children's ages ) in order to assist the children overcome their stated concerns.

1. Ms B prepared the Family Report dated 22 March 2024. Ms B gave evidence and was cross-examined by counsel for the parties and the Independent Children's Lawyer.
2. The Family Report included interviews with each of the parties, discussions with the children and observations of the children with each party. Y was described Ms B as a "delicate, shy but endearing five-year (sic) girl." X presented as a "nervous, emotionally sensitive seven-year-old who was shy in reporting her thoughts and feelings."
3. At the date of interview, the children had not spent time with the father since July 2022. Visits at the Contact Service were yet to occur as per the orders made on 5 December 2023, but with the parties having reported as enrolled.
4. The father told Ms B that the mother had previously ignored the terms of the interim Intervention Order and had communicated with him without hesitation. He admitted to communicating with the mother after the criminal proceedings had ended on the understanding that he could so because it was about the children. The father stated that he had not contacted the mother again and "nor would he, because he did not want to breach the IO."[18]
5. The father denied any family violence prior to the incident at separation. He did admit to throwing a remote control in the mother's direction and countered that the mother had thrown some food. He denied controlling behaviour and said that his wages had been transferred to the mother's account most weeks.
6. The mother reported that she was not willing to communicate with the father in the future, alleging that he could be manipulative and was controlling and abusive if she did not agree with his requests to vary time spending.[19] The mother complained of acts of violence prior to separation including yelling in her face and throwing objects at her such as a remote control and a glass alcohol bottle.
7. As to the domestic violence incident in July 2021, the father accepted that X had been present. He said:

"it's probably the thing that plays over my head the most, [Ms Argo] and my scuffle aside, its [X] screaming "stop", that's the worst. She was hysterical, she saw me holding her mother on the ground. I'll never get the panic in her voice out of my head... [Y] was in another room watching TV. [Y] heard [X] emotional, crying, then [Y] cam in and started crying."

(Footnotes omitted)

1. The mother remained concerned that the father could resort to anger and aggression when spending time with the children in the future. Further, that the father was introducing the children to people that they did not know, causing distress and not taking the children to places they wanted to attend.[20]
2. The father accepted the mother's assertions that the children's behaviour regressed when communicating with him on FaceTime. He described the children as becoming "increasingly distressed" after allegations had been raised by the mother.
3. Notwithstanding the mother's position of "no time", she supported the children meeting with the father as part of the assessment process. Despite both children asserting that they were scared about seeing their father and becoming initially distressed when separating from their mother, the observed interaction occurred. The children were described as appearing relaxed with close physical contact and both children providing their father with a hug goodbye at the end of the session.[21]
4. Under the heading "Evaluation" Ms B considered that the children were thriving in their mother's care and noted that no concerns had been raised by the father as to the mother's capacity to meet the children's needs.[22] Ms B acknowledged the seriousness of the father's behaviour, plea of guilt and the penalty imposed. However, Ms B was impressed by the father's presentation at interview, the positive observed interactions, the father's compliance with orders and his engagement with Mr K. Based on the positive interactions, Ms B hypothesised that the impending visits at the Contact Service would likely proceed without major challenge for the children.[23]
5. Ms B cautiously then recommended that after the six visits had concluded at the Contact Service, that time gradually increase with handovers to be conducted at the Contact Service by the maternal grandparents on the mother's behalf. Subject to findings of the Court, it was recommended that time could ultimately increase to overnights on alternate weekends and for the father to attend events and obtain information regarding the children's schooling.

1. By the time Ms B gave evidence at Trial there had been several developments which can be summarised in this way:

(a) Despite hypothesising that the visits at the Contact Service would proceed without major challenge for the children, the opposite was true. On 2 June, 16 June and 30 June 2024 attempts were made for the children to spend time with their father under supervision at the Contact Service. All attempts failed. Following a case review, the Contact Service suspended the service to the family;

(b) The children had commenced therapy at T Centre in May 2024 and had been diagnosed with PTSD;

(c) The father was charged with one count of breaching the final Intervention Order by attending at the children's dance concert on 6 April 2025; and

(d) The father had not been able to produce any evidence from Mr K at Trial.

1. Ms B was asked to express a view about the parents and the children attending some form of reunification counselling by counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer. She opined that there could be little confidence in reunification therapy being successful unless both parents supported it and wanted a similar outcome. She was concerned that there was a further risk of trauma for the children if reunification therapy was ordered. The benefits were not seen to outweigh the risks. Further, a return to the Contact Service was not supported because the children were likely to have a negative view of their time there.
2. When asked by counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer if she still supported the recommendations in the Family Report, Ms B stated that she did not have an answer on how to get to that end point given the change in circumstances since the Family Report was released. Whist she maintained a belief that that it would be optimal for the children to have a relationship with both parents, she was at a loss to know how to do this in a practical sense. Ms B did support the father being able to obtain information from the school.
3. In response to questions put by counsel for the father, Ms B observed that the children are very attuned to the mother. Hence, if the mother was unable to support the children having a relationship with the father, then reunification is unlikely to be successful. Ms B contended that the children's fear about seeing their father at interview was normal given the passage of time since they last spent time with him. She said the children spoke of being scared but she observed no signs of trauma, and the children had not mentioned the incident from July 2021 at interview.
4. Ms B observed that at Trial the family were now "so far" from the recommendations in the Family Report. To be successful, the mother would need to see the benefit in the children having a relationship with the father and there needed to be "tools" to facilitate this. She opined that the longer the children had gone since seeing the father, the harder it will be and the momentum that she had hoped for at the date of the Family Report had not occurred.
5. Ms B expressed concern in her evidence that the father had not completed the anger management modules and that no evidence from Mr K had been produced at Trial. The attendance by the father at the dance concert suggested that he lacked insight into how his behaviour would impact on the children at their special event.
6. Ms B was given an opportunity to read the following:

(a) Exhibits M5 to 11 inclusive;

(b) Exhibits M14 to M16 inclusive; and

(c) Exhibits F5, F7 and F8.[24]

Having done so, she described the material as "concerning...and indicative of a pattern of family violence." Ms B confirmed in her evidence that at the time of preparing the Family Report, she had not been aware of the information held by the South Australia Police in relation to the father.

1. Ms B came under criticism for reading emails dated 19 March 2024 and 1 May 2025 sent by the father to her during the assessment process, and with it being suggested that the father was being "manipulative" and trying to "con" her to achieve a favourable result. Ms B agreed that in the emails the father had shown no remorse and appeared to be excusing his behaviour.
2. Ms B agreed that the mother did not present at interview as a vengeful parent and that it was to her credit that she had reintroduced time spending after the children had been removed from the interim Intervention Order.
3. By the conclusion of her evidence, Ms B informed the Court that she maintained the view that risk to the children could be managed through supervision and Court ordered conditions attached to the father's time with the children. How that could practically be achieved was not something that Ms B was prepared to speculate on.
4. It was Ms B's observation that it was now up to the Court in making orders considered to be in the best interests of the children in the absence of her being able to provide any practical assistance as to how that could occur.

1. All findings of fact and determinations made in this Judgment are made on the balance of probabilities.[25] There was no application at Trial to apply the rules of evidence despite the serious allegations of family violence made by each of the parties against the other.[26]
2. I have read all the documents upon which the parties have relied, and the exhibits tendered during the hearing.
3. I have had regard to all the evidence and had the benefit of observing the appearances and demeanour of the parties and the witnesses.
4. I have carefully considered all the evidence and in making findings to the requisite standard, I have brought to bear the nature of the proceedings and the consequences that flow from my findings.
5. The Court is not required to refer in these Reasons to each item of evidence relied upon by the parties. Nor is the Court required refer to each argument or submission relied upon by the parties.[27]
6. The issues in dispute between the parties' concerns parenting matters. The applicable law in relation to parenting disputes is found in Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ('the Act'). In determining the parenting issues in dispute, the Court must still regard the best interests of the children as the paramount consideration.[28] The Court is directed to give greater weight to the primary considerations which align with the objects and principals set out in section 60B of the Act.
7. Section 60B(1) sets out the objects and principles of Part VII of the Act:

60B Objects of Part

The objects of this Part are:

(a) to ensure that the best interests of the children are met, including by ensuring their safety; and

(b) to give effect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child done at New York on 20 November 1989.

1. As sections 60CA and 60B refer to the best interests of the child, the Court must consider section 60CC which specifies how the Court determines what is in a child's best interests:

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

Determining child's best interests

(1) Subject to subsection (4), in determining what is in the child's best interests, the court must:

(a) consider the matters set out in subsection (2); and

(b) if the child is Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child--also consider the matters set out in subsection (3).

(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.

(2A) In considering the matters set out in paragraph (2)(a), the court must include consideration of:

(a) any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child (whether or not the person had parental responsibility for the child); and

(b) any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child's family.

(Emphasis in original)

1. When contemplating the aforesaid matters, the Court must 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 currently or previously has applied to a child, or a member of the child's family.[29]
2. Section 60CG of the Act further requires a Court to ensure that whatever order is made does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence and is consistent with any family violence order when considering what parenting order to make.
3. Section 61B of the Act refers to the meaning of parental responsibility. Should a parenting Order deal with the allocation of responsibility for making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child, then provision can be made for joint or sole decision-making in relation to all or specified major long-term issues.[30]
4. Parental responsibility for children is vested in their parents, regardless of whether they live together or are separated,[31] but that situation only applies where no order is made to change it.[32] Parental responsibility is defined to encompass all duties, powers, responsibilities, and authority conferred by law upon parents.[33]
5. When parental responsibility for a child in relation to "major long-term issues" rests with one or more person, the order may set out whether those persons have joint or sole decision-making authority in relation to all or specified issues.[34] The Act defines "major long-term issues" to include those such as the child's education, religion, cultural upbringing, health, name, and changed living arrangements.[35]
6. Section 61CA of the Act encourages the parents of a child, where it is safe to do so, to consult each other about major long-term issues in relation to a child and in doing so, to have regard to the best interest of the child as the paramount consideration.
7. Parenting orders are regulated by Part VII of the Act. The meaning of a 'parenting order' is defined at section 64B of the Act. The Court may make such parenting order as it considers proper.[36]
8. The current proceedings are child-related proceedings to which the provisions of Division 12A of the Act apply. The legislative intent of this division is directed towards the minimisation of the potentially deleterious consequences for any child likely to be affected by the litigation to which they are the subject.
9. Pursuant to section 102NE of the Act, the Court is directed to give effect to several principles with respect to how proceedings relating to children are to be conducted. The effect of these principles is said to ensure that the Court's focus remains on the best interests of the child concerned rather than on the perceived rights of their parents or others.
10. Each party is bound by the conduct of their case.[37] This includes forensic decisions to call (or not to call) witnesses at Trial.

1. My duty is to make orders that I consider to be in the best interests of X and Y, not their parents.
2. I now turn to consider the criteria set out in section 60CC of the Act and contained in paragraph 204 herein in determining the best interests of X and Y.

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

1. The safety of the children is a central consideration in this case. The mother asserts that the children are unsafe in the father's care. In her evidence, the mother acknowledged that the father had not been violent to the children during the relationship. The mother contends that the lack of safety arises by virtue of the father not abiding by the Intervention Order or taking the children to places not approved by her or without the children's consent.
2. In the recent decision of Beumers & Stoica [2025] FedCFamC1F 695 at [42]- [44], Parker J addressed the meaning of the word "safety." For the sake of ease, I respectfully adopt her Honours summary from this Judgment.

The word 'safety' is not defined in the Act. It is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as 'the state of being protected from or guarded against hurt or injury; freedom from danger.' In Oyama & Oyama, Gill J held that 'safety' in this context is a term that is wide in nature, and bounded only by its object, being to keep children, and those who care for them, from harm, and that it should not be taken to have a fixed content or standard.

In Denton & Denton (No 3), Altobelli J expressed the view that 'safety' is a state in which hazards or conditions leading to physical, psychological, or material harm are controlled in order to preserve the health and wellbeing of an individual. It is not the complete elimination of risk of harm, but rather making such order as affords the child the most optimal protection from harm.

In Melounis & Melounis (No 4), Altobelli J held that to promote safety, for the purposes of s 60CC(2)(a), means 'to advance the interests of, and move to a stronger or more prominent position, the safety (ie to be free from hurt, damage, harm or danger) of children and those who care for them' and that the statutory requirement to promote safety involves advancing a positive outcome, which would necessarily include protection from harm but would not be limited to this.

(Footnotes omitted)

1. At Trial, there was no evidence produced by the father from Ms O, Mr K or Mr BB save for what might be described as an attendance advice as set out in Exhibit F1. There is no evidence about what the father has learnt in order to control his behaviour. His recent attendance at a venue where he knew that the mother would present leads the Court to find that he has learnt very little or has deliberately chosen to run the gauntlet. To that extent, his conduct is no different to what he described in paragraph 74 herein.
2. I find that the father's inability to abide by orders of the Court could compromise the mother's safety.

b) Section 60CC(2)(b) - Any views expressed by the child

1. At interview with Ms B both children reported as being "scared" of seeing their father. It must be noted however, that Y's protestation of fear only arose after she had heard X state "I feel scared" when informed by Ms B that they would be meeting their father in the playroom.[38]
2. Despite stating that they were scared, the children were supported by their mother to separate and managed to spend time with their father under the supervision of Ms B.
3. The children are very young and aged nine and seven years respectively. I consider that there is no persuasive evidence before the Court regarding the children's views on time spending with their father.

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

1. At Trial the children are meeting their normal developmental milestones. No concerns were raised about the children's progress at school, nor their physical health.
2. The mother asserted various complaints about the children's emotional functioning and needs. The father cannot challenge those complaints because he does not see the children. The children did not exhibit fear or distress to such a level that Ms B assessed any risk in conducting an observed interaction.
3. The children have been diagnosed with PTSD by Ms C, clinical psychologist and continue to receive therapy from her. Whilst the Court has very real concerns about this treatment and the circumstances surrounding Ms C's engagement, there was no challenge to her diagnosis under cross-examination.

d) Section 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. The mother has been, and will be, the children's primary caregiver. There are no concerns regarding the mother's capacity to provide for the children's developmental needs. The father's capacity to do so is untested.
2. The father is concerned about the mother's ability to support the children's psychological and emotional needs but agreed that he could not dispute the diagnosis of PTSD by Ms C. I would assess the father's concession as reluctantly given.
3. Given the orders that I propose to make, the mother will be the person exercising parental responsibility in the future.

e) Section 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 accept that each of the parties love and cherish their children, Y and X.
2. Ms B considered that there was benefit to the children having a relationship with both parents. I agree with her evidence.
3. This recommendation was conditional upon the father providing a pathway forward for the relationship to recommence and move forward. Critically, the father had to provide a proposal to the Court for a supervisor, whether that be for initial visits or indefinitely. Regrettably, the father has failed to do so.

f) Section 60CC(2)(f) - Anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child

1. In this case, there is no co-parenting relationship, no communication between the parties and zero trust. Each of the parties view the other with suspicion and consider that the other is capable of manipulating witnesses or events to bolster their position. The mother asserts that the father attempted to "hoodwink" Ms B by sending her emails. Whilst it was imprudent for Ms B to have considered the father's communications, I do not consider that her decision to do so undermines the integrity of the Family Report and nor do I consider that they influenced her recommendations. In my view, the father's decision to unilaterally communicate with Ms B was wrong. The father's indiscretion pales into significance against the mother's unilateral decision to embark upon psychological treatment for the children in the face of Court proceedings directed to determine their best interests.

**(2A) In considering the matters set out in paragraph (2)(a), the court must include consideration of:

a) Section 60CC(2A)(a) - Any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child (whether or not the person had parental responsibility for the child)**

1. It is an agreed fact that the father was found guilty to one count of assault on the mother following the incident in July 2021.
2. Both parties make allegations of periodic family violence during their relationship. The mother alleges the father threw a remote control and a bottle at her. The father alleges that the mother threw food at him. Both allege mutual verbal arguments which occurred at times in the presence of the children. I can find on the evidence that the parties had a volatile relationship.
3. The father's evidence regarding the historical complaints about his conduct towards family members and intimate partners was concerning. In particular, the father's evidence that he had admitted to past violent behaviour to basically bring proceedings to an end rather than because they were true. In accepting this evidence, it follows that the father has no concern in misleading the Court to achieve his desired outcome.
4. It is agreed that the father has not been violent to the children directly but that the children were in the home during the altercation in July 2021.
5. There was no evidence before the Court from any practitioner said to have provided therapy for anger management or psychological support to the father despite him having seen Ms O, Mr K and Mr BB since 2021. The letter from Mr BB is nothing more than an attendance record and does not assist the Court in making any finding that the father has successfully addressed his propensity for explosive anger.

b) Section 60CC(2A)(b) - Any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child's family

1. The final Intervention Order was confirmed for the protection of the mother in late 2023.
2. In 2023, the father was convicted and fined after being charged with two counts of contravening an intervention order and two counts of breach of bail against the mother.
3. At Trial, the father had been charged with one count of breaching the final Intervention Order after attending at the children's dance concert on 6 April 2025. That charge had not been resolved by the date that Judgment was reserved, but with the Court being advised that the father had engaged legal representation.
4. The evidence supports a finding that the father continues not to take the final Intervention Order seriously. He will embark on behaviour if he wants to, knowing the risks. Future indiscretions could compromise the mother's safety.

1. By the conclusion of the Trial, the Court was deeply troubled by the state of the evidence in grappling with what orders to make in the best interests of X and Y.
2. On the one hand, there is the violent incident in July 2021 and the impact this had on the mother and the children's relationship with their father immediately thereafter. On the other, is the agreed position that the father's relationship with the children resumed with the consent of the mother in November 2021 and proceeded on an unsupervised basis until July 2022.
3. The circumstances surrounding the cessation of time spending after the M Venue weekend in July 2022 are very concerning. It is hard to understand on any reasonable basis how an otherwise benign visit upon extended family could thereafter permanently sever a relationship between a parent and their children. This is especially so given the mother's own evidence that she did not have an issue with the father's parents or grandparents "per se."
4. Accepting as I do the mother's evidence in paragraph 245 above, I have little difficulty in finding that the mother made the decision to cease time spending visits because the father took the children to a location not approved of by her.
5. In her evidence the mother spoke candidly of the need for the children to be informed or consulted about venues they may visit with each of their parents or with family members. One memorable example was the mother's evidence about an inability to even visit a bakery with the children, without advance warning being provided to them of an intention to do so.
6. In July 2022 when the father visited his grandparents with the children, they were aged five and four years respectively. If the father made the decision to visit his family after M Venue, that was a decision he made on the day as their parent.
7. From an objective perspective, I have little difficulty in rejecting the mother's complaints as a proper basis for ceasing face to face time spending between the father and the children in July 2022. It should not have happened.
8. However, since July 2022, the father has only seen the children once, with that being during the period of an observed interaction with Ms B in March 2024. On that occasion the children were able to successfully spend time with their father supported by Ms B and the mother, despite their expressed fears.
9. The mother's evidence on the children's subsequent complaints to her about the father's conduct whilst with Ms B, were reminiscent of the children telling the mother that they had not ridden ponies at M Venue, when there was clear photographic evidence to the contrary. Despite the photographic evidence, the mother continued to maintain that she believed what the children had told her to be true.
10. As at March 2024 when the observed interaction occurred, the evidence does not support a finding that the relationship between the father and the children was beyond repair. It is not surprising that Ms B considered that the upcoming visits at the Contact Service would proceed and recommendations were made accordingly.
11. With the benefit of hindsight, it is unfortunate that the Family Report was released prior to the sessions at the Contact Service commencing. The recommendations made by Ms B were far reaching and well beyond the proposals of the mother. At the very least, the parties should have taken up the recommendation in the Family Report that someone other than the mother deliver the children to the sessions at the Contact Service. The evidence supports a finding that the children are finely attuned to their mother and her attitudes toward their father. The failure to support the children to reconnect with their father at the Contact Service were lost opportunities, in my view, to reconnect the children to the father.
12. Significantly, the mother arranged for the children to commence therapy at T Centre after release of the Family Report but before the sessions at the Contact Service began. The father complained in his evidence that the mother has used her professional knowledge of the child protection system to her advantage in these proceedings. I agree with him.
13. I find on the evidence that the children's attendance upon Ms C after the release of the Family Report, was a calculated decision made by the mother. The Court, the father and the Independent Children's Lawyer were not informed of Ms C's treatment until close to Trial. Ms C was not raised as a witness to be called by the mother in her Certificates of Readiness nor at the Compliance and Readiness Hearings on 10 December 2024 and 6 February 2025.
14. It was wrong of the mother to arrange the therapy for the children without at the very least informing the father and the Independent Children's Lawyer of her decision. If there had been a dispute about therapy, then it was up to the Court to determine whether the therapy was in the children's best interests.
15. The reason for oversight of therapy for children is obvious. Therapy arranged by one parent in the context of contested parenting disputes has the potential to seriously impact on outcomes for children. I assess that this is such a case.
16. The children have now attended 15 sessions with Ms C and have been diagnosed with PTSD. More sessions are to come. Ms C's evidence was that the mother herself was not aware of the children's level of trauma until the children attended upon her clinic. Given the mother's sensitivity to the children's "trauma" as repeated in her oral evidence and her professional training, I find this difficult to accept.
17. The children spent unsupervised visits with their father for eight months with the consent of the mother who I assess to be hypervigilant about matters of "trauma." It was only after publication of the Family Report that the mother considered it necessary to seek psychological intervention from a trauma specialist. I reject the mother's assertion that the therapy was arranged because the children were traumatised by seeing their father in a supervised setting with Ms B. The children had spent eight months with him on their own following separation and no therapy was required in that time.
18. The father made a submission through counsel that he opposed the children continuing to attend upon Ms C. In my view after 15 sessions, the horse has well and truly bolted insofar as the children's treatment with Ms C is concerned.
19. No formal oral application was made by the father and/or the Independent Children's Lawyer for an injunction pursuant to section 68B of the Act to restrain the mother from taking the children for further treatment with Ms C. Had such an application been made, I would have entertained it. A submission opposing something is not oral application.
20. I attach little weight to the conclusions reached by Ms C both in her reports and in her evidence. This is because of the unilateral instruction provided to her by the mother, the lack of reference to the father, the timing of her involvement and the way the therapy is conducted. In my view caution must attach to Ms C's evidence. I place little weight on her conclusions accordingly.
21. Balanced against the shortcomings of the mother's case, is the inescapable agreed fact that the father has engaged in family violence toward the mother and that the children were present or in the home when the incident occurred.[39] There is also a final Intervention Order in place for the protection of the mother.[40] There was no evidence before the Court from any therapist engaged by the father during the currency of this litigation to assist him in managing his behaviour. These are important factors that the Court must consider in determining the children's best interests.[41]
22. Overarching this is the father's deliberate decision to attend at the children's dance concert shortly before the Trial, knowing that the mother would be present. His decision to do so knowing that there was even a potential that he might encounter the mother, reflects poorly on him.
23. This was not the father's first breach of the Intervention Order for the protection of the mother.[42] He glibly told Ms B that he had no intention of breaching the final Intervention order again.[43] But he did. And he did so only weeks from Trial.
24. The father's failure to abide by the terms of the final Intervention Order (again) is a serious matter and one that must be brought to account in considering the children's best interests.[44]
25. Through his counsel, the father expressed remorse for his decision to attend at the dance concert, asserting that he did so out of a misguided sense of showing support for the children's extracurricular activities. The Court observes that there were many other ways he could have done this. Instead, he made a conscious decision to attend at the children's special event after carrying out some form of long distance rudimentary "risk assessment."
26. The father is now sitting down to a banquet of consequences which are of his own doing.
27. However, after careful deliberation of the totality of the evidence, I am of the view that the evidence does not support a finding that the children would be exposed to an unacceptable risk by spending time with the father.[45] I am persuaded that any risk could be ameliorated using a supervisor, either in the short or longer term.
28. After carefully weighing all the evidence, I accept that the children would benefit from a relationship with both parents and that such an arrangement would be in their best interests. My assessment of the evidence accords with the evidence given and recommendations made by Ms B, an experienced Panel Family Consultant. By the end of the Trial, the Independent Children's Lawyer had also reached this conclusion as reflected in Exhibit I1.
29. The conundrum for the Court is how to facilitate the children having a relationship with the father on the evidence presented at Trial?
30. The father's counsel conceded during final submissions that the first step in any time spending arrangement, was supervised time. This accords with the orders sought by the father at Trial. Had the Court been presented with a viable time spending supervisor, I consider that there were benefits for the children in spending supervised time with the father either on a short- or long-term basis. Supervision is an obvious mitigating factor in this case, even if only to provide reassurance to the mother and to reduce the risk of further incidents which could jeopardise the children's ongoing relationship with the father.
31. With the concession as to supervision being made by the father, the Court has not been provided with any pathway that enables the Court to contemplate making such an order. Ms D of "F Services" was the father's proposed supervisor.[46] Ms D did not swear an affidavit and was not available to give evidence. There was nothing before the Court which would enable that order to be made unless it was with the consent of all parties.
32. The father's application for time supervised by Ms D as the initial reintroduction with the children fails at the first hurdle. There was no application to reopen nor to adduce further evidence, even in the face of the Court remarking at one stage during the Trial that the pathway home for the father was problematic at a fundamental level.
33. It is not for the Court to conjure up potential time spending supervisors. It was for the father to run his case providing all essential evidence for the Court to consider in making orders in the best interests of the children and he failed to do so.
34. For those reasons, it follows that the application for time spending as sought by the father must be dismissed.
35. I had considered making some form of general order for supervised time as agreed in writing. I have not done so because in my view there will be no agreement. The order is unenforceable. Further, such an order could potentially reactivate the litigation if the father considered that such an order was an invitation to present his case again before the Court. I therefore make no order for time spending.
36. There is no dispute that the children will continue to live with the mother. As the mother is the children's carer and making all decisions about them, it follows given the factual matrix of this case, that the mother should make decisions about their long-term care. I propose to make orders to enable the father to be kept informed about the children's health and education as conceded by the mother in her evidence.
37. I decline to make the orders for co-parenting counselling or reunification therapy ('the proposed interventions') as sought by the Independent Children's Lawyer during final submissions.[47]
38. The parents will not be co-parenting under the terms of the orders that I propose to make and therefore I consider any such order to be unnecessary. Ms B did not support re-unification counselling in her evidence. Ms B gave specific evidence that the benefits of reunification counselling were not seen to outweigh the risks. Further, she said that there was a risk of traumatising the children if reunification therapy was ordered. Given that the children have been reliving trauma as part of their therapy with Ms C, I agree with her evidence.
39. In relation to the proposed interventions, there is no evidence before the Court as to the availability, cost or terms of engagement of the proposed therapists. Nor is there any mechanism by which such therapy can be gauged moving forward.
40. I decline to make an order that if the children express a desire to spend time with the father, the mother will facilitate it.[48] I consider such an order to be a divestiture of judicial power. It is also unenforceable.
41. I decline to make the orders for time spending at the Contact Service as sought by the Independent Children's Lawyer.[49] Ms B did not support a return to the Contact Service during her evidence because she considered that the children were likely to have a negative view of their time there. It is an agreed fact that the Contact Service discontinued visits with the family after the children refused on three separate occasions to see the father. There is no evidence that the Contact Service will accept the family back again.
42. It follows that I decline to make the orders proposed by the Independent Children's Lawyer for unsupervised time spending to commence after six visits have occurred at the Contact Service.[50] In the circumstances of this case, even if six supervised visits occur at the Contact Service, it is hard to see how the children could then immediately transition to unsupervised time on alternate weekends and for half school holidays as the Independent Children's Lawyer promotes, unless the mother showed a monumental change in her position.
43. The proposals of the Independent Children's Lawyer are pregnant with assumptions that the Court is not prepared to adopt. I do not consider that the orders are in the best interests of the children, and I decline to make them.
44. I propose to make some of the injunctive orders sought by the father. The mother disseminated Court documents without leave to Ms C. It must not happen again.
45. For all the above Reasons, the Court makes the Orders set out at the commencement of this Judgment. The Court considers that the proposed orders are in the best interests of the children in the circumstances of this case.

I certify that the preceding two hundred and eighty-seven (287) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Dickson.

[1] There is a dispute between the parties as to the date that this letter was sent. The father alleges October 2021. The mother alleges approximately 21 July 2021. The Court does not consider that anything turns on the discrepancy in the date this letter was sent.

[3] At paragraph 14 of the affidavit of Mr Argo filed 9 May 2025 the father denies that this incident occurred describing the mother's assertion as a "fabrication." At Trial, the incident was not denied by the father.

[4] On 19 May 2025 a Certificate was issued pursuant to section 128 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) to enable the father to give evidence about the events on 6 April 2025.

[10] See the first report of Ms C dated 2 December 2024 at page 2 being "Annexure MSC2" to the affidavit of Ms C filed 9 May 2025.

[12] See the first report of Ms C dated 2 December 2024 under the heading "Future directions for therapy" being "Annexure MSC2" to the affidavit of Ms C filed 9 May 2025.

[13] See the first report of Ms C dated 2 December 2024 at page 3 being "Annexure MSC2" to the affidavit of Ms C filed 9 May 2025.

[14] See the second report of Ms C dated 23 April 2025 at page 3 being "Annexure MSC4" to the affidavit of Ms C filed 9 May 2025.

[15] See the second report of Ms C dated 23 April 2025 at page 4 being "Annexure MSC4" to the affidavit of Ms C filed 9 May 2025.

[16] See the second report of Ms C dated 23 April 2025 at page 5 being "Annexure MSC4" to the affidavit of Ms C filed 9 May 2025.

[18] See the Family Assessment Report of Ms B dated 22 March 2024 at paragraph 34.

[19] See the Family Assessment Report of Ms B dated 22 March 2024 at paragraph 32.

[20] See the Family Assessment Report of Ms B dated 22 March 2024 at paragraphs 53 and 54.

[21] See the Family Assessment Report of Ms B dated 22 March 2024 at paragraph 98.

[22] See the Family Assessment Report of Ms B dated 22 March 2024 at paragraph 101.

[23] See the Family Assessment Report of Ms B dated 22 March 2024 at paragraph 112.

[24]These Exhibits comprise various South Australia Police Occurrence Reports, Apprehension Reports, Information Summaries and Information and Facts of Charge all in relation to the father.

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

[26] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 102NL.

[27] Housing Commission of NSW v Pastoral Company Pty Ltd [1983] 3 NSW LR 378; Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon [2003] HCA 48; (2003) 200 ALR 447.

[28] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CA.

[29] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC(2A).

[30] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 61D(3).

[31] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 61C.

[32] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 61C(3), 61D.

[33] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 61C(3), 61B.

[34] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 61D(3).

[35] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 4(1).

[36] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 65D(1).

[37] University of Wollongong v Metwally (No 2) [1985] HCA 28.

[38] See the Family Assessment Report of Ms B dated 22 March 2024 at paragraph 89.

[39] As defined by section 4AB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

[40] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC(2A)(a)(b).

[41] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC(2)(a).

[43] See the Family Assessment Report of Ms B dated 22 March 2024 at paragraph 34.

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

[45] M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69; Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97.

[46] See the (Amended) Initiating Application of the father filed 21 March 2025 at paragraph 3(a).

[50] See Exhibit I1 at paragraphs 13 and 14.