Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Union Standard International Group Pty Ltd

(a) During school terms:

(i) Commencing on the first week of the school term and each alternate week thereafter, from after school (or 3pm) on Friday to before school (or 9am) on Tuesday.

(b) During school holidays:

(i) For the first half in odd numbered years and the second half in even numbered years, except for the 2025 school year when Z shall spend time with the father for 5 days only during the term 3 school holidays, and 10 days only during the term 4 school holidays.

(c) At all other times as agreed to between the parties in writing.

1. The children may have telephone or electronic communication with either party at any reasonable time in accordance with the children's wishes.
2. For the purposes of changeover, otherwise than at the children's school(s), the father will collect the children at the commencement of the children's time with the father from the mother's home, and the mother will collect the children at the conclusion of the children's time with the father from the father's home.
3. The parties are both restrained by injunction from making critical or derogatory comments about the other party in the presence or hearing of the children, or permitting or allowing any third party from doing so.
4. In the event that any of the children become unwell and require urgent medical treatment, suffer an injury or become hospitalised, the party with whom the child is with at the time is to notify the other party as soon as reasonably practicable and provide all relevant information to the other party.
5. Each party is at liberty to attend all school and extra-curricular events that parents would ordinarily attend including but not limited to assemblies, performances, and parent teacher interviews.
6. Each party shall keep the other advised in writing at all times of their current telephone number and email address, and will notify each other of any change within 24 hours of such change.

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

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

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

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

1. Mr Deacon ("father") and Ms Deacon ("mother") are the parents of:

(a) X ("X") who is 11 years old;

(b) Y ("Y"), who is 9 years old; and

(c) Z ("Z"), who is 6 years old.

("children").

1. The father has two other children from a previous relationship, 16-year-old B, who lives with the father,[1] and 12-year-old C, who lives with the father on a week about basis. The children are close with both B and C.
2. Following separation in June 2020 and to final hearing, the children have remained living with the mother. Most recently, the children had been spending time with the father in accordance with interim orders made in early 2023, but the mother unilaterally suspended time in March 2025. At the time of final hearing in early April 2025, the children were not spending time with the father.
3. The mother's reason for failing to comply with Court orders and for suspending the children's time with the father was because of an alleged disclosure by Y, namely "secret cuddles" in the shower. The mother further alleges that the father has acted inappropriately towards X in that he has engaged in "grooming" behaviours, namely a "tongue-kissing game" and hugging her inappropriately. Lastly, the mother alleges that the father has acted inappropriately towards both X and Z in that he has engaged in "grooming" behaviours towards them, namely having the children sit on his lap and kiss them on the back of the neck at a physical culture event, when there was no need for them to be sitting on his lap.
4. Not only have the mother's allegations not been established on the evidence, but the mother has acted in a manner which resulted in a risk of the children's relationships with the father being negatively impacted upon
5. For reasons which follow, the Court finds that it is in the children's best interest that the parents both have decision-making responsibilities in respect of all long-term decisions regarding the children, and that the children, while continuing to primarily live with the mother, will spend time with the father, being 4 nights each fortnight during school terms, and time during school holidays.

PARTIES' APPLICATIONS AND EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT

(d) Initiating Application filed 7 June 2022;

(e) Affidavit of Mr Deacon filed 2 April 2025;

(f) Affidavit of Mr Deacon filed 21 March 2025; and

(g) Outline of Case document filed 3 April 2025.

1. The mother relied on the following documents:[2]

(a) Amended Amended Response to Initiating Application filed 26 March 2025;

(b) Affidavit of Ms Deacon filed 27 March 2025;

(c) Affidavit of Ms Deacon filed 27 February 2025;

(d) Affidavit of Mr D filed 20 January 2025;

(e) Affidavit of Mr E filed 20 January 2025; and

(f) Outline of Case document filed 2 April 2025.

1. Before the Court was the Family Report of single expert, Ms F, dated 30 August 2024.[3]

1. The Court relies on parties' legal representatives to not only assist the Court in accordance with their professional obligations, but moreover, to assist the parties in being prepared for the hearing, and in preparing their cases. Documents which are prepared for filing should be carefully drafted, with a view to being accurate and precise, and not simply "cut-and-paste" of previously prepared documents.
2. While it is not always wise for the Court to note such matters in judgments in that it may cause embarrassment to the profession, it is sometimes important to do so, not only for the benefit of the parties to the litigation, but also for the benefit of other litigants and their representatives.
3. In these proceedings, the preparation of the parties' respective cases, and in particular their evidence in chief, left much to be desired. Many relevant matters were simply not the subject of any sworn first-hand evidence whatsoever.
4. Furthermore, many matters that were referred to in the parties' case outlines were not the subject of any evidence. Such matters have not been given any weight.
5. Many of the factual findings herein, in particular much of the chronology and background, are taken from Ms F's report, noting the lack of primary evidence by the parties in respect of such matters.
6. On 21 March 2025, the Court made an order pursuant to s 69ZT(3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("Act") in respect of allegations of family violence, and in particular the allegations of sexual abuse, and inappropriate touching, of the children by the father.
7. Some objections to evidence were taken, mostly limited to evidence which had been filed without leave. Otherwise, the evidence, having been tendered and admitted without objection or limitation, is available for use for all purposes.[4] While the words "not admissible" mean "not admissible over objection",[5] the lack of objection does not necessarily make such evidence probative or relevant, nor does it give it any particular weight.
8. At the commencement of the final hearing, the father moved the Court for orders that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the children, and that the children live with the mother and father in "equal amounts"; namely on a rotating fortnightly basis with each parent during school term, and half school holidays.
9. At the commencement of the final hearing, the mother moved the Court for orders that she have sole parental responsibility, the children live with her and spend time with the father supervised by G Centre for no less than two hours on a weekly/fortnightly basis.[6] The mother also sought an injunction against the father restraining him from approaching the children at their school, attending a venue where the children are engaged in extra-curricular activities, removing the children from the mother's care, approaching or contacting the mother, members of her family, or the children.
10. Following the closing of the parties' evidence, the Court indicated that a finding that the father posed an unacceptable risk of sexual harm to the children was not open on the evidence, and invited further instructions to be obtained.
11. At the conclusion of the final hearing, the father submitted that he would not be heard against an order that was not for equal time, but slightly more than the recommendations of Ms F.
12. At the conclusion of the final hearing, the mother submitted that she would not be heard against an order in line with the recommendations of Ms F, albeit she maintained that time should be supervised in the first instance pending the outcome of a police investigation. Her position was confusing.

1. The following documents were exhibits in the proceedings:

(a) Exhibit 1 being photographs of the father and X (2 pages).

(b) Exhibit 2 being NSW Police Case Report ..., being documents produced pursuant to s 67ZBE, being the records of notes of child interviews conducted at H Police Station in March 2025 for X, Y, and Z (2 pages).

(c) Exhibit 3 being letter from J School to the mother dated 19 September 2024 authored by the principal Mr K (2 pages).

(d) Exhibit 4 being the school reports of X and Y for semester 1 2024 and semester 2 2024, and Z's transition to school digital statement (28 pages).

(e) Exhibit 5 being letter from L Clinic to Dr M dated 8 August 2024 RE: Z (3 pages).

(f) Exhibit 6 being letter from L Clinic headed "Instructions for Trial of Intuniv" dated 17 January 2025 (1 page).

(g) Exhibit 7 being psychological assessment report for Z dated 14 May 2024 from L Clinic (8 pages).

(h) Exhibit 8 being Occupational Therapy Progress Report for Y dated 1 February 2023 (8 pages).

(i) Exhibit 9 being Speech Pathology Review Assessment of Y at numerous dates of assessment (13 pages).

(j) Exhibit 10 being Confidential Psychological Report for Y, date of assessment 6 March 2023 and report completed April 2023 (29 pages).

(k) Exhibit 11 being audio recording of conversation between the mother and Y on 11 March 2025 together with the transcript found at annexure 1 of the mother's affidavit filed 27 March 2025 (2 pages).

1. The father was the sole witness in his case, and he was cross-examined.
2. The mother was a witness in her case, as were the maternal step-grandfather, Mr D and the mother's partner, Mr E. The mother was the only witness in her case who was cross-examined.
3. Both parties cross-examined Ms F.

1. The children's best interest remains the paramount consideration in respect of any parenting orders the Court makes.
2. Division 2 of Part VII of the Act deals with parental responsibility. Section 61C provides that each of the parents of a child has parental responsibility, subject to orders. Section 61D provides that a parenting order that deals with the allocation of parental responsibility may provide for joint or sole decision-making in relation to all or specified major long-term issues.
3. Parental responsibility orders may be made in favour of a parent or some other person.[7] If an order provides for joint decision-making, it requires the parties who hold parental responsibility to consult and make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision.[8]
4. In determining what is in the children's best interest, the Court must consider the matters set out in s 60CC(2) of the Act and, if the children are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, the matters set out in s 60CC(3) of the Act.
5. Section 60CC(2) of the Act specifies the non-hierarchical criteria which must be considered in all cases when arriving at a conclusion as to what is in the children's best interests, namely:

(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);

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

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

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

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

1. In considering what arrangements would promote the safety of the children and of each person who has the care of the children, the Court must consider any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the children or a person caring for the children together with any family violence order that current or has previously applied to the children, or a member of the children's family.[9]
2. Family violence is defined in s 4AB of the Act, to mean violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a family member of the person's family, or causes the family member to be fearful.
3. Examples s 4AB provides are: assault, sexual assault or other sexually abusive behaviour, stalking, repeated derogatory taunts, intentionally damaging or destroying property, intentionally causing death or injury to an animal, unreasonably denying the family member the financial autonomy that he or she would otherwise have had, unreasonably withholding financial support needed to meet the reasonable living expenses of the family member or his or her child, at a time when the family member is entirely or predominantly dependent on the person for financial support, preventing the family member from making or keeping connections with his or her family, friends or culture, unlawfully depriving the family member, or any member of the family member's family, of his or her liberty. Furthermore, a child is exposed to family violence if the child sees or hears family violence or otherwise experiences the effects of family violence.
4. It is apposite to be reminded of the wording of s 140 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth):[10]

(1) In a civil proceeding, the court must find the case of a party proved if it is satisfied that the case has been proved on the balance of probabilities.

(2) Without limiting the matters that the court may take into account in deciding whether it is so satisfied, it is to take into account:

(a) the nature of the cause of action or defence; and

(b) the nature of the subject - matter of the proceeding; and

(c) the gravity of the matters alleged.

1. In order to be satisfied as to proof of any act, the Court must feel an actual persuasion of its occurrence or existence before it can be found. It cannot be found as a result of a mere mechanical comparison of probabilities independently of any belief in its reality. The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of the given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the Court.[11]
2. Inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences are insufficient to ground a finding of violence and abuse.[12] The party alleging the fact bears the burden of proving it and the standard of the burden is the balance of probabilities.[13]Parenting proceedings remain adversarial, and it still stands true that those who assert a fact must prove that fact.
3. It is well recognised that where evidence is uncontradicted and is not otherwise inherently improbable or inherently incredible, and where the other party has not elicited in cross-examination or led in evidence some material to overcome it, either by proving the contrary or throwing the matter into doubt, it should be accepted.[14] However, this does not mean that it must be accepted.
4. Each of the parties is required to put before the Court all such evidence as each is willing and able to bring in support of the findings contended.[15]
   1. Section 60CG of the Act further requires the Court to ensure that any parenting order it makes is consistent with any family violence order and that it does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence, but only to the extent that it is possible to do so consistently with the children's best interest being the paramount consideration.
   2. The issues of family violence and risk are two separate questions. It is important that they not be conflated. On the one hand, the Court may need to determine whether or not allegations of family violence are proven on the balance of probabilities, and on the other, whether or not an unacceptable risk of harm is demonstrated, regardless of the finding made in respect of the allegations of family violence.[16]
   3. While conjecture about the future is based on historical facts and circumstances, it is only the relevant historical facts which need be proven on the balance of probabilities.[17] The assessment of risk is still, however, an evidence-based conclusion and is not discretionary.[18] An assertion that a parent poses an unacceptable risk of harm does not however mean that the parent against whom the assertion is made, must then show that he/she does not pose such a risk.[19] The finding about whether an unacceptable risk exists, based on known facts and circumstances, is either open on the evidence or it is not.[20]
   4. In assessing whether the risk of harm is unacceptable, the Court is not merely evaluating whether the risk will occur, but also the magnitude of the risk and the potential consequences of the risk being realised.[21]

1. The father was born in 1985. He is currently 39 years old.
2. The mother was born in 1988. She is currently 37 years old.[22]
3. The parties met in 2007. They started their relationship and cohabitation in 2009.
4. In 2009, the father's child from a previous relationship, B ("B"), was born. She is currently 16 years old. B lives with the father but spends about half her time at the home of her boyfriend's parents, who live relatively close to the father's home. The children noted to Ms F that B is hardly ever at the father's home.
5. In 2012, the father's child from a previous relationship, C ("C"), was born. She is currently 12 years old. C currently lives with the father on a week-about basis.
6. X was born in 2014. X is currently 12 years old. She has a close and loving relationship with her siblings, including her half-siblings. In the father's home she is particularly close to C.
7. Y was born in 2016. Y is currently 9 years old. Y has been diagnosed with Level 2 Autism Spectrum Disorder ("ASD") and a mild speech delay.
8. The parties married in 2017.
9. In 2019, Z was born. Z is currently 6 years of age and has been diagnosed with Level 2 ASD, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD"), emotional dysregulation, speech disorder and speech difficulties. Z has been prescribed Intuniv for ADHD.
10. On 1 June 2020, the parties separated on a final basis.
11. In early 2021, the mother commenced her relationship with Mr E. The mother and the children have been living with Mr E since January 2022.
12. In 2023, the mother's first child from her relationship with Mr E, N ("N"), was born. N will turn 2 very shortly.
13. In 2024, the mother's second child from her relationship with Mr E, O ("O"), was born.
14. In late 2024, the mother observed Z and X interchangeably sitting on the father's lap, and the father kissing them on the back of the neck and cheeks. These observations were made at an event the two girls participated in.
15. In February 2025, the mother observed what she considered as inappropriate behaviour between X and the father at a sports event, a few days after being told, by another parent, of similar behaviour between X and the father.
16. In March 2025, Y said to the mother that he showers with the father and that they have "secret cuddles" in the shower.
17. The last time the children spent time with the father was on 10-11 March 2025.
18. The children were interviewed by the Police in March 2025.
19. The final hearing took place on 7-9 April 2025.

1. The children were all interviewed by Ms F, and their interactions with the parents and other significant family members, was observed.

1. At the assessment for the preparation of Ms F's report, X presented as neatly attired, clearly anxious, and was observed to repeatedly wring her hands and withdrawn. X said that the parties had spoken to her about the reason for the interviews but could not remember what they said. Additionally, X said neither party had spoken to her about their respective proposals, but was worried one or both of them is proposing she not see the other parent again, which she would not like. X seemed relieved upon being told such was not the case.
2. X described the mother as "fun", "helpful" and "the best parent I have". She said that the mother was good at managing the household routine, organising things and making sure she has what she needs for school. She also said that the mother is affectionate, and that she can talk to the mother about her worries. Moreover, X said the mother does not try to tell her or imply to her how she should think or feel about family matters. X said she feels close to the maternal grandparents as they are very kind to her, enjoys spending time with them and having sleepovers at their home.
3. X said that the father "he's kind to me but when Y and Z are naughty he shouts". However, she said he is "not scary". She described Mr E as "fun and nice" and mentioned how he organises outings as a family.
4. X said the father is generally a kind father but gets "grumpy" when he is on the phone and interrupted by Z and Y. She said he is "on the phone a bit, but not a lot". With a nervous laugh, X said the father is "quite a bit less organised than Mum". It was clear to Ms F that X felt reluctant to speak negatively about the father and even went on to blame herself, saying that she is not an organised person. X also said that the father does not play with the children much, sometimes takes them on outings and used to take them to his workplace but no longer does.
5. Ms F observed that when asked about the paternal grandmother, X did not smile like she did when discussing other family members. She said that the paternal grandmother can be fun at times but that "we don't usually see her that much", around once a month. Ms F then asked about the paternal uncle and observed that X smiled widely, described him as "very fun and kind and nice" and said that she likes seeing his son, P.
6. X said she feels very close to C and enjoys spending time with her. She also said that B now rarely spends time with the father and estimated that the last time she saw B was in 2023 because "[B] doesn't really get along with Dad". X commented that the mother supports her to have a good relationship with her half-siblings.
7. In relation to Y and Z, X said that Y has autism, making his behaviour challenging and often finding him annoying. She maintained that Y becomes dysregulated in both parents' care but said that when Y returns from the father's care he "doesn't listen to anyone and is very rude" and takes a long time to calm down. X said that Z can be annoying, hard to calm when upset, finds it difficult to move between the two homes and "won't leave me alone".
8. X firmly stated that she does not want to give her view about parenting arrangements. Ms F opined that she appeared anxious when speaking about this and seemed as if she did not want to upset or disappoint her parents. X also said that she was happy for the Judge to decide the parenting arrangements.

1. Y's presentation to Ms F was consistent with a child who has moderate autism and possibly ADHD. She observed that Y made little eye contact, was easily distracted, moved around the room throughout the interview and found it difficult to attend to the questions asked.
2. Y said that although the mother can be "grumpy" sometimes, she is mostly kind to him and helps him. He said that the mother is only grumpy when he has been naughty and that she does not smack him but rather will say "don't do it".
3. Y described Mr E as "funny". He also said he is only scared of Mr E when he is "really grumpy", which is not often. Y reported that Mr E occasionally smacks but said it was okay as "it makes me know not to do it anymore". Y agreed Mr E cares about him.
4. Y described the father as a "fun" parent who gives him cuddles. He then said with excitement, "When we ask for technology he always says yes. Mum doesn't". Y said he likes the father's house as he knows how to use the television, his father cares about him, and he is not scared of the father.
5. Y said he feels close to X and Z and that he likes seeing C sometimes. Ms F opined that in a matter-of-fact tone, Y said he does not see B much as "Dad tells her to do stuff, and she doesn't like doing it". Y spoke warmly about N.
6. Y said he likes spending time with the maternal grandparents and feels close to them, and that the paternal grandparents are friendly to him.
7. Y said that the father speaks negatively about the mother, and that the mother used to also do such behaviour but stopped "a while ago".
8. Y's preference was that he live in an equal time arrangement "so it's even and fair".

1. Z presented as somewhat young for her age in terms of her verbal and social skills. Ms F observed that Z was easily distracted and consistently moved around the room throughout the interview. Z provided limited information and the interview was ended early.
2. Z said the mother can be grumpy but is mostly kind, that she is not fearful of her, and indicated she is very comfortable living with the mother. Z said the father is kind to her and loves her. She said she likes seeing the father but only likes being there "for a little bit" and is not fearful of him.
3. Z described Mr E as grumpier than the mother, can be kind, and said she is not fearful of him. She spoke warmly about the maternal grandparents, indicating that she likes spending time with them. Z said the paternal grandmother is more grumpy than kind but can be kind.
4. Z said she likes playing with her siblings, sees C frequently but does not see B much. It was this point Z declared she wanted to stop talking and the interview was ended.

1. Post-separation, the children spent time with the father on an ad hoc basis, and as the mother decided. X and Y eventually started spending one overnight per fortnight with the father while Z only spent time with the father during the day.
2. On 13 February 2023, interim orders were made for the children to live with the mother and spend time with the father, gradually increasing.
3. Until 30 June 2023, X and Y were to spend time with the father every second week from after school on Friday to before school on Monday, and Z every week from after school on Friday to 4pm on Sunday.
4. From 17 July 2023, X and Y were to spend time with the father every second week from after school on Friday to before school on Tuesday, and Z's time was increased to before school on Monday.
5. It is unclear on the evidence what time the children spent with the father between February 2023 and mid-2024. There was some evidence that time did not occur on particular occasions, and it appears that the mother did not facilitate time between Z and the father for a few months in mid-late 2023.
6. At the time of the interviews with Ms F in mid-2024, X and Y were spending time with the father from after school on Friday to before school on Tuesday, while Z was spending time with the father from after school on Friday to before school on Monday, albeit time did not always occur. This seems to be largely because the mother believed that Z was not coping and was distressed at being away from her and with the father.
7. Time was also disrupted in March 2025, following Y telling the mother about showering with the father. This and other concerns the mother raised about the father's behaviour towards the children are discussed in more detail later in these reasons.
8. While orders have been in place for some time for the children to speak to the father on the telephone, such time does not always occur. This upsets X in particular. It is not clear whether the children have the capacity and freedom to telephone either of their parents while in the other parent's care. This would likely overcome any difficulties with any failures by the father to call during only set times. It would also provide the children with more flexibility. In the lives of these children, it is likely a flexibility that will assist their relationships.

1. Each of the parties has some mental health vulnerabilities.
2. The father has been taking anti-depressant medication for years, which was prescribed by his general practitioner. He has had a suicide attempt in the past.
3. The mother had been diagnosed with anxiety and depression in her late teens. She manages her conditions with counselling and anti-depressants.
4. There is no evidence that either party's mental health poses any risk to the children.

1. There have been some ongoing difficulties with the parties' communications, albeit such difficulties are capable of resolution with some practical changes. The parties have also spoken poorly to each other.
2. The parties have a shared calendar where the mother inputs the children's appointments. The father does not always get such information. This has at times, resulted in the father not providing input into the children's assessment and/or treatment. It appears that the mother is aware of the father's difficulties with the calendar. It also appears that the father does not follow up with the mother where he is aware that he is missing information, but instead expects the mother to remind him of any upcoming appointments.
3. This is not a child focused approach from either of the parties.
4. It is not for the mother to keep reminding the father about appointments and information that he might want to provide. The father must take on the responsibility of ensuring that he is informed and aware of what is going on. There is no reason why the father could not make his own enquiries with the children's treaters, or the parties could not instruct those treaters jointly to provide information to both of them simultaneously, thus taking the burden off the mother to provide such information to the father.
5. The father needs to step up in this regard.
6. The parties are both intelligent and capable adults who are perfectly able to sort out this hiccup without a Court order.
7. There is no reason why the parties cannot send each other either an email or a text message with the relevant information. There is also no reason why the parties could not avail themselves of a parenting application, such as "My Family Wizard", and share the cost equally, to assist them in better communication.

1. Ms F described the father as presenting hostile towards the mother, and very hostile towards the maternal grandmother. She also described the father as presenting somewhat hostile towards Mr E.
2. The father had previously held concerns about Mr E potentially sexually abusing Z, but while such concerns were noted by Ms F, they were not live concerns at the time of final hearing. The father was not cross-examined about these matters at all.
3. Ms F described the mother as presenting as frustrated with and disgusted by the father, rather than openly hostile towards him. She described the mother as presenting as somewhat disgusted by the paternal grandmother's lack of interest in being involved in caring for the children. The mother spoke warmly about the father's brother.
4. Mr E is very critical of the father. He describes him as a "manipulator of the children".
5. Both the father and the mother spoke warmly about the children to Ms F.
6. During her interview with Ms F, the mother said in respect of the children's time with the father as follows:

I have been quite honest with the kids and said if they really don't want to go, I would never force them to do something they don't want to do.

I don't see the point of forcing them to go if it's going to upset or distress them.

1. Ms F noted that while such statements were concerning to her, the impression that was given by the mother was that she was making these comments with the belief that the children love the father, want to maintain a relationship with him and will regularly choose to spend time with him.
2. This is not the impression that the Court gained after hearing the mother in the witness box. Rather, the mother impressed as rather rigid in her attitude, and very conservative and old-fashioned particularly in respect of the way she expected the father to behave towards the children. In the context of such impression and the way the mother ran her case at final hearing, the mother's statements to Ms F as noted at [107] above, are indicative of a poor attitude towards the children's relationship with the father.

1. In late 2024, the parties attended the 2024 Physical Culture end-of-year presentation at Q School, where X and Z performed. The concert took place from around 6pm to 8:30pm.
2. The mother was seated in the front row facing the stage in around the centre and the father was seated on the right side of the stage.
3. The parties were around eight metres away from each other and the father attended the presentation with B, who sat next to him. The mother claimed that her view was "unobstructed".
4. During the showcase, X and Z moved between the mother and the father to sit with each of them during breaks. The mother directed X and Z to sit with their group, but they returned to the father. The father said that the children were only required to sit with their groups when marshalling took place before an event occurred. The father did not encourage X and Z to sit with their groups, as they were happy sitting where they were, where they also played with their friends.
5. The mother criticised the father's interaction with the children asserting it was inappropriate as follows:

(a) X and Z were seated on the father's lap instead of the empty seats next to him;

(b) The father kissed X on the back of the neck at least three times whilst she sat on his lap and hugged her as she faced forward;

(c) The father would lift X onto his lap, held her around her lower back and leaned in to kiss her cheek and neck while she squirmed and giggled; and

(d) The father would also place Z on his lap and kiss her cheek and neck.

1. The father conceded that X and Z were seated on his lap "at some points" but not every time they were with him. The father was asked whether Z was on his lap and whether when Z got up for her performance, X then sat on his lap, to which he responded "possibly". The father also confirmed that when X was seated on his lap, there were two spaces to the left of him.
2. The father further conceded that it was "highly probable" he showed Z and X physical affection at the event and added that as they were children he would have given them a cuddle or a kiss, including when they were seated on his lap. The father also did not deny leaning in to kiss X on the cheek repeatedly, kissing X on the neck, saying that when the children sit on his lap he kisses them on the top of their head but on this occasion could not as they had specific hairdos for their performances. When asked whether he kissed X three times on the neck, the father said, "if you say so", noting that he does not count the number of kisses he gives his children. When asked whether X squirmed or giggled as the father kissed her neck, he said "they all did" as they were being tickled, adding that he generally tickles the children around the belly and on the arms.
3. The father also agreed that when X got up for her dance, Z sat on his lap. When asked whether the father did the "same type of behaviour" with Z as he did X, he responded "sure". The father accepted that he would have kissed Z on the cheek and neck a few times.
4. In response to questioning put to him during cross-examination, the father said he did not know whether other parents at the event kissed their children on the neck or three or four times on the cheek. When asked about the appropriateness of his behaviour, the father said his behaviour was appropriate, not unusual, and that "on the mouth would be unusual".
5. The mother "intervened" twice by asking X and Z to sit with their class and prepare for their performance, which they eventually did. During cross-examination, the father said that when the mother intervened, the children did not follow as they wanted to stay sitting with him.
6. It is this type of behaviour, as well as what is referred to at [121] and thereafter, which the Court understands the mother considered as "grooming" and inappropriate.

Father's Interactions with X at Sports in February 2025

1. A big part of the mother's case at final hearing was the so called "tongue-licking game" which the mother asserted the father played with X. The mother also raised concerns about the father hugging and touching X inappropriately.
2. The difficulty for the mother however, is that she did not put on any evidence in chief about what the "tongue-licking game" was, when it was said to have occurred, or what was observed.[23] Doing the best that it can from the parties' oral evidence, the Court understands that the "tongue-licking game" was said to have been observed by another parent at sports training in February 2025.
3. In February 2025, the mother discussed appropriate and inappropriate behaviours with X. In her oral evidence, the mother said that the conversation was as follows:

Mother: As you get older there are certain behaviours like hanging off adults and constantly hugging and seeking affection from them, is not appropriate.

[X]: I do not do that.

Mother: There was another parent there that told me they witnessed you playing a game with dad that involved one person sticking their tongue out and the other one licking it.

[X]: That never happened.

Mother: I can only tell you what I've been told.

[X]: Okay.

Mother: That type of behaviour is just not appropriate.

1. In her oral evidence, the mother said that she did not believe X as X is "very protective" of the father and would not want him in trouble. When asked whether the mother believes that X and the father were touching tongues at her athletics training on a Tuesday afternoon in plain sight of all the other children and parents, the mother responded "yes". The mother then conceded that she did not consider the possibility that it did not happen.
2. On 18 February 2025, the mother took two photographs of X's interactions with the father at her sports event.
3. The mother describes her observations of the father and X as follows:

I witnessed [Mr Deacon] embracing [X] in a bear hug and holding her wrists. When [X] tried to move away, he did not release her until I, as the age group manager, asked all the girls to line up.

At the [sports] event, I saw [X] hanging onto [Mr Deacon], while he was speaking with another parent. I also observed [X] playing with [Mr Deacon]'s hair and stroking his face and beard. Please see Appendix 2, Photos I took of the interaction.

1. Those two photographs are exhibit 1 in the proceedings.
2. The first photograph shows the father and X facing each other, with their upper bodies slightly touching and X's arms around her father's neck. X's head is tilted upwards towards her father's face. The father's head is turned slightly to the side. X is smiling. The father is holding a water bottle in his right hand.
3. The second photograph shows X standing with her heels on the father's toes, with her back to the father. X's arms are crossed across her stomach, and the father is holding onto her wrists from behind. He is leaning to the left with his head down looking down towards the ground, and X's head is turned to the side facing left, looking into the distance.
4. There is nothing explicitly inappropriate or sexual about the positioning of either the father or X in the two photographs.
5. In his oral evidence the father said he has no idea what the tongue-licking game is, denied ever playing a tongue-kissing game with X, denied ever kissing or licking X on the tongue, denied ever physically touching X in the "bum area", and denied ever pinching X on the bum.
6. In his oral evidence the father said that the photographs depicted him giving X a cuddle and denied that exhibit 1 demonstrated inappropriate behaviour. The father further said he gave X a bear hug, would have held her for a couple of seconds in a "big tight squeeze bear cuddle". The father said he held "not so much her wrists, around here [witness showed crossing his arms out front and hugging his arms touching the backs of his arms and top of his shoulders]". The father said that the hug would have been appropriate and normal.
7. On 19 February 2025, the mother had a further discussion with X, during which she explained that the following behaviours were inappropriate:
   • Hanging onto her father with arms around his neck;
   • Allowing him to hold and hug her from behind;
   • Not being released when she tried to move away; and
   • Engaging in the 'tongue game'.[24]
8. During cross-examination, the mother was asked about why it was inappropriate for X to hang onto the father with her arms around his neck. The mother said it was her opinion that being that affectionate and close with any adult at any time is inappropriate. When asked about why she held that opinion the mother said "it is just my opinion". The mother's oral evidence is that the behaviour she observed was sexualised behaviour and that it was X who was displaying the sexualised behaviour, and not the father towards X. When asked whether it was sexualised behaviour for X to hug the mother around the neck, the mother said "yes".
9. The mother accepted that there was a possibility the conversation she had with X on 19 February 2025 could have damaged X's relationship with the father, and she did not consider talking to the father first about the issue. When asked whether she had this discussion with X so that X can protect herself in the future, said "Yes, so she is aware of what I consider appropriate and inappropriate behaviour".
10. Ms F opined it would be concerning if the mother has hypervigilance for something not there, which in turn would induce X into feeling concerned or ashamed. In respect of the mother's conversation with X, Ms F suggested that the mother could easily have had that conversation with X but said "It is okay with dad but you wouldn't do that with anyone else would you?".

1. On 7 March 2025, the mother whilst driving the children to the father's home, reminded them to take a shower at the father's home. During that conversation, Y said "I like having showers with Dad. We have secret cuddles in the shower". The mother then asked Y what a secret cuddle was, and he responded that it was a cuddle only him and the father knew about because "it's just the two of them in the shower". The conversation occurred in front of X, who according to the mother looked surprised at what Y was saying. The mother dropped the children at the father's house but then felt physically ill upon arriving home for leaving them there.
2. On 11 March 2025 at 3:21pm, the mother recorded a conversation between herself and Y without Y's knowledge. The conversation between the mother and Y was as follows:

([Y]): So, I'll tell you the tale of when the dog was sleeping, there's a pile of cat's skeletons next to it,

([Mother]): Yeah

([Y]): and then the cat exploded, and the dog ran out the side with its ears chewed off from the cat and holes in its side.

([Mother]): Oh, my lordy!

([Y]): But that's just one of them, there lots of different ones (and now sings from The Cat Came Back by Laurie Berkner) but the cat came back the very next day, he told me he was a goner, but he wouldn't stay away

([Mother]): How was your weekend?

([Y]): Good.

([Mother]): Yeah, did you have a shower and wash your hair at all?

([Y]): Yeah

([Mother]): Yeah.

([Mother]): Remember last week when we were talking about showering at Dad's

([Y]): Yeah

([Mother]): And you said that you have your showers in the morning

([Y]): Yeah

([Mother]): Do you have your showers by yourself?

([Y]): With Dad

([Mother]): With Dad?

([Y]): I like them with Dad

([Mother]): And you said that you had um, secret cuddles in the shower

([Y]): Yeah

([Mother]): What's a secret cuddle, can you tell me?

([Y]): So, he just stands there, and I'm on his body, then he cuddles me like this, then I hold his arms

([Mother]): Oh, is he standing behind you

([Y]): Yeah

([Mother]): And he cuddles with his arms around you

([Y]): And I cuddle his arms

([Mother]): So why is it a secr.., you said it was a secret?

([Y]): Well, it's not really a secret but it's a special one because no one really knows what it is, and we do it every time... it's special and kind-of a secret

([Mother]): Do you wash yourself? Or does Daddy wash you?

([Y]): I wash myself

([Mother]): Yeah, does Daddy wash himself or do you help?

([Y]): I like helping him. I pretend he's my son, and wash his back for him like he washes my back, because we can't reach each other's back, because I can't reach my back, I can't reach my back and he can't reach my back, I can't reach my back and he can't reach his back.

([Mother]): Is that the only bit that you help each other with?

([Y]): Yeah

([Mother]): Do you ever shower by yourself?

([Y]): When I wet my bed that's the only time I just get up, shower myself, shower by myself without Dad and try to have one with Dad.... or if he's busy

([Mother]): Yep

([Mother]): Do any of the girls have showers with Dad?

([Y]): No

([Mother]): No?

([Y]): They don't really ask.... But they do ask for a shower in the morning. Is that the Southern Cross?

([Mother]): No, that's just the logo of that car

([Y]): It looks like a bit of a Southern Cross

([Mother]): It does a little bit, doesn't it

([Y]): (Now singing again) But the cat came back the very next day, bom, bom, bom.... The first line is the cat came back the very next day[25]

1. In her oral evidence the mother explained that she recorded the conversation because Y has a speech delay, expressive language disorder and impaired executive functioning, and she needed to make sure she was understanding what he was saying. She also said that he is known to mix up his words and she wanted to be able to go back and listen to the conversation to ensure she was not misunderstanding what Y had said. The mother said that she used the words "secret cuddles" in the recording these were the words used by Y the Friday before. The mother said she had no concerns she had misheard the term "secret cuddles" in that initial conversation. This was the only time she ever recorded any of the children for the purpose of the proceedings.
2. After her conversation with Y, the mother asked X about the "secret cuddles". X told her she does not shower with the father, but that Y and Z do.
3. The father generally showers in the mornings and once or twice a fortnight with Y. During cross-examination, the father confirmed that he and Y are nude during the showers, that the size of the shower is a metre and a half by a metre and a half and that the showers usually last "2 minutes tops maybe". The father also said that Y washes himself but had recently asked the father to use the loofah to wash his back between his shoulder blades. The father added that Y had also recently asked to wash the father's back, and that he lets him. The father said that Y is behind him when he washes the father's back, and in front of him when he washes Y's back. When asked whether it was "normal behaviour" to wash someone's back, the father said that it depends on context and that he has no issues if his children shower with him before reaching puberty.
4. The father also gave evidence that X stopped showering with anyone including her sister once she reached the "pre-pubescent" stage and that the last time he showered with X would have been when she was around 7 years of age. The father confirmed that such showers would have been in the nude, adding that the mother used to do the same. Further, when asked whether it was appropriate to shower with a 7-year-old girl, the father responded, "God no, but my daughter nothing wrong". The father said he showered with the children when the parties resided together and that the mother did not ever express concern about the father continuing to do that post-separation. The father said they did not talk about it during the marriage but admitted he could appreciate the mother has concerns about him showering with Y, adding that if the roles were reversed, he too would be concerned about Y's comments, but would have firstly discussed the issue with the mother directly. The father further said that Y likes affection and love and that there is nothing sinister about the showers.
5. The father also said that he usually hugs Y before he gets out of the shower, after which Y leaves, wrapping a towel around himself and going to his room to dry and dress himself.
6. The father was asked about Y's mention of "secret cuddles". The father said there is no secret cuddle, it is just "something he [Y] calls it" and that use of the term "special" to also describe the hug would be Y's "wording of the same thing". The father agreed during cross-examination that it was reasonable for the mother to have sought clarification on "secret cuddles" and that such phrasing would have been a "red flag type of word".
7. The Court accepts the father's evidence about showering with Y.

1. On 12 March 2025, the mother spoke to the Police about Y's comments to her, and was asked to bring in all three children to be interviewed.
2. After speaking to the Police, the mother told the children that "for now" they would need to stay with her. The mother told the children that once she became aware of the date for the interviews she told the children they would be interviewed by the Police, and once the mother knew more information about when they could go back to the father she would let them know. The mother did not specifically tell the children she had made the decision for them not to spend time with the father.
3. As at the final hearing, the last time X and Y spent time with the father was on 11 March 2025, and the last time Z spent time with the father was on 10 March 2025.
4. On 27 March 2025, X, Y and Z were interviewed by the Police at Suburb H Police Station.
5. Before attending the police station, the mother told the children they were going to be asked some questions about herself and the father. The children attended the police station with the mother and the maternal grandmother. The mother said that even though she took the children to the Police station, she did not know it would be a uniformed officer interviewing the children.
6. Exhibit 2 in the proceedings comprises the NSW Police Case Report detailing X, Y, and Z's interviews. The mother was only in the room for Z's interview.
7. Extracts from X's interview are as follows:
   • stated that shes at the police station to talk about mum and dads divorce and how she feels about it...
   • ...stated that she spends "some time" with dad and "some time" with mum.
   • indicated that she loves dad and wants to spend more time with dad, "always wants to go to dads"
   • she likes being at dads when the other younger children aren't there, and when she is with her older half sisters 13 & 16.
   • sometimes [X] stays an extra night
   • During the interview it appeared that there was more information that she wanted to say but didn't have the language explain it. Appeared nervous. uncomfortable means you don't like what they are doing - did not identify anything that makes her feel "uncomfortable".

1. During cross-examination, the father said that X is not often alone with him and has been "maybe once or twice in the last six months".
2. Extracts from Y's interview are as follows:
   • stated that he's come to the station to talk about ... mum, mummas and dads.
   • likes going to dads but doesn't like that he has to do a "little while" at dads and a "big while" at mums
   • wants to do a week on week off with dad and mum
   • "Every morning if we are not running late i have a shower with dad"
   • states that at mums he showers on his own
   • likes having a shower with dad, states that he does want to have a shower on his own but doesnt say anything. Says that every now and then he has a shower on his own.
   • "the others ask if they can have a shower with dad too, dad sometimes says yes" - [X] and [Z] ask that question
   • Police asked "has [X] ever had a shower with dad?.." "I think she has".
   • asked if there was anything that he doesn't like about being at dad?... "when I get sick"
   • asked what do you do in the shower?... "we get washed, we have a cuddle and then i get out... after i get out, but usually every second day he stays in and washes his hair".
   • when [Y] is giving dad a cuddle. "we stand the exact same way"dad stands in the back. During this conversation [Y] became much more reserved and quite.
   • was asked what it means to feel uncomfortable - [Y] had his eyes closed and said "yes but i cant really explain'.. was asked if he ever feels "yuucky or uncomfortable" with dad... he said "Yep" i said when do you feel yucky?... long pause then [Y] smirked and said "I don't know"... then said "i barely get sick. Unable to determine if he was referring to being physically sick and feeling yucky and uncomfortable or, being in discomfort from certain actions
   • [Y] said that dad hasn't ever told him to keep a secret.

1. During cross-examination, the father said that he does not instigate the showers with Y and clarified that Y asks to have a shower, the father says "fine in you go" and that "he'll get in, I'll get in, he'll get out". In relation to Y's comment that he wants to have a shower on his own but does not say anything, the father said that Y had not said that to him and that Y only showers with him when he asks to. The father clarified that he does not force Y into the shower or tell him to come. When asked that what Y is saying is not true, the father responded "Correct, as true as a 9-year-olds statement could be". The father also added that Y likes having a shower with him and that as Y does not see him often, likes that brief one-on-one time he gets with the father. When asked whether Y ever feels "yucky" the father said "Of course" and that Y often gets "a bit crook and feels yucky or has a sore tummy" and that it had nothing to do with the shower. The father also confirmed that Y does not say he feels "yucky" before, during, or after he showers with the father or as the father hugs or cuddles him.
2. Extracts from Z's interview are as follows:
   • she sleeps in her own bed, and in the morning she will go and get into dads bed.
3. During cross-examination, the father said that Z has her own bed but when she wakes in the morning generally between 5am and 6am, will come to his bed and lay next to him.
4. The mother read exhibit 2 for the first time during cross-examination. The mother agreed that what she read in exhibit 2 was in line with the Y's discussions with her. The mother conceded that none of the children had disclosed anything sexual during their interviews and admitted that she did not think the children were lying to the Police.
5. The mother has not spoken to the Police since March 2025. There is no evidence that the Police contacted the father after interviewing the children.

1. The discussion of the best interest consideration below is informed by the Court's findings and is to be read together and understood in the context of those findings.

Arrangements that would promote the safety of the children and each person who has care of the children

1. The evidence does not establish any inappropriate or sexual behaviour towards the children by the father on any of the occasions the mother speaks to.
2. The evidence does not establish any risk of harm of sexual abuse of the children by the father.
3. The father conceded in his oral evidence that he would be willing to stop showering with Y and showing affection to X if the mother is concerned about those things. The mother is clearly concerned about these things, and the father is on notice. While these are not safety issues per se, the parties working together in regard to these matters and addressing each other's concerns in an open and honest manner, would go a long way to assist their children in feeling safe and loved in both homes.
4. The Court has some concerns about the unilateral suspension of the children's time with the father and the interviews by the Police, and the impact these might have on the children and their relationships with the parties. The mother did not adequately explain to the children why they were visiting the police station at the time of the interviews. Ms F's opinion is that the children would be curious and would start asking questions of the mother.
5. Ms F opined, it was possible for X to make a link between the trip to the police station and not seeing the father, and agreed that if X makes that link and becomes aware she can only see the father under supervised circumstances, she could come to think the father has done something wrong. When asked about the impact of that on the relationship with the father, Ms F said it can go one of two ways, one being that X sees the father as wronged and impacting her relationship with the father, or she becomes concerned the father has done something wrong to her or someone else and will view him negatively.
6. Ms F further opined that X's relationship with the mother would be impacted if she thinks the father did nothing wrong. She said that it would be "confusing" as X has a relationship with the mother being someone she trusts but someone who is also implying that someone else X loves and views as safe, is somehow causing harm. Ms F added that it may also cause X to align more strongly with the father and begin to view the mother negatively.

1. At the time of family report interviews, according to Ms F, the children were not at an age or stage of development where the Court would place significant weight on their views surrounding parenting arrangements. This is so even in relation to X, who was clearly conflicted about expressing a particular view to Ms F.
2. Some 9 months later, in late March 2025, to the Police, X said that she wants to spend more time with her father. Y's views had not changed from the family report interviews to the police interviews, he wants to spend equal time with each of his parents.

The developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the children

1. X is currently 12 years old. She has a close and loving relationship with her siblings, including her half-siblings. In the father's home she is particularly close to C.
2. Y is currently 9 years old. Y has been diagnosed with Level 2 ASD and a mild speech delay.
3. Z is currently 6 years of age and has been diagnosed with Level 2 ASD, ADHD, emotional dysregulation, speech disorder and speech difficulties. Z has been prescribed Intuniv for her ADHD.

The capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the children to provide for the children's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs

1. The mother has been the children's primary carer throughout their lives. She is the parent who takes on the bulk of the responsibility in relation to their everyday needs, as well as their long-term needs.
2. Unfortunately, the father has not always been available to the children and for the children, and the reasons for this are multifaceted as noted earlier in these reasons.
3. It is the Court's assessment though that the father, to use the colloquial, needs to "step up" and take on more responsibility to ensure that the children are well supported and that the mother is well supported.
4. While the father is the less organised of the two parents, he has the capacity to provide for the children's needs. It may always be slightly more chaotic in the father's home than in the mother's home, in terms of routines and practices, but this is not a prohibiting factor to the father meeting the children's needs and being available for them to spend time with him.
5. However, in the Court's assessment, the father does not have the capacity to care for the children on an equal time basis.
6. Ms F was of the view that children can flourish in an equal time arrangement with the support of a co-parenting relationship characterised by "low conflict, high respect and trust, and civil and constructive communication". Such was "clearly" absent in the parties' parenting relationship. Accordingly, and given the children's developmental issues and needs, an equal time arrangement is "contraindicated" for this family.
7. In her report, Ms F was of the view that the parental conflict between the parties is too high to support a substantial time arrangement of five nights per fortnight for the father with the children. Given Y and Z's needs and the high conflict, Ms F assessed it in the children's best interests to have one parent, being the mother, who primarily organises and facilitates the children's attendance for treatment of their special needs. Accordingly, Ms F assessed that spending a four-night block per fortnight with the father would be the best balance for the children's needs for meaningful time with the father whilst still providing them a primary carer who provides a calm, organised environment.
8. The expert did not deviate from her stated opinion during cross-examination. She elaborated on her reasoning stating that her proposal is underpinned by making sure that "the things that need to get done is done" whilst providing the children the opportunity to have meaningful time with the father and their half-siblings.
9. The Court accepts Ms F's evidence in this regard.

The benefit to the children of being able to have a relationship with the children's parents, and other people who are significant to the children, where it is safe to do so

1. During the observations of the children with the parents and other important family members by Ms F, the children all appeared comfortable with both of their parents, Mr E, and the grandparents.
2. The children all have close and loving relationships with each other and with their half siblings, in both parents' households.
3. The children have a "very close, loving and trusting relationship" with the mother.
4. The children will benefit from spending time with the father, not only because of the importance of their relationships with him, but also because of the importance of their relationships with their half-sisters in the father's home and the extended paternal family.

1. The evidence does not suggest that either party has ever refused to follow medical advice in relation to the children, although there have been some misunderstandings between the parties; for example, in relation to melatonin, and whether this had been a medical requirement. At times, rather than working together for the benefit of the children, the parents have each pulled in their own direction. The children's welfare is not about the parents being right, it is about doing what is objectively best for the children, and what is best may mean a range of different things in different circumstances.
2. Parental flexibility and understanding is important. The parties both have the capacity for it.
3. The children ought to be able to attend extra-curricular activities as they choose and as the parties, or either of them, deem appropriate. The cost may be shared, but does not need to be so. The parties have different financial circumstances; this is a reality of life.

Where the Children live and time with the other parent

1. It is in the children's best interest that they live with the mother.
2. The father does not pose a risk of unacceptable harm to the children.
3. The evidence does not support an order for ongoing supervision of the children's time with the father, nor does it support the orders sought by the mother at the commencement of the hearing.
4. The evidence does not support an order for equal time.
5. The evidence does support an order for the children to spend meaningful time with the father.
6. Having carefully considered all of the evidence, and after taking the time to reflect, the Court finds that it is in the children's best interest to spend four nights per fortnight with the father during school term, and half school holidays.
7. This will allow the children time to settle into the father's home, while still spending the majority of their time in the mother's home. It will provide stability and safety for the children, in allowing them to have a relationship with both of their parents while retaining their primary residence in the mother's home. It will also allow them the opportunity of having relationships with all of their siblings.
8. The orders will provide for all three children to commence spending time with the father for 4 nights per fortnight immediately. While Z has not yet spent as many nights with the father as have her siblings, the time when Ms F recommended Z would be able to cope with having 4 nights away from the mother was from the commencement of 2025.
9. Z is now significantly older than at the time of the interviews with Ms F, and is in all likelihood better able to cope with this additional change. This is in the context of the many changes Z has had in the mother's home, including the mother re-partnering and giving birth to two more children.
10. In respect of school holidays, while half school holidays are overall in the children's best interest, there needs to be a slight lead in time for Z in this regard. This will mean that at the end of term 3, she will spend 5 nights with the father rather than half the holidays, and at the end of term 4, she will spend 7 nights with the father rather than half the holidays. In 2026, she, like the other two children, will have the benefit of half school holidays with each of the parents.
11. The Court appreciates that this will mean that in even numbered years, the children will be spending Christmas with the mother and in odd numbered years with the father. For these particular children, and given the parental attitudes as have been found, this will likely be a more stable arrangement, rather than having the special days split up and all the stress associated with having to split holidays between their parents' homes.
12. In respect of special days, such as religious celebrations, birthdays, and Father's/Mother's Day, the children will spend time with their parents as those special days fall during the time which is occurring in accordance with the final orders.
13. The parties always have the option of coming to an agreement about special days and indeed, about other days as may be suitable.
14. While there is no evidence that the parties speak poorly of each other to the children, or in their hearing or presence, the observations of Ms F about the presentations she observed are sufficient to warrant a non-denigration order. This will ensure that the parties are, as best as possible, aware of how their words and unspoken actions, might impact upon the children.
15. The remainder of the orders are self-explanatory or have been explained elsewhere.

1. While there has been conflict between the parents and while the father has at times been a slow-moving iceberg in terms of decision making, the evidence still supports an order for joint decision making.
2. It is important for the children to know and understand that both of their parents care deeply about them, and about what happens to them. Given the children's particular needs, it is important, if not imperative, that both parents have an input into any medical or allied health treatments the children receive and how they progress in school.
3. In this regard, it is instructive to remind the parties that the effect of a parenting order that provides for joint decision making about major long-term issues is taken to require each of the parties to consult each other party in relation to each such decision, and to make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision. It does not require any other person to establish, before acting on a decision about the child communicated by one of the parties, that the decision has been made jointly.[26]
4. While Ms F was of the view that the orders should be prescriptive in this regard, the Court does not find that this is so. The parties are both adults, interested in the welfare of their children. Even though there is existing conflict which has been present over many years, such conflict had not prevented any decisions being made in relation to the children's long-term welfare.

1. In all of the circumstances and for all of the reasons explained, the orders as set out at the forefront of these Reasons for Judgment are in the children's best interests.
2. The Court so orders.

I certify that the preceding two hundred and eight (208) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Obradovic.

[1] It is noted though that B spends time away from the father's home when she stays in the home of her boyfriend's parents.

[3] Affidavit of Single Expert filed 30 September 2024.

[4] Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Union Standard International Group Pty Ltd (No 4) [2024] FCA 1481 at [1271].

[5] Isles v Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97 at [98] ("Isles v Nelissen").

[6] This is not a typographical error by the Court.

[7] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 64C ("Act").

[8] Act s 61DAA.

[9] Act s.60CC(2A).

[10] See s 69ZT of the Act with respect to the relevant parts of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) which do not apply to child-related proceedings. Chapter 4 remains applicable.

[11] Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 at 362, [1938] HCA 34 at [32] ("Briginshaw & Briginshaw").

[12] WK v SR [1997] FamCA 57; (1997) 22 Fam LR 592; (1997) FLC 92-787 ("WK v SR") at 603; see also Briginshaw v Briginshaw at 362.

[13] Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249 at [79] ("Pickford").

[14] Bain v Bain [2017] FamCAFC 80; (2017) 319 FLR 119 at [112].

[19] The Court is mindful that the civil burden of proof does not apply to the assessment of risk.

[21] See in general Isles v Nelissen.

[22] Amended Amended Response filed to Initiating Application sealed 26 March 2025 at 4:14pm.

[23] Hearsay evidence about such alleged event being struck out.

[24] Affidavit of the mother filed 27 February 2025 at [32].