Bartram & Marsden (No 6) [2025] FedCFamC1F 490 (24 July 2025)

(a) approaching or coming within 100 metres of the Mother's residence and place of work;

(b) approaching or coming within 100 metres of the Mother.

1. Pursuant to s 68B of the Act and for the personal protection of the children, the Father is restrained from

(a) approaching or coming within 100 metres of the children's school;

(b) approaching or coming within 100 metres of the children.

1. Within 28 days, the Mother will arrange for X and Y to attend Court Children's Services at the Sydney Registry of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, on a suitable date as arranged between a Senior Court Child Expert, the Independent Children's Lawyer and the Mother.
2. The Independent Children's Lawyer is requested to meet with X and Y on the date arranged pursuant to Order 10 for the purposes of explaining these Orders to the children.
3. A Senior Court Child Expert is requested to assist the Independent Children's Lawyer in explaining these Orders to the children and to provide such support to X and Y as the Senior Court Child Expert determines is appropriate.
4. Upon compliance with Order 11 above, the Independent Children's Lawyer is discharged.
5. Neither parent is liable to contribute to the costs of the Independent Children's Lawyer.
6. All extant applications are dismissed.

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

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

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

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

1. These are parenting proceedings between the applicant father, Mr Bartram, and the respondent mother, Ms Marsden. Mr Bartram and Ms Marsden are the parents of X, aged seven, and Y, aged five. The parents separated on a final basis in August 2019 when Y was a baby. Ms Marsden left the former matrimonial home with X and Y and lived in a women's refuge for several months before obtaining her own accommodation.
2. There were previous parenting proceedings in this Court. There was a final hearing in those proceedings from 11-14 April 2023 ("the 2023 proceedings"). Final orders were made by Curran J on 14 August 2023 ("the 2023 orders"). They provided for Ms Marsden to have sole parental responsibility for X and Y, for them to live with Ms Marsden, and spend time with Mr Bartram increasing to four nights a fortnight and half school holidays conditional on Mr Bartram's compliance with various requirements, including attendance on his psychiatrist every six months until 2030 (Mr Bartram had previously been diagnosed with a mental illness) and completion of a men's behavioural change program. Mr Bartram unsuccessfully appealed those orders.
3. Subsequently, there was a dispute about Mr Bartram's compliance with the 2023 orders, and in February 2024 Ms Marsden withheld the children. Mr Bartram commenced these proceedings on 28 March 2024. There was an early agreement between the parties that the 2023 orders should be reconsidered.
4. On 26 November 2024, I made interim orders discharging the aspects of the 2023 orders which related to the children's time and communication with Mr Bartram, making various restraints and providing for Mr Bartram to have professionally supervised time with X and Y at GG Contact Service or any other contact service as agreed between the parents. These orders were the subject of unsuccessful stay and appeal applications by Mr Bartram.
5. After I had made the interim orders in November 2024, Mr Bartram applied for me to disqualify myself on the grounds of actual and apprehended bias. I dismissed that application.
6. Mr Bartram was unwilling to spend supervised time with the children on the conditions under which such time could take place. Other than through his attendance upon X's school (prior to me restraining him from doing so in November 2024), X and Y have now not spent time with him since February 2024.
7. Ms Marsden now seeks orders that X and Y have no contact with Mr Bartram and that she be at liberty to relocate to the United Kingdom with them. She was born in the United Kingdom and lived there for most of her life. Mr Bartram's primary position is that the children live with him. Until the commencement of the final hearing, he was seeking orders that the children spend time with Ms Marsden every alternate weekend during school term "pending the result of a mental health assessment and the risk [she] poses to the children". At various stages during the proceedings - and while he was self-represented - he has alleged that there is a risk that Ms Marsden will murder the children. During the final hearing, and while he was represented, a Minute of the orders now sought by him was handed up. By that Minute he sought that the children live with him but also proposed alternate spend time arrangements. He proposed that the children spend time with the parent they do not live with in line with the final stage of the 2023 orders, but adding an additional night a fortnight. When he became self-represented again, he confirmed those were the orders he was seeking. He declined to make a proposal for time in the event the Mother was permitted to relocate the children's residence to the United Kingdom.
8. The Court Child Expert and the Independent Children's Lawyer ("ICL") are the same people who carried out those roles in the 2023 proceedings. The Court Child Expert now recommends the children have no time with Mr Bartram and the ICL sought that order.
9. After unsuccessfully attempting to file five Contravention Applications (which were not accepted for filing because they were defective) between February and March 2024, Mr Bartram successfully filed two Contravention Applications. The first Application was dismissed by Boyle J. Mr Bartram unsuccessfully appealed that decision, although an amendment was made to the 2023 orders pursuant to the "slip rule" to clarify that the progression of his time was conditional on his attendance at a men's behavioural change program. The second Contravention Application was filed on 29 October 2024 and was listed before me on the first day of the final hearing. I was told that Mr Bartram had given firm instructions to counsel engaged pursuant to an order under s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") that he press the Contravention Application. I dealt with it and dismissed it on the basis that the evidence read in that application was insufficient to establish a prima facie case. We were then able to proceed with the final hearing.
10. Prior to the cross-examination of the Court Child Expert, Mr Bartram's counsel and solicitor sought leave to withdraw as they no longer had instructions. Mr Bartram represented himself for the remainder of the hearing.

1. The issues I need to decide in this matter are:

(1) What order I should make in relation to parental responsibility (I have assumed, although it was not clear, that Mr Bartram seeks an order that he have sole parental responsibility. Ms Marsden sought an order that she have sole parental responsibility).

(2) Whether X and Y should continue to live with their mother or move to live with their father.

(3) Whether, if X and Y live with their mother, they should spend any time with their father (in that case, Mr Bartram sought a slightly modified version of the 2023 "spend time" orders but with no requirement on him to attend a men's behaviour change program).

(4) If X and Y live with their father, what time they should spend with their mother (in that case, Mr Bartram sought the children have time with Ms Marsden in the same slightly modified version of the 2023 orders. Ms Marsden had no alternate proposal).

(5) What, if any, restraints should be put in place.

(6) Whether Ms Marsden should be at liberty to relocate to the United Kingdom.

1. For the reasons set out below, I make orders broadly as sought by Ms Marsden and the ICL.

1. At the commencement of the final hearing I confirmed that I would only receive evidence about what had occurred since the 2023 final hearing and, to the extent that it was necessary, would adopt the findings of fact made by Curran J in relation to events prior to the commencement of that final hearing - as I was permitted to do by s 69ZT of the Act (now s 102NL). Longstanding authority is to the effect that estoppel principles do not apply in parenting proceedings. Nonetheless, a reconsideration of final orders is on the basis that there has been a significant change of circumstances since the making of those final orders and that reconsideration is in the children's best interests (Rice & Asplund [1978] FamCAFC 128; (1979) FLC 90-725 and s 65DAAA). The further proceedings are not an opportunity to revisit findings of fact which have been previously made and which were not the subject of a successful appeal. A number of paragraphs of the parents' trial affidavits were not read for this reason.
2. I received the following documents into evidence in Mr Bartram's case:

(1) His trial affidavit filed 15 May 2025 without its annexures;

(2) An affidavit of his brother, Mr NN, filed 15 May 2025;

(3) An affidavit of his mother, Mrs Bartram, filed 15 May 2025;

(4) An affidavit of his sister, Ms J, filed 15 May 2025;

(5) An affidavit of his treating psychiatrist, Dr E, filed 21 May 2025;

(6) His Financial Statement filed 15 May 2025.

1. In Ms Marsden's case I received into evidence the following documents:

(1) Her trial affidavit filed 15 May 2025 without its annexures;

(2) Her Financial Statement filed 15 May 2025;

(3) An affidavit of her mother, Mrs Marsden, filed 16 May 2025.

1. I also received into evidence the Child Impact Report of Court Child Expert Ms K dated 16 October 2024, as well as the Family Report also completed by Ms K and dated 5 May 2025.
2. Various documents were tendered in the respective cases of the parents and the ICL. These include the Reasons for Judgment in respect of the following:
   • the prior proceedings before Curran J;
   • the appeal from the 2023 orders;
   • the interim orders made by me;
   • the appeal from the interim orders;
   • the dismissal of the first Contravention Application;
   • the appeal from the dismissal of the first Contravention Application.
3. I have read and considered all the documents listed above and those tendered.
4. Both parents were cross examined by counsel, as were Mrs Marsden, Mrs Bartram, Ms J and Dr E. Mr NN was not required for cross-examination.
5. The Court Child Expert was cross-examined by counsel for Ms Marsden, counsel for the ICL and by Mr Bartram himself (as by then he was self-represented).

1. When making parenting orders, the best interests of X and Y are the paramount consideration. In working out what is in their best interests, I am required to have regard to the matters in s 60CC of the Act. As neither X nor Y are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander children, the matters that apply only to such children are not extracted below.

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

General considerations

(2) ...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.

I am also required to apply s 60CG of the Act which provides:

(1) In considering what order to make, the court must, to the extent that it is possible to do so consistently with the child's best interests being the paramount consideration, ensure that the order:

(a) is consistent with any family violence order; and

(b) does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), the court may include in the order any safeguards that it considers necessary for the safety of those affected by the order.

Safety, the children's needs and parental capacity

1. In this matter, the factors of safety, the children's needs and parental capacity significantly overlap and are appropriately dealt with together.

1. I refer below to the findings of Curran J in relation to family violence which I adopt. I was not asked to, and do not, make findings that Mr Bartram has used family violence since the 2023 orders were made. No submission was made - although it might reasonably have been given the litigation history set out above - that Mr Bartram has engaged in family violence by way of "systems abuse" (to which the National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book at 3.1.11 refers). An application by Ms Marsden for a harmful proceedings order was withdrawn for reasons which were not explained to me.
2. The 2023 orders contained restraints pursuant to s 68B of the Act on Mr Bartram approaching or coming within 100 metres of Ms Marsden's residence or work, expressed as an order for the personal protection of Ms Marsden. Orders restraining both parents from certain conduct were also made by consent, including an order that Mr Bartram be restrained from requesting information about Ms Marsden's address, and restraining each parent from denigrating the other. There has been no relevant family violence order as that term is defined in the Act (not to include an order pursuant to s 68B of the Act).
3. I was not asked to find that X and Y are at any risk of harm arising from family violence, including any risk arising from Mr Bartram's mental health. Before all the evidence was in, Ms Marsden had raised concerns that Mr Bartram may pose a risk of physically harming the children, based largely on the fact that he had been making references to suicidality and had been asserting that Ms Marsden may murder the children. Ms Marsden gave evidence that she held concerns that Mr Bartram is "projecting". No doubt she still has those worries, but the evidence does not support that there is any risk of Mr Bartram physically harming the children. To the contrary, Mr Bartram's treating psychiatrist Dr E gave evidence to the effect that Mr Bartram is not mentally unwell and that he does not regard Mr Bartram as suicidal or a risk to the children. During cross-examination, the Court Child Expert opined that she did not have "a huge impression" that X and Y were at risk of physical harm in Mr Bartram's care, and agreed with counsel for the ICL that this risk did not "loom large" in her recommendation that the children spend no time with their father. The Court Child Expert went on to give evidence that - even if a finding were made that the children were not at risk of physical harm in the care of Mr Bartram - she would maintain her recommendation for no time.
4. The question of the children's safety from harm in the care of Mr Bartram does not relate to physical harm, but to emotional and psychological harm. I deal with that further below.
5. Mr Bartram has alleged that the children are at risk in the care of Ms Marsden. On 31 October 2024, he filed a Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk alleging that the children were at risk of being murdered by their mother. He continued to raise this at interviews for the Family Report and to make various other extreme allegations against Ms Marsden. He is recorded as having "identified that there have been many cases of mothers who murder their children", expressing that "'I think it's possible that she would physically harm the children'", that she "'has no limit'" and "'could do anything'".
6. I do not accept that Mr Bartram genuinely believes that Ms Marsden may murder the children - the Court Child Expert opined that his view is "ingenuine", and he changed his position at the commencement of the hearing to provide for Ms Marsden to have significant time with the children. He certainly has no basis in the evidence for believing that Ms Marsden would physically harm the children.
7. I accept the Court Child Expert's opinion that, based on the information Ms Marsden provided about her mental health, she "has good insight into her mental health and is engaged with appropriate services." I also accept that Ms Marsden has acted in an appropriately protective way and reject the submission that her conduct involves a risk of emotional or psychological harm to the children.
8. The children are not only safe from harm in the care of Ms Marsden, but - as I set out further below - flourishing.

Previous findings of family violence and Ms Marsden's fear

1. In relation to Ms Marsden's safety from harm, I adopt the following findings of Curran J that, at the time of the previous final hearing:

(1) Ms Marsden was "genuine in her fear and concerns at the time she left the home, and that she was not concocting or exaggerating fear so as to keep the boys from their father or to achieve an end in this litigation as suggested by the father in his evidence" (at [104]);

(2) "[t]he father's behaviour was at times coercive or controlling and caused the mother fear and that cumulatively his conduct and the context in which it occurred supports a finding that he has perpetrated family violence as defined" (at [183]).

1. I acknowledge Mr Bartram's submission that a number of allegations of family violence made by Ms Marsden in the previous proceedings were found by Curran J not to have been established on the balance of probabilities. That is not of course the same as Curran J having made a finding that they did not occur and that Ms Marsden was making them up - as Mr Bartram appeared to suggest in submissions and in his questions to the Court Child Expert. Justice Curran made no such finding.
2. I accept the Court Child Expert's evidence that Ms Marsden continues to be genuinely fearful of Mr Bartram and that her fear of Mr Bartram means it is impossible for her to communicate with him, co-parent with him, or support the children in having a relationship with him.

1. This is a matter in which issues of safety and parental capacity overlap - not because Mr Bartram lacks the capacity to meet the children's physical needs, but because he lacks the capacity to provide the children with what the Court Child Expert opines that they need to reach their full potential - namely, "safety, stability, and consistency, away from conflict". Indeed, as set out below, his behaviour is likely to undermine those needs and to cause them emotional and psychological harm.
2. As counsel for Ms Marsden elegantly put it, and as set out below, Mr Bartram has "expanded and escalated" conflict. He has done so to an extraordinary extent. I find that he is likely to continue to do that.
3. These are not entirely new matters; Mr Bartram's critical and aggressive communication was a significant part of the reason why Curran J ordered that Ms Marsden have sole parental responsibility. As I set out below, this behaviour has continued and expanded - notwithstanding the 2023 order for Ms Marsden to have sole parental responsibility.

The dispute in relation to interpretation of the 2023 orders

1. The dispute leading to the current proceedings arose because of differences between the parents as to the interpretation of the 2023 orders. Mr Bartram maintained that his time should progress to the final stage notwithstanding that he had not undertaken a men's behavioural change program (as he had consented to do in the 2023 proceedings). Orders providing for him to attend such a program were Orders 8 and 9 of the 2023 orders. There were also requirements for him to attend upon his psychiatrist and provide certification of such attendance and certain authorities to the psychiatrist (Orders 12-14). The "spend time order" in relation to Mr Bartram's time with the children during school terms (Order 29) was conditional on Mr Bartram's compliance with Orders 12-14. The initial stage (one night a week and all-day Saturday) did not depend on compliance with Orders 8 and 9. The next stage did. Order 29(c) then provided that "From 1 January 2024 and thereafter", time would progress to four nights a fortnight. Mr Bartram's position was that his time should progress in accordance with that order notwithstanding he had not completed a men's behavioural change program. The Full Court in the appeal from the dismissal of the Contravention Application opined at [19] and [27] that:

it cannot possibly have been the intention of the parties or the judge who made the orders that, if the appellant did not complete a course of the type required by Orders 8 and 9 within a reasonable time, then it would be in the children's best interests for the time to nonetheless continue indefinitely, let alone for there to be the increases in time as provided for in Order 29(c). It is apparent from reading the parenting orders made 14 August 2023 as a whole that Order 29(c) was intended to operate from 1 January 2024, after the increase in time pursuant to Order 29(b) had occurred, which required the appellant's compliance with Orders 8 and 9 as a pre-condition to any increase in time beyond Order 29(a). This is clearly a drafting slip.

...

In these circumstances Curran J's order ought to be corrected under the slip rule.

I note that the Full Court was critical of the fact that Ms Marsden had not made an application to amend the order pursuant to the slip rule "well before now".

1. It is not the fact that Mr Bartram took the interpretation of the orders that he did which reflects so poorly upon him, nor indeed the fact that he commenced proceedings - rather, it is his behaviour in the lead up to and after the commencement of the proceedings. As counsel for Ms Marsden submitted, given the 2023 order for sole parental responsibility, January 2024 was the first opportunity for there to be a significant dispute between the parents. It is not putting it too strongly to say (as Ms Marsden has) that Mr Bartram's behaviour in relation to that dispute has resulted in "chaos".

1. First, in relation to his completion of a men's behaviour change course (the condition of time progressing), I find that Mr Bartram has not requested enrolment in those courses in an appropriate manner. It is not putting it too strongly to say that he has sabotaged his participation in those courses. He did this by failing to tell the organisers that findings had been made by Curran J that he had perpetrated family violence and by describing himself in correspondence with organisers as the victim of family violence.
2. Mr Bartram approached B Support Services on the day the 2023 orders were made and was then added to a waiting list for the men's behaviour change program 'Taking Responsibility' and asked to provide "any Court documents, including the AVO". He followed up on 19 September 2023 and requested an update. He included in that follow up:

I have not participated in any form of violence against my partner nor has it been found by the court during the recent final hearing that took place in April 2023.

A consent order was made that requires me to attend this course, at the time of my agreement I didn't know what a men's behaviour change course was or who it was for, nor was it explained to me by my legal representation, the children's legal aid lawyer or the family report writer that recommended it in her family report.

I have lodged an appeal against the consent order that was made. This appeal will be heard next Friday.

I would appreciate an opinion from this course as to a person completing it that has not participated in an [sic] form of domestic violence nor it being found during family court proceedings. My opinion is the course will be shred of all its credibility if I am too [sic] attend.

1. Under cross-examination, he was asked why he denied having been found to have participated in any violence when Curran J had made such findings. Mr Bartram obfuscated and attempted to draw distinctions between family violence as defined in the Act and domestic violence.
2. He received a response from B Support Services confirming the team would be in contact as soon as there was an availability. He responded, including the following "I'm upset and angry that I will not be spending additional holiday time with my children, there are feelings of resentment I am building for the mother of my children and this country for disallowing my children the right to spend important and crucial time together." There was apparently no response and Mr Bartram followed up on 23 November 2023 in a perfectly appropriate way. He again received no response and sent further follow-up correspondence on 4 and 5 December. On 5 December, he had two telephone calls with workers at B Support Services - during one of which it was apparently explained to him that there was now a 16-week waiting time for the course. He emailed B Support Services summarising a call with another worker:

I just had a phone conversation with [Mr OO], who is the case worker on my enquiry.

I asked how Men are [sic] who participate in this course are assessed. [Mr OO] said that he can't go into detail about the assessment.

He stated that the course is for Men who abuse their partners or ex partners. I said that hasn't occurred with any of my current or ex partners. [Mr OO] stated that the course isn't for me.

I have requested confirmation from [sic] that I am not suitable for this course in writing.

1. That same day he was provided with a "Client Report" after he had attended a clinical intake by telephone. The Client Report indicated he had been assessed as unable to participate in the program and included the following:

Participation in the program requires men to take accountability for their use of abusive behaviours within intimate partner relationships and be willing to work on themselves to make changes to safe and respectful behaviour. This accountability and willingness have not been evidenced at this stage.

I find the report that has been written to be quite deceitful and misleading. I will go into detail further as to why I have made this finding.

The assessment that was completed by [Mr OO] on Tuesday was a phone call that took a total of four minutes and took place on Tuesday the 5th December at 1:15pm. This information was omitted in the report that has been written.

The report completed by [Ms PP] on the four minute phone call that took place is over one page. This would lead a reasonable person such as myself to ask why considering the very short assessment that was completed.

As per the email trail here, your organisation placed me on an 8-12 week waiting list for the assessment to be completed (4 minute phone call).

The actual time waited for the assessment (four minute phone call) to be completed took over 16 weeks and only occurred after repeated requests by me and are shown in this email thread.

Can you please confirm that all the policy and procedures have been followed in completing the assessment and completing the report? Please escalate my enquiry to a person in your organisation that is responsible for ensuring that the policy and procedures are complied with.

1. Mr Bartram no doubt had reasonable questions to raise about the length of time it had taken for him to be assessed. It does not escape comment, however, that he was now complaining about the lack of time spent assessing his eligibility for the course, notwithstanding that he himself had effectively told B Support Services on 19 September that the course would be "shred of all its credibility" if he participated. His complaint about the Client Report is unwarranted in circumstances where the bulk of the report is a Program Overview, and where it made clear that Mr Bartram "has attended one clinical intake by telephone."
2. Mr Bartram approached C Support Services in relation to its Men's Behaviour Change Program and was assessed for suitability through an intake and initial assessment. On 15 April 2024, he was assessed as not suitable: "The client did not acknowledge any abusive behaviour and he has stated to be the victim of domestic and family violence." He was offered other options:

[C Support Services] offers a wide range of group programs and individual services that may be more appropriate for [Mr Bartram] at this time. We have provided recommendations for him to consider participating [in] individual counselling services, for any stress and anxiety he may be experiencing.

1. Mr Bartram gave evidence that he had not attempted to engage in individual counselling - his position in correspondence to Ms Marsden was that he was simply not eligible for a men's behavioural change program, had done what he reasonably could, and, in any case, the wording of Order 29(c) meant he did not have to complete a course before that stage (but not earlier stages) commenced.
2. Mr Bartram also approached the program "QQ Program" in August 2024. In response to a question as to why he wanted to engage in this program, he wrote: "I'm a victim of coercive control and I have consented to complete a men's behaviour change program. If I complete the course, I will be able to spend more time with my kids." Unsurprisingly, the response included:

We understand your situation as a victim of coercive control and appreciate your willingness to pleasure the court.

Our program is designed to support men in recognising and altering their behaviours. It focuses on meaningful personal growth rather than merely fulfilling court mandates. Participants are encouraged to join with a sincere commitment to change...

Given your status as a victim and the program's focus on perpetrators of family violence, this program will not align with your needs...

1. Mr Bartram sent Ms Marsden messages in the parenting app in December 2023 in relation to progress of time and to ask for her response as follows:
   • On 5 December 2023 he sent her a message

[Ms Marsden],

Please read order 29c and let me know if you will be complying with this order from January 2024

[Mr Bartram]

[Ms Marsden],

I am not eligible to participate in the behaviour change course as reported by [B Support Services] to me.

I have fulfilled the obligation to do all I can to complete the course as stated in the court orders.

Let me know if you intend on facilitating the holiday time from term 1 2024 with the boys or if you intend on not facilitating this time.

[Mr Bartram]

1. Mr Bartram sent Ms Marsden further messages asking about her position on 12 December, 17 December, 21 December and 29 December. She was unresponsive and I criticise her for that. She gave evidence that she was waiting to obtain legal advice. But she did not tell Mr Bartram that was the reason for her delay until January, nor give him an indication of when she would be able to respond.

1. Mr Bartram attended F Shopping Centre to collect the children on 6 January 2024 (a Saturday), although it was his position that the orders did not provide for him to have time with the children on that day (because he said the next stage of the 2023 orders had been reached).
2. On 6 January 2024, upon receiving a telephone call in which she was advised that Mr Bartram had attended Suburb RR police station earlier that day to record his interpretation of the 2023 orders, Ms Marsden explained to police her interpretation of the orders, being that Mr Bartram's time with the children had not progressed beyond Order 29(a). After the children had entered his care, Mr Bartram sent Ms Marsden a text message informing her that he had attended upon Suburb RR police station and filed a police report. In response, Ms Marsden finally told Mr Bartram that she had received legal advice and that her position was that, as he had not completed the men's behaviour change course, Order 29(a) applied - accordingly, the children should be returned to her at 5.00 pm. After Mr Bartram informed Ms Marsden via text message that he would not be returning the children to her care at 5.00 pm that afternoon, Ms Marsden spoke to police at Suburb RR police station. An officer then telephoned Mr Bartram and advised him that Ms Marsden said changeover was to take place at 5.00 pm that afternoon, in accordance with the Court orders.
3. In the text message exchanges leading up to Ms Marsden's attendance upon Suburb RR police station, Mr Bartram used his interpretation that the children should not have been in his care at all to dissemble, as set out below.

[Ms Marsden],

I disagree with you. I hope your legal representative is aware that I enquired about order 28c on December 5th, 2023 and numerous times after that.

Let me know if you would like to come to an agreement to have the children returned to you. This is required given there was no order in place that required you to hand the children over to me today.

[Mr Bartram]

Ms Marsden replied at 3.35 pm: 'Hi [Mr Bartram] in the event that you do not return them at 5 today I will be filing an urgent recovery and seek orders for your time to stop."

At 3.44 pm Mr Bartram "responded":

Ok, I called you at 12:30 and I haven't heard back from you. You could have collected them earlier than 5pm today. I didn't consent to having them today nor was there a court order that I spend time with them today. It is taking far too long to receive a response from you.

I will keep them overnight, they are safe and enjoying there [sic] time here. [X] was surprised that they will [sic] spending the night here, he said "but Mum will say no, won't she?"

The kids are safe and having a great time. Let me know if you would like to arrange a time to collect them tomorrow.

[Mr Bartram].

At 4.40 pm Ms Marsden wrote: "Hi [Mr Bartram] I'm waiting at [D Store, F Shopping Centre] now."

At 4.44 pm Mr Bartram wrote:

[Ms Marsden],

I haven't received a phone call back from you, I called you at 12:30.

Please supply me with the intended times you expect to facilitate with the boys and for January and February 2024 as I have requested.

It's fortunate I turned up today otherwise I understand you would have told the kids I don't want to see them and I didn't turn up to see them.

[Mr Bartram]

At 11.43 pm on the evening of 6 January, she wrote "Hi [Mr Bartram], Please tell me what time you intend to return the children tomorrow." When he responded to this message on 7 January, Mr Bartram avoided replying to that question and instead asked Ms Marsden whether she intended to facilitate time on the coming Wednesday. That appears to have been an attempt to manipulate Ms Marsden in circumstances where she was attempting to retrieve the children, but I bear in mind that that was not put to Mr Bartram and he may have an alternate explanation. Ms Marsden replied at 9.04 am that she did intend to facilitate the Wednesday time, and said "I am making my way to [F Shopping Centre] now." Mr Bartram did not acknowledge this, and instead wrote:

[Ms Marsden],

We have an issue as I identified on December 5th.

Are you going to file court proceedings as you suggested to me yesterday? It would be best considering that you don't intend on agreeing to follow order 29c

[Mr Bartram]

Ms Marsden then messaged Mr Bartram at 9.48 am saying "I'm at D Store, F Shopping Centre now."

Mr Bartram responded in what I find is a patronising, officious and obtuse manner:

Ok, I'm not there, as per the court orders we need to reach an agreement. There was no agreement to meet at [F Shopping Centre] at 9:48am.

An agreement works with the following steps:

1. One of us suggests and [sic] arrangement.

2. The other person responds and accepts or suggests an alternative.

The first step don't [sic] occur, therefore the second step didn't occur either.

[Mr Bartram]

Ms Marsden responded "Ok, what time do you propose to return the children and I will be there".

Mr Bartram responded in what I again find is a patronising and officious manner:

[Ms Marsden]

I need to return some library books off at [P Shopping Centre], therefore I propose 4pm today outside [the] library inside [P Shopping Centre].

I don't drive on Sundays these days so [F Shopping Centre] isn't an option for me.

You can stand outside the [C]ommonwealth [B]ank and I will say my good bye at the front of the library near the drop off book point.

The reason the drop off point is at 4pm, is that it will give you time to respond and consider the offer. I understand that it generally takes several days for you to respond to me so let me know if I have provided enough time for you to read this message and consider the offer.

[Mr Bartram]

Ms Marsden replied "OK I accept". The children were then returned to her care at the place and time Mr Bartram had nominated.

1. Subsequently, Ms Marsden did not provide the children to Mr Bartram on the Wednesday. While she told him that this was "to make up for the time when you withheld them Saturday night/Sunday day", her evidence was that she was about to travel to the United Kingdom with the children and she was concerned that Mr Bartram might not return the children and that travel would be affected. A parent is not entitled to breach parenting orders on the basis of "make up" time. Nonetheless, the position taken by Ms Marsden was not unreasonable in the circumstances of the planned overseas travel and Mr Bartram's previous conduct.
2. Ms Marsden was in the United Kingdom with the children until 30 January 2024.
3. Notwithstanding that the 2023 orders required that Ms Marsden facilitate telephone calls between the children and Mr Bartram, he told her that he did not want such calls to take place. Ms Marsden nevertheless facilitated phone calls with Mr Bartram whilst she and the children were in the United Kingdom. Mr Bartram gave evidence that he was concerned that those telephone calls would be used as an opportunity to obtain evidence against him. In a message sent to Ms Marsden on 1 February (after her return from the United Kingdom), he wrote: "To be clear about how things work, I requested that we not have phone calls with the boys when they are overseas ..." In oral evidence, he said he was grateful to receive the calls because he had not seen the children on the Wednesday before they left as he had told them he would. When I pointed out that he was here saying something positive about Ms Marsden, he said that he would have appreciated being told they were to occur.
4. In response to Mr Bartram sending her a message in which he expressed his intention to do so, Ms Marsden (through her solicitor) made clear that he was not to collect the children from school on 2 February 2024 (a Friday). Mr Bartram did not collect the children on 2 February 2024. That same day, he sent an email to Ms Marsden's solicitor advising that on Saturday 3 February 2024 (when he was due to have the children), he would hand them back to Ms Marsden at 5.00 pm, but that the handover was to occur at a different location (P Shopping Centre) from that which was provided for in the orders. Later in the evening of 2 February 2024, Mr Bartram emailed Ms Marsden's solicitor again, stating "I haven't heard from you or your client, I will drop the kids off to school on Monday rather than returning them tomorrow night at [P Shopping Centre], I can't wait around all day and night to hear from either of you". The children entered his care at 9.00 am on Saturday 3 February 2024, and were due to return to Ms Marsden at 5.00 pm. Soon after he had collected them, he wrote to Ms Marsden's lawyer:

I have collected the children today, they [sic] kids will be able to be collected from [P Shopping Centre] at 5pm today otherwise, please be reassured that I will take them to school on Monday.

There followed a series of messages to Ms Marsden in which Mr Bartram insisted the children be collected from P Shopping Centre or he would take them to school on Monday. Ms Marsden attended the court-ordered location (F Shopping Centre) at 5.00 pm, having informed Mr Bartram that was the pick up location. After Mr Bartram did not return the children, Ms Marsden contacted Suburb RR Police who attended upon Mr Bartram at his home and spoke with him. Mr Bartram did not return the children until he took them to school on the following Monday.

1. On 7 February 2024 (a Wednesday), Mr Bartram was due to collect the children from school pursuant to Order 29(a). In an email to Ms Marsden's solicitor, he claimed that was not the case and that he was due to have the children on the weekend instead. This resulted in neither parent collecting X - which caused X considerable distress.
2. On Saturday 10 February 2024, Ms Marsden dropped the children to Mr Bartram at F Shopping Centre at 9.00 am. After he had collected them, he sent Ms Marsden a message in which he stated "I'm following order 29c" and then continued:

Given the pending enforcement application with the court, I'm happy to meet in the middle for this weekend, you are welcome to collect the kids at 4pm from [P Shopping Centre] tomorrow otherwise I will take them to school on Monday.

Ms Marsden attended F Shopping Centre to collect X and Y at 5.00 pm. Mr Bartram did not return them and took them to school on Monday.

1. On 13 February 2024, Mr Bartram wrote to Ms Marsden, commencing "I am not going to respond to the same issues all week and over the last few weeks. If you ask the same questions over and over again and make the same threats of legal action, please refer to this message for your answer." He also told Ms Marsden what he intended to do by way of "Saturday collections", being an arrangement which reflected neither what was provided for by Order 29(a) nor (c).
2. On 15 February 2024, Ms Marsden's lawyer wrote to Mr Bartram and confirmed Ms Marsden's interpretation of the orders (namely, that Order 29(a) applied until there was evidence of completion of a men's behaviour change program and attendance upon his psychiatrist). The communication also alleged that he had withheld the children on three occasions. Reference was made to the fact that a copy of the correspondence and the 2023 orders would be provided to the children's school and day care. From this date, Ms Marsden did not provide the children for time with Mr Bartram. There were a series of interactions between Mr Bartram and X's school and Y's pre-school and daycare as set out below.

1. On a number of occasions, Mr Bartram and/or his mother, Mrs Bartram, attended X's school and Y's pre-school to try to collect them, resulting in disruption and distress. On 5 June 2024, police were called to X's school, and a number of staff were in tears. On 28 July 2024, Mr Bartram emailed X's school and included in this correspondence "It is my opinion that Ms Marsden is a perpetrator of coercive control that has resulted in X and his brother spending no time with me since the 15th of February 2024." He cc'd the school principal and school administrative staff, as well as his mother and sister.
2. On 4 September 2024, Mr Bartram's mother and his uncle delivered presents for X to his school. They interrupted his class to do so, knocking on the door of the classroom. X, who had told his teacher previously he was worried about his nanny collecting him, said "It's nanny lock the door". X's teacher let him take the presents at the door. Mr Bartram could not accept that it would have been better for him not to have agreed to this occurring - including because it would likely result in children asking X why he had to receive his presents at school.
3. During his interview for the purpose of the Child Impact Report, X reported feeling confused and unsure when Mr Bartram and other paternal family members would attend his school, and that he felt worried when Mr Bartram and Mrs Bartram came to his classroom. X said that when this occurred, he would try to continue completing his work, and told the Court Child Expert that "he might have to 'hide' if they were to enter". He said that he did not want to leave school with the paternal grandmother, and that he did not want his father or his paternal grandmother to continue coming to his school - in fact, he described their attendance upon his school as "'chaotic'" to the Court Child Expert. He remarked that he was "'a bit happy'" that Mr Bartram and Mrs Bartram no longer came to his school, and that "'it's been better that they aren't coming'".
4. I accept that these interactions at X's school have caused him and Ms Marsden stress and anxiety.

1. On a number of occasions, Mr Bartram had NSW Police carry out welfare checks on the children. This included on X's birthday when Ms Marsden and the children were heading home after spending time in City SS. Ms Marsden had sent Mr Bartram a photograph of the boys smiling. He then called police to carry out a welfare check, which was completed. When asked in cross-examination why he caused X's birthday to be interrupted in that way, he said that he didn't understand why Ms Marsden had sent the photo, that the children looked anxious, and that perhaps Ms Marsden was saying "ha ha, I've got them and you haven't". He sent an email to Ms Marsden's lawyer and the ICL as follows:

[Ms JJ]'s client messaged me a photo of [X] and [Y] today. It wasn't clear to me what was the purpose of the photo or [Ms Marsden]'s message today. There was no response by me to this message.

[Ms Marsden] informed NSW police today that the purpose of the message was because she thought it would be nice for me to see a photo of the boys of [X][']s birthday. The Constable believed [Ms Marsden] was genuine with her communication with him and the message was intended to be a gesture of goodwill.

The Constable wasn't informed of [Ms Marsden]'s recent application for me to have no contact with [X] and [Y], if he had been, his conclusion may have been different, I would suggest.

[Ms Marsden] also sent me message on Saturday morning telling me she was taking the kids on a holiday and returning to Sydney on Monday. [X], [Y] and I did not spend time together on Father's day, on Saturday or today on [X]'s birthday

NSW police competed [sic] a welfare check tonight on [Ms Marsden] and the kids today, they checked on the physical well being of the children and [Ms Marsden].

1. On 5 December 2023, Mr Bartram had sent Ms Marsden a copy of a letter from his treating psychiatrist, Dr E, dated 27 October 2023 which confirmed that he was well, not ill and on no medication. On 15 April 2024, Mr Bartram sent a further letter from Dr E (also dated 15 April 2024) to that effect to Ms Marsden. Nonetheless, Ms Marsden's lawyer wrote back "Please seek advice about the orders. The six month intervals are to be calculated from the date of the Final Order being 14 August, 14 February and so on." This was an overly technical approach. That Ms Marsden's evidence for the interim hearing in November 2024 made no reference to the fact that letters had been received from Dr E prior to the commencement of the proceedings was the subject of criticism in my judgment in the interim proceedings. Nevertheless, Mr Bartram made no attempt to engage or negotiate appropriately with Ms Marsden through her lawyer. Rather, he wrote to Ms Marsden's lawyer:

I do not agree to not spend time with my children on the basis of the nonsense you have communicated to me tonight.

Please advise if your client will continue to alienate the children from their family and thus preventing them from having a relationship or support from their Father, Grandmother, Aunty, Uncle and unborn cousin.

Commencement of proceedings and Mr Bartram's position

1. When he initially commenced these proceedings, Mr Bartram simply sought a recovery order. However, on 30 April 2025 he filed an Amended Initiating Application in which he did not simply seek a variation of the 2023 orders to account for the fact that he had not completed a men's behavioural change program, but sought orders that the children move to live with him.
2. After interim orders were made discharging the "spend time" 2023 orders and making orders for the children to have supervised time with Mr Bartram, he participated in an intake process with GG Contact Service. The intake process resulted in the family being assessed as unsuitable for the contact service. Mr Bartram undertook a lengthy assessment process with the service, but would not allow GG Contact Service to have the usual child familiarisation session with the children, on the basis of what the Manager of GG Contact Service identified as his concerns that that staff members raising safety aspects of the service with the children could jeopardise their trusting relationship with him. This view was reiterated by Mr Bartram in his evidence, and he also raised the concern that supervised time with the children would destroy the memories the children have of spending unsupervised time with him.
3. Mr Bartram then contacted a different supervision service (MM Contact Service) at the suggestion of the ICL. MM Contact Service advised him of the need for an intake appointment. He responded in two emails on 17 December 2024, one of which included:

Please supply me with a copy of the information I have supplied you in this enquiry. I supplied you with the rejection email from [GG] contact centre and the reason for rejection.

I consider that omitting the information I have supplied you already in my enquiry with you is deceptive and misleading conduct, which effects the decision in make [sic] to deal with you ...

In his second email sent on that date, Mr Bartram wrote the following:

In the request I sent you it includes the concerns I have about breaching the trustworthy relationship I have with my kids. This has been encountered through the intake process that was completed with [GG Contact Service].

Would you agree that your centre would have the same processes in place that would compromise the trustworthy relationship I have with my kids and cause irreparable damage to our relationship?...

Mr Bartram sent a further email on 18 December, which read as follows:

Can you please answer the question I asked yesterday?

The ICL in my matter is going to seek an order that I spend time with my two children at your centre instead of [GG Contact Service].

The information I have supplied you should indicate to you that the order that she intends to seek would be a futile exercise given the trustworthy relationship I have with my kids and how I don't wish to breach that trust I have with them ...

When MM Contact Service responded that they could not make an assessment for suitability until an intake assessment has been undertaken, and also made reference to being at capacity, Mr Bartram responded:

I don't require an assessment. That has already been completed by [GG Contact Service]. I spoke with them for 2 hours and 15 minutes.

I would ask again that you read the reasoning that [GG Contact Service] will not be offering their service to my family and confirm that your organisation conducts the same processes that I have indicated will destroy the trustworthy relationship I have with my kids.

I would prefer that your organisation refrain from implementing procedures that are intended to prolong the estrangement of my children from me and the rest of my family with futile tasks, such as completing another intake process. It could be argued that the back and forth on this email trail is such a process that is not necessary.

1. The interaction with MM Contact Service is another example of inappropriate interactions with professionals - which I deal with further below.
2. As a result of Mr Bartram's decision not to allow the children to participate in the standard intake processes, the family was not approved for supervision and the children did not spend time with him as they could have between December 2024 and the final hearing. I accept the Court Child Expert's evidence that:

[Mr Bartram]'s refusal to participate in supervised time is concerning. His position that he does not want the children to participate in an orientation about their attendance at the service is concerning, especially considering his distress about not seeing the children. It is a shame for [X] and [Y], who both indicated that they missed their father in the Child Impact Report, that they have not been able to reconnect with their father in a safe environment, because of [Mr Bartram]'s choice.

1. The evidence in this case allows me to conclude that Mr Bartram has continued his previous behaviour of communicating inappropriately with professionals involved in this matter or otherwise assisting the parents or the children, and using such communication as a forum for criticising Ms Marsden. I have already referred to his communications with men's behaviour change programs and supervision services. In addition, the following people/organisations have been subjected to totally inappropriate communication and extreme and unwarranted criticism from Mr Bartram:

(1) The director of LL School (the preschool Y attended in 2024)

Ms TT, the director of LL School, engaged a lawyer (Ms UU) to act for the Preschool and to communicate with Mr Bartram. Ms UU wrote to Mr Bartram on 12 February 2024, telling him to communicate with her and not her client and outlining the reasons why Y would not be released to him at the times provided for in Order 29(c) until confirmation of his compliance with conditions was received.

• On 20 February 2024, Mr Bartram wrote to Ms UU, and copied in the director and Ms Marsden's lawyer:

[Ms UU] and [Ms TT]

My previous legal representative or any future legal representative I employ is unable to determine what instructions or expectations were communicated to [Ms TT] and [LL School] by [Ms Marsden]. These include what orders have been claimed to be made by [Ms Marsden].

No legal representative is able to determine what policy and procedure [Ms TT] is following when she states that [Y] will not be released into the father's care.

My request for this information still stands.

Kind Regards

[Mr Bartram]

• On 22 February 2024, Mr Bartram wrote to LL School (and did not copy in Ms UU, notwithstanding that she had told him that he was only to communicate with her and not Ms TT):

Good Morning,

My Mum ([Mrs Bartram]) will be picking up my son [Y] on Friday at 2:30pm. [Y]'s mum has been notified. [Y] and I haven't seen each other since last Thursday morning when I dropped him off at [LL School], I'm looking forward to spending the whole weekend with him and his brother [X]. My Mum is in her 70's and is due to have [...] surgery in a few weeks. I would appreciate it if someone was able to tell her what room [Y] was in when she arrives. I will pass on the door code to her so she can go through the gate.

I'm interested to understand the policy and procedures you have with regards to "not releasing" children to carers or parents that turn up to pick up there [sic] kids. This policy was made known to me by [Ms TT] [sic] [...] from this email address on the 8th of February. I have no expectations that this policy should be in place at the pre school, nor have a [sic] I heard of it being in place anywhere with regards to orders made by the family court of Australia.

If [Y]'s Mum turns up on Friday to pick him up and the pre school believed this was not a time that had been ordered by a court, I wouldn't expect the pre school to hide [Y] or do whatever it is that the pre school does.

Kind Regards

[Mr Bartram]

• On 23 February 2024, Ms UU wrote to Mr Bartram in relation to his sending of emails "relentlessly" to LL School and with regard to him directing emails to the director of LL School, notwithstanding he had been asked to communicate only with Ms UU. She wrote (emphasis in original):

Due to the anxiety that you have created among the preschool's teaching staff, you are now placed on formal notice to immediately cease and desist from further communication with the preschool and [Ms TT]...

Furthermore, should you make any attempt to enter the preschool's grounds without a formal written invitation from my client, I have advised [Ms TT] to immediately call the Police as you will be entering onto my client's private property without permission.

• On 31 May 2024, after attempting to collect Y from pre-school on a day when he would only have had time if Order 29(c) applied, and after he had been told that the Preschool would not release Y to him unless he provided them with evidence that he had met the conditions for Order 29(c) to apply, he wrote to the director (again, not the lawyer acting for her with whom he had been asked to communicate):

Hello,

I understand that [Y] was collected by his Mum at 2:22pm today, therefore I have not been able to fulfill my obligations to the court orders that have been made.

How is [Y]? Does he remember who I am? Does he know he has a Father who is attempting to see him?

[Mr Bartram]

Under cross-examination, Mr Bartram gave evidence that he had come to think that Y's pre-school did not want the children to have a father and that they had sent the letter of 23 February 2024 with that intention. He also gave evidence that LL School had assisted Ms Marsden in coercively controlling him. He gave evidence that there was a "lack of honesty in all these organisations."

The Principal of X's school wrote to Mr Bartram on 19 June 2024 to put in place a communication protocol which limited Mr Bartram's email communication with the school. In that letter, the Principal wrote:

I acknowledge your right to raise concerns about the way you and your child have been treated at [FF] School. However, departmental staff are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect when concerns are raised by parents. This includes parents behaving in a reasonable manner towards our staff.

I understand the issues you are raising are important to you but your current behaviour through emails is negatively impacting on staff wellbeing and is unacceptable. We prefer to work with you to support your child's learning and wellbeing needs.

The school has legal obligations to do what is reasonably practicable to ensure the safety of our staff. In view of your behaviour through emails, [FF] School has developed the following communication protocols to assist you in keeping your contact with the school within reasonable limits ...

On 31 July 2024, Mr Bartram sent an email to Ms Marsden's solicitor, X's school and Y's pre-school and daycare centre, which included the following:

... It is my opinion that [FF] school, [LL School] [sic] pre school and [KK Pre-school] are acting like participants of the "milgram experiment". The reason that I have either been locked out of each education facility is because they received information from a lawyer. I would like to be clear that the reason supplied to me is insufficient to justifying [sic] the actions that have been taken. Just like the "milgram experiment", the person in the lab coat (in this case a lawyer) is being dishonest purposefully. Unlike the milgram experiment, the damage that it is causing myself and my family is real and harmful ...

(3) The Court Child Expert

Mr Bartram is recorded as having been highly agitated during a feedback call with the Court Child Expert following interviews for the Child Impact Report:

[Mr Bartram] questioned why this author did not ask specific questions about the conduct of [X]'s school teacher and suggested that this author asked inappropriate questions. He was unwilling to list to this author's comments about each of the children's interviews. [Mr Bartram] was highly agitated during the phone call, requested that this author return his call so that he can arrange a witness to the conversation, and reported that he would file a complaint. This author ended the phone call.

At interviews for the Family Report, Mr Bartram accused the Court Child Expert of intimidating him and asked his mother whether she also felt intimidated. He told the Court Child Expert that he no longer trusted her.

Under cross-examination, Mr Bartram said that he had not read the Family Report - in part on the basis that the earlier Child Impact Report completed by the Court Child Expert was "not very accurate", such that it would "be unhelpful" for him to consider the Family Report. He expressed the view that the Court Child Expert had not completed the reports in the best interests of the children, and denied it was the case that he had not read the Family Report because he did not agree with the findings. He gave evidence that the Court Child Expert is of the view that "these kids shouldn't have a family in Australia." He gave evidence that the Court Child Expert had not been truthful, that reading the Family Report would cause him to question the evidence he had before him - which he identified as "gaslighting", that he speculated the Court Child Expert does not like men and fathers and that he would expect she has not written a report favourable to any father. He gave evidence that he had reviewed "the highlights" of the Family Report with his psychiatrist. After his lawyers withdrew, he cross-examined the Court Child Expert and it was clear that by that stage at least he had read and considered the Family Report.

(4) Officers of the Court, including the lawyer acting for Ms Marsden and the ICL

• On 19 August 2024, Mr Bartram emailed the ICL and included:

Your excuse for not responding to my email from last Friday is inadequate, poor and inexcusably [sic] ... To date, you have provided inadequate legal representation to my two children, this includes the number of years you represented them previously.

• On 26 August 2024, he emailed the ICL and included:

... I would encourage you to take a more decisive approach in these proceedings as it would be in the interest of your clients and their family to do so. Any other approach is only supporting [Ms Marsden]'s coercive controlling behaviour.

• On 27 August 2024, Mr Bartram sent an email including:

The use of "expert power" has been used by [Ms JJ] to influence the decisions made by [LL School], [KK Child Care]'s [Suburb VV] and [FF School]... As you are considered an expert, my understanding is that you are capable and allowed to make use of your power and influence to represent your clients; [X] and [Y]. In this case, I have suggested that it could be used to ensure [X] and [Y] spend time with me tomorrow night as it has also been ordered by Justice Curran. I think this is [sic] reasonable expectation I have and it would also be a reasonable expectation of each of the children's education institutions. Thank you for your email, though I do disagree with the decision you have made and I question that it is not your role to do so.

• On 3 September 2024, he wrote an email to Ms Marsden's lawyer and the Independent Children's Lawyer which included:

I have alleged today that [Ms HH] has impeded the human rights of [X] and [Y] by not allowing them to have legal representation at the most recent court hearing that took place which alleges that [Ms Marsden] has ensured that the children have had no contact with myself (their father) and the rest of their family for a period of over 6 months.

• On 20 September 2024, Mr Bartram sent an email to Ms Marsden's solicitor, which included:

Would your client be willing to participate in a behaviour change course for women? I have filed a complaint with the human rights commission as women are not allowed to complete a men's behaviour change course and I have suggested that your client may be interested in completing one that focuses on women and violence against children.

• On 22 October 2024, Mr Bartram wrote to Ms Marsden's lawyer and the ICL, with this correspondence including the following:

[Ms Marsden] has not checked her messages on the court appointed communication application in over a week and I am unable to reach her ... [Ms JJ], have you suggested that your client seek mental health assistance to avoid your client stabbing or drowning my children as has occurred recently at the hands of women.

• On 23 October 2024, Mr Bartram wrote to Ms Marsden's lawyer including:

If you [sic] client physically harms my children, I will be holding you accountable as well as the commonwealth of Australia and legal air [sic]. Suffice to say, the harm that the children have already been exposed to by your client[']s behaviour could be argued are due to your directions and advice to your client.

• On 24 October 2024, Mr Bartram wrote to Ms Marsden's lawyer and the ICL, including the following:

... I have also notified child protection services the physical threat that [Ms Marsden] poses to the boys that does not require evidence of historical physical violence to be present. The recent spate of violence that has occurred at the hands of Women in this Country should indicate to both of you that a history of violence is not necessary to be present for risk of harm to be concluded ...

• On 29 October 2024, Mr Bartram wrote to Ms Marsden's lawyer and the ICL, in reply to an email from Ms Marsden's solicitor in which it was suggested that Mr Bartram was following Ms Marsden on school premises:

I understand from this correspondence that you are alleging that [X] doesn't want to spend time with his family and they should override the court orders made by the Commonwealth of Australia. I would like to be clear that we do not live in the United States of [Ms JJ], we live in the Commonwealth of Australia.

• On 3 November 2024, Mr Bartram wrote the following to Ms Marsden's lawyer, copying in the ICL:

There is no excuse for your client not obtaining a psychiatric assessment. You are putting the children at risk with your endless allegations is [sic] they are only limited by your imagination.

• On 5 November 2024, Mr Bartram wrote to Ms Marsden's lawyer and the ICL:

Please be advised that my Mum and I will be attending [Y]'s orientation tomorrow. It would appear to me that [Ms Marsden] had a psychotic episode last week during the presentation on orientation day.

• On 10 November 2024, Mr Bartram wrote an email to Ms Marsden's lawyer, (copying in in the ICL), which included the following: "Has your client been assessed by a mental health professional as I have requested? Or does she rely on your health advice?"
• On 15 November 2024, Mr Bartram wrote to the Associate to a Senior Judicial Registrar (copying in the ICL and Ms Marsden's lawyer):

The process you have implemented today of disposing of this email trail is in breach of point 1 and article 3 of the child rights convention. I will add it to the file I am creating to have Australia removed as a signatory to the child rights convention.

• On 16 December 2024, Mr Bartram wrote an email to the ICL (copying in Ms Marsden's solicitor), which included:

Please let me know how the process you have implemented today of delaying this matter from being listed is in the children's best interest. You are in breach of the family law act of 1975 and the child rights convention by not requesting a listing immediately.

• On 20 December 2024, Mr Bartram wrote an email to the ICL (and included Ms Marsden's lawyer in the correspondence), in which he referred to the fact that he had filed an appeal against the interim orders and quoting what he said was the reason to have it heard urgently:

The ICL in this matter has implemented processes that are intended to estrange the children from me and in turn destroy the relationship they have with me. This includes the recent process of not having the matter relisted given the spend time orders at the contact centre will not occur. I have raised the issue of the trustworthy relationship with my kids being breached as a reason for not making use of the centre. [GG Contact Service] stated that they will not be able to offer their service to us.

• On 22 January 2025, Mr Bartram wrote an email to Ms Marsden's lawyer, and the ICL, which included the following: "Can you please advise if you [sic] client has ever threatened to take her life and if so have you reported this to any welfare organisations?"
• On 13 February 2025, Mr Bartram wrote to Ms Marsden's lawyer, copying in the ICL and with the subject line "[Ms Marsden][']s Coercive Controlling behaviour" and including the following:

I will continue to allege that [Ms Marsden]'s[']s intentions are to make use of the family court system to coerce into a state of ill mental health as her intentions are to push me to take my life ...

Does your client intend to continue her strategy of estranging the children from me and the rest of their family? And will she continue to attempt to try to have the children believe that they are a danger in my care through her repeated requests for us to have time together at a contact centre? Is she continuing her threat to tell the children that I don't want to see them?

Please obtain answers to each of my questions.

• On 6 March 2025, Mr Bartram wrote to Ms Marsden's lawyer and the ICL:

Good Evening,

Please provide an update on the [sic] [X] and [Y] .

Are they attending school? Is [Ms Marsden] currently experience [sic] any delusions that would put the kids at risk?

[Mr Bartram]

• On 25 March 2025, Mr Bartram wrote to Ms Marsden's lawyer and the ICL:

Dear [Ms JJ],

Can your client please share with me [X] and [Y]'s school photos?

They are scheduled to be taken this Friday.

I just wanted to also let you know that there have been no deaths in the family since the boys were estranged from their family on the 15th of February 2024 when you gave instructions to your client to do so. But if there is, I will be sure to email yourself so you can pass it onto the boys. I understand that this must be disappointing information [to] pass onto your client.

Perhaps we could have consent order[s] made so the boys can keep up to date with who is alive and dead.

[Mr Bartram]

Mr Bartram has made the extraordinary allegation that I deliberately attempted to drive him to suicide by making the interim orders I did. He denied that he was suicidal, but said that he referred to suicide to make the point about how much value he places on time with the children. When asked if this was an appropriate way to make that point, he said that it was "necessary language" to "attack the problem that this country faces."

In relation to Justice Boyle's dismissal of his first contravention application, he gave evidence that:

The reasons for judgment by Justice Boyle on 22 August 2024 claims that as I haven't completed a behaviour change course and therefore the application should be dismissed. It was upsetting that a Judge was unable to interpret the court orders, nor the fact that I made it clear it was not a requirement for me to spend time with [X] and [Y].

He also sent an email to her Honour's Associate "I am concerned that Justice Boyle has an inability to understand English given that there is no order made by any court which supports the children having no contact with their father or the rest of their family."

On 14 January 2025, Mr Bartram made a complaint to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in which he alleged "unilateral coercive measures" and "sale of children". He alleged that the perpetrators are Justice Boyle, Justice Behrens, Justice Riethmuller, Justice Kari and Justice Christie. He wrote:

I would like each of the Judges that have presided over my matter to be charged with crimes against humanity. They have prevented children the human right they have to have a relationship with their Father based on unreasonable grounds. They have prevented them from experiencing moments that give me meaning with the intention of driving me to suicide. They are aware of the distress they have caused and they are aware that they have immunity that prevents them from being held accountable for the rulings they make. I have had communication with the Australian human rights commission and they have informed me of this fact. The efforts and evidence that were presented from November 2019 to April 2023 and led to the final orders that were made have been intentionally disrespected due to the fact that these judges are not accountable to anyone. Some of the moments with my kids that were made possible as result of the proceedings have been documented on my tik tok account under the username '[...]". This was shared with the ICL at the hearing on the 26th of November. The relationship that is shown in those videos has no impact on the court.

(6) Y's speech pathologist

Mr Bartram sent an email to Y's speech pathologist on 12 March 2024:

[Ms Z],

[Y]'s mum has ensured that [Y] and I have not spent time together for almost a month.

What is the purpose of this email and why have you copied in [Y]'s Mum as this hasn't been done previously?

As per my email to you in October 2023, it is clear that you and your organisation have written notes with the intention to influence the outcome of family court proceedings between myself and [Ms Marsden], my opinion of you and the organisation you work for has not changed.

Kind regards

[Mr Bartram]

Under cross-examination, Mr Bartram gave evidence that "there was no trust I had in [Ms Z]" and that her priority was not the development of X's speech.

On 5 November 2024, Ms Marsden spoke to police about ongoing fears for her and the children's safety. The police noted that Ms Marsden's solicitor was receiving multiple emails from Mr Bartram, with the most recent one having been sent earlier that day, in which it was alleged by Mr Bartram that Ms Marsden had a psychotic episode at school. Mr Bartram was contacted by police, and based on that record and Mr Bartram's responses to questions about it, I accept that Mr Bartram was "immediately abrupt and hostile", "refused to discuss the matter" and "accused police of using threatening language against him". In cross-examination, he justified his reaction by reference to the fact that the police had made him upset, that he was "not used to living a life where the police are calling me" and that he "found it quite vexatious."

(8) NSW politicians and the Department of Education.

On 23 February 2024, Mr Bartram made a complaint to the Early Childhood Education section of the NSW Department of Education in relation to the behaviour of LL School, and that correspondence was acknowledged on the same day. He appears to have followed up a week later both by email and phone, and received a perfectly appropriate acknowledgement of the further information he had provided on 1 March 2024. That same day, he wrote:

There will no be further back and fourth [sic] communication between myself and the DOE, the phone call today was unnecessary from my perspective. There was no additional information provided today that wasn't supplied last week.

If I receive no outcome to my complaint, the family court will be requested to make orders that remove the need for [LL School] to have any contact with me nor participate in any changeover between my kids and I. [LL School]'s list of demands are unreasonable, which is an assumption that can be made with the existence of the complaint I have made.

The Department of education have every right to disagree and inform me that the list of demand [sic] are reasonable, though that has not be [sic] done at this stage.

Shortly afterwards, he received a response that the complaint did not fall within the remit of the relevant NSW Regulator. On 7 March 2024, Mr Bartram provided his federal Member of Parliament with information about his complaint, concluding with:

My request is to ask you how I can have my complaint actioned and are [LL School] working within the department of Educations [sic] framework by in effect creating their own set of court orders that are hamstringing myself and the family court of Australia.

That concern was referred to the state Member of Parliament because it related to education issues, and was then forwarded to a senior Member, Ms WW, who replied that his complaint had been investigated "and the department was satisfied with the action taken by the service to address any identified issues." That correspondence referred to the fact that the Department and Mr Bartram engaged in email correspondence on 4 March, 5 March, 18 March and 20 March. Mr Bartram responded on 17 June 2024 including the following:

I understand that the [Member] and her team have engaged in a task of counting the number of efforts I have made to communicate the orders that were made by the Federal Circuit and Family court of Australia. What was the purpose of completing this task and what conclusion was reached by the [Member] and her team? It may be a reasonable assumption that the minister for education is attempting to intimidate me or suggest that I am incapable of communication.

The correspondence confirms that the [Member]'s team has perhaps trusted the legal representatives of [Ms Marsden] and [LL School] and/or used their involvement to alleviate the responsibility the [Member] has to myself as a citizen of this country and resident of the state of NSW.

It is unfortunate that the [Member] [sic] and her team have put trust in legal representatives that have no obligation to being truthful as was the basis for the recent complaints I have made to the legal commission against the legal representative of [LL School] and [Ms Marsden].

(9) Human Rights Bodies

On 5 September 2024, Mr Bartram made a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission in which he alleged "that article 3 of the CRC (Children's right convention) has and is currently being violated in Australia and continues to be violated." On 18 September 2024, he filed a complaint:

with regards to the men's behaviour change courses that are endorced [sic] by the government and available to be completed. My ex partner (she is female) may be interested in completing it and it only allows men to complete it. As the course only accepts males, I'd suggest that this falls into the category of discrimination based on sex. My ex partner is a mother and she has participated in family violence against our two children.

When he received perfectly appropriate correspondence from the Australian Human Rights Commission, he responded including "Can you please forward my enquiry to a manager who has a responsibility to address my enquiry? Your response indicates you have no value for the rights of children and their right to be protected from harm." He continued to email including: "It is clear from this email that the [sic] you feel lawyers invoke human rights. It is [a] ludicrous notion you are presenting to me. It is evident that you and your organisation have no value for the rights of people in this country, which begs the question why do you exist at all." Also "It is my opinion that your replies are an attempt to bury the concerns I have raised which no doubt would be utterly embarrassing if your organisation were held accountable."

1. Mr Bartram gave evidence that there was nothing he could have done to prevent any aspect of the Court process other than walk away from his children. In answer to a question from counsel for the ICL, he said that one thing that he could have done which would have made a difference would be to have "lied to [C Support Services]" and told them "I beat up [Ms Marsden]". He said he then would have been able to do the men's behavioural change course.
2. Given all of the above, I accept the Court Child Expert's evidence that "[Mr Bartram] chooses to intimidate people around him, whether it be [Ms Marsden] or professionals in the children's lives" and that "[Mr Bartram]'s behavioural choices have led to multiple pathways of harm."

1. I am satisfied that, if the children spent time with Mr Bartram, he would undermine their relationship with Ms Marsden and her parenting. Even allowing that he does not actually believe there is a risk that Ms Marsden will kill the children, the fact that he would say there is such a risk is indicative of his attitude towards her. To the Court Child Expert, Mr Bartram expressed the view that Ms Marsden did not have the capacity to appropriately raise the children nor to prioritise their needs, and that she was causing Y and X psychological harm. He was quoted by the Court Child Expert as saying that Ms Marsden "'has no limit'" and "'wants to completely destroy the children's relationship with family and deprive them of love'", and also expressed concerns that the children would experience anger issues in the future as a consequence of Ms Marsden's decisions. He also told the Court Child Expert that Ms Marsden was engaging in coercive and controlling behaviour towards him, that she ought to be "'punished'" for her actions towards Mr Bartram, X and Y, and that her behaviour constituted a "'crime against humanity'". In cross-examination, and notwithstanding he had amended his position to provide for time with Ms Marsden, he said that he still believed there is a risk that she would physically harm the children. He gave evidence that he believes Ms Marsden does not prioritise the children's needs, that the continuation by Ms Marsden of the "enforced estrangement" of the children from Mr Bartram and their paternal family could cause the children in the future to feel hatred and resentment towards one of their parents, that she has engaged in coercive control towards him, that she has perpetrated family violence against him, and child abuse by way of parental alienation (though Mr Bartram made clear that he preferred to term "child alienation"), and that he does not know that, if the children lived with him, Ms Marsden would want to see them. There is no basis in the evidence for those conclusions.

Conclusion in relation to Mr Bartram's behaviour and the risks it poses

1. Mr Bartram is incapable of reflecting upon his own behaviour and how it has contributed to the current situation. His focus in these proceedings has been on criticising and blaming others (often in strident, intimidating and otherwise unreasonable ways), rather than attempting to find a reasonable solution to difficulties which have arisen. He has shifted blame to others. He has brought and pursued unmeritorious applications and appeals. As counsel for the ICL pointed out, many of his questions to the Court Child Expert were focused on his needs and the impact upon him of not spending time with X and Y. My focus is, and must be, on the impact on X and Y and on their best interests.
2. I am satisfied that, if differences between the parents arose (as inevitably they would), Mr Bartram's conduct and communication would mean that such differences would be unable to be resolved in a way which did not embroil the parents in conflict, and cause Ms Marsden fear and anxiety, with the negative consequences of that for the children. I am also satisfied that, if professionals involved in the children's lives did not act in the way that Mr Bartram deemed appropriate, he would deal with those professionals inappropriately and would be unable to work to find a mutually acceptable resolution. Put simply, at least in relation to parenting decisions (I do not have any evidence about how he deals with other issues that arise in his life), Mr Bartram is impossible to deal with. I do not have any expert evidence as to the underlying reason or reasons for this. Dr E gave evidence, which I must accept, that he does not suffer from any mental illness and that a recurrence of a mental illness is not an explanation.
3. Mr Bartram's family cannot (and likely will not) understand why X and Y are not safe in his care. They gave evidence that he is trusted as a carer for his baby niece. He is able safely to care for his niece because that care is provided in an entirely different context from his care of Y and X and does not involve him having to navigate parenting disputes or dealing with professionals with whom he disagrees. It also presumably supports, rather than undermines, her mother's parenting and care.

1. Ms Marsden has excellent capacity to meet the children's needs and it is to her credit that, notwithstanding the parents have been embroiled in litigation for almost all of Y's life, the children are doing remarkably well. The Court Child Expert opined that X presented as a "friendly and delightful child" and Y as a "lively and inquisitive child." She opined that "neither of the children have any additional developmental needs, are settled at school, and are in good health". She opined that "it is positive that [X] and [Y] have a strong relationship with their mother, especially given the lengthy parental conflict." There is absolutely no evidence which would support she poses any risk to the children, and her conduct in withholding them from time with Mr Bartram has been appropriately protective (rather than "alienation", as Mr Bartram alleged).
2. I accept the Court Child Expert's opinion that if no time with Mr Bartram was ordered "[Ms Marsden] would likely be considerably less stressed, her mental health may improve, which is likely to improve her overall wellbeing and how she parents [X] and [Y]." I accept that Ms Marsden's mental health and parenting is likely to be undermined by having to continue to deal with Mr Bartram.
3. Ms Marsden and the children are fortunate in having the support of her mother - and in having that support whether Ms Marsden and the children live in Australia (where Mrs Marsden regularly visits for significant periods of time) or in the United Kingdom (where Mrs Marsden offers them a home while they need it).

1. Y and X are very young children. As counsel for the ICL submitted, there is no dispute that they love their father, have a positive relationship with him, miss him and want to spend time with him. They were clearly delighted to see him again after a period of more than a year. Notwithstanding that it is clear from the Family Report that X is aware that Mr Bartram did not comply with "the rules", I am satisfied based on the children's reactions to their father at the Family Report interviews that Ms Marsden has appropriately protected the children from criticisms of Mr Bartram and from the issues in these proceedings. They have not lived with their father for a long time and are not of an age where they can (or should be able to) understand his behaviour or its implications.
2. X told the Court Child Expert that he would "'feel sad if I didn't live with Mummy'" and that he would like to continue living with his mother and to return to the arrangement whereby he had sleepovers at his father's house. He also told her that he wished he could live in the United Kingdom and that he would like to return to Australia with his mother to see his father once a year and that his father could also travel to the United Kingdom for a visit. The children will likely be distressed when they come to understand that they will not recommence spending time with Mr Bartram. Y told the Court Child Expert that he misses his father and would like to see him again and have sleepovers at his house.
3. I accept the Court Child Expert's opinion that I should attach little weight to Y's and X's views about the parenting arrangements - both in relation to whether they spend time with their father and in relation to the proposed move to the United Kingdom. I have considered the children's views, but ultimately those views have had no impact upon my decision.

1. Y and X are entitled to relationships with their father and their paternal family if those relationships are safe and otherwise in their best interests. The orders sought by Ms Marsden and the ICL would mean that they will not have such relationships, and will miss out on all the benefits that time with Mr Bartram would bring them. Poignantly, tendered in evidence in Mr Bartram's case were photographs and videos showing the children having a lovely time in Mr Bartram's and his family's care and clearly enjoying his company. There were also photos showing X dressed in a fancy dress costume made for him by Mr Bartram, X enjoying school events in the company of Mr Bartram and Mrs Bartram, the children enjoying Christmas decorations, X's sixth birthday party and special events organised for them by Mr Bartram. There is no doubt at all that the children enjoyed those experiences, and will miss those times. I accept also that when he was spending time with them, Mr Bartram enrolled the children in, facilitated the children's attendance at, and paid for, various extracurricular activities. At the interviews for the Family Report, he interacted with the children appropriately during observations, notwithstanding that he had been expressing strong emotions prior.
2. The Court Child Expert opined, and I accept that, apart from missing their father, the children's loss of their relationships with Mr Bartram could "manifest in the children experiencing issues with their mental health, behaviour, and their school achievements" and "it is possible that the children could blame themselves, resulting in emotional distress, or resent Ms Marsden, which could place stress on their relationship". I am satisfied that Ms Marsden has the high level of parental capacity necessary to help them deal with these issues.
3. The legislation only contemplates the benefit of relationships for children which are safe. As I set out above, because of their father's behaviour and his attitude towards Ms Marsden, the children cannot be kept safe from emotional and psychological harm in a relationship with Mr Bartram. I also find that it is likely, given his attitude to Ms Marsden, that Mr Bartram would attempt to undermine her relationship with the children.

1. For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that it is in X's and Y's best interests that they continue to live with Ms Marsden. I am also satisfied that an arrangement where the children spend time with Mr Bartram is not in X's nor Y's best interests because - to summarise what is set out above - they would not be safe from emotional and psychological harm, Mr Bartram does not have the parenting capacity to meet their critical emotional and psychological needs, Mr Bartram would undermine Ms Marsden's parenting and the children's relationship with Ms Marsden and Ms Marsden's parenting would likely be adversely affected by having to deal with Mr Bartram. Y and X love Mr Bartram and want to spend time with him, but, sadly, an order for no time with Mr Bartram is the order which is in the children's best interests. It follows that an order for Ms Marsden to have sole parental responsibility for the children continues to be in the children's best interests.
2. I would have made an order for no contact irrespective of Ms Marsden's proposal to relocate to the United Kingdom. In fact, to a large extent, the move to the United Kingdom, and the physical removal from circumstances which require Ms Marsden to deal with Mr Bartram address much of the risk of the children having contact with Mr Bartram. Had there been before me a viable proposal for the children to travel to Australia for a holiday and to spend time with Mr Bartram here - at least initially supervised - and had I been satisfied that Mr Bartram would take up such time and not create difficulties, that might have been what I would have ordered. But I cannot construct such a proposal in the absence of any evidence about whether and how it might work. There would also have been the difficulty that the Court Child Expert opined that any resumption of time would need to be supervised initially. Mr Bartram has shown himself unwilling to engage with professional supervision services. He gave evidence under cross-examination by counsel for the ICL that he might consider professional supervision at a contact centre if staff members would comply with various conditions which he thought were appropriate - including, for example, if they would agree not to reassure the children that they were safe, did not have clipboards to note what he and the children said to each other, and took no notes "recording everything that we say and do". I am satisfied therefore that professional supervision is not an option. There is no alternate appropriate supervision available, given his family members (to some extent understandably) have adopted Mr Bartram's narrative of the children's circumstances and see no need for supervision, nor anything wrong in Mr Bartram's conduct.
3. The possibility of an order that Mr Bartram be permitted to send the children cards, letters and gifts was explored with him by counsel for the ICL and he gave evidence that that would be a "very painful order to be made" and that he saw such an arrangement as "violating the children's human rights." In those circumstances I cannot be satisfied that such an order is in the children's best interests.
4. The consequence of the "no time" order is that Ms Marsden is not constrained in deciding where she and the children live, and it is not necessary for me to make an order that she is at liberty to relocate the children's residence. Nonetheless, to make the position abundantly clear, I have made that order as sought by Ms Marsden, along with orders which enable her to obtain passports for the children and to travel overseas without reference to, or the consent of, Mr Bartram. She is entitled to make a choice about where she lives, provided that that choice is consistent with the children's best interests. In circumstances where the children would not spend time with Mr Bartram in any case, I am satisfied that it is. If more is needed, a relocation to the United Kingdom would promote the children's best interests by enabling Ms Marsden to return to her home country, to have better support from her family, and to have better capacity for employment and financial independence.
5. I am satisfied, given Curran J's findings about Mr Bartram's use of family violence and Ms Marsden's genuine fear of him, and my finding that Ms Marsden continues to be fearful of Mr Bartram, that it is appropriate to make an order restraining Mr Bartram from approaching or coming within 100 metres of Ms Marsden, Ms Marsden's place of work and her residence. I am satisfied on the evidence before me that it is appropriate to make an order restraining Mr Bartram from approaching the children or their school. Without such an order, there is a risk that Mr Bartram will attempt to speak with the children and will do so in an inappropriate way. Given Mr Bartram's conduct, it is appropriate that those orders are expressed as orders for the personal protection of Ms Marsden and the children - attracting the power of arrest if the conditions in s 68C(1) and (2) are met.
6. The ICL sought (as she is required to do) an order that Mr Bartram pay one half of the ICL's costs. Ms Marsden is in receipt of legal aid, and so a costs order cannot be made against her. Mr Bartram filed a Financial Statement in these proceedings which satisfies me that he has a very modest income, and few assets. In those circumstances, and notwithstanding Mr Bartram's conduct in these proceedings and the fact that he has been wholly unsuccessful, I will not make the costs order sought by the ICL. The Court is fortunate indeed to have had the excellent assistance of the ICL through these proceedings, as well as the assistance of very able counsel representing the ICL at the final hearing.

I certify that the preceding ninety-four (94) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Behrens.