Baylor & Leitz [2025] FedCFamC1F 433 (28 March 2025)

1. That save as otherwise set out herein, the child shall live with the father and the mother at all times as agreed, but in particular as follows:

(a) On a week about basis, with changeovers to occur after school (or 5.00pm if it is not a school day) each Friday, subject to Order 3(c) and (d) hereof;

(b) If the child is not otherwise in the care of the mother for Mother's Day, the child shall spend from 5.00pm on the day preceding Mother's Day until 5.00pm on Mother's Day in the mother's care, and if the child is not scheduled to be in the father's care for Father's Day, the child shall spend from 5.00pm the day prior to Father's Day until 5.00pm on Father's Day in the care of the father;

(c) During the December/January school holiday period in each year, with the mother for the first half in odd numbered years and the second half in even numbered years; and

(d) During the December/January school holiday period in each year, with the father for the second half in odd numbered years and the first half in even numbered years.

1. That the child shall communicate with the parent she is not in the care of at 6.00pm each Wednesday by telephone, Facetime or other media, and for that purpose:

(a) the child shall be afforded privacy during such conversation;

(b) the parents and the child will be at liberty to converse in any language they so wish;

(c) if the child misses a call from such parent, the other parent shall arrange for the child to contact that parent on the following night; and

(d) neither parent shall cause or permit the child's communication with the other parent to be recorded.

1. That the parents shall only communicate by way of a parenting App, being "Our Family Wizard", save in emergent circumstances.
2. That the parents shall:

(a) keep the other parent informed at all times of their residential address, email address, landline and/or mobile contact telephone number and notify each other within forty-eight (48) hours of any change;

(b) keep the other parent informed of the names and addresses of any treating medical or other health practitioner who treats the child;

(c) inform the other parent as soon as reasonably practicable of any significant medical condition, significant health issue or illness suffered by the child, including where the child requires admission to hospital or emergency medical treatment; and

(d) not utilise physical discipline on the child, and each parent shall also ensure to the best of their abilities no third party shall do so.

1. That the parents will advise each other immediately upon the child experiencing any medical emergency or significant health event whilst the child is in their respective care and will provide particulars of any emergency treatment provided to the child and details of the relevant service provider/s.

1. That these Orders are sufficient authority for any school attended by the child to release to each parent information in relation to the child's educational progress and other school related activities and to supply each parent with copies of school reports, photographs, certificates and awards as and when requested and at the expense of the parent making the request.
2. That each parent shall ensure that the child attends and continues to attend all extra-curricular, sporting and recreational activities in which the parents have agreed that the child shall be enrolled or engaged in from time to time, and to do all acts and things necessary to continue to support and encourage the child to integrate socially and academically, including but not limited to attending any birthday party invitations the child might receive at any time in the future, whilst the child is in their respective care.
3. That each parent shall use their best endeavours to ensure that whilst the child is in that parent's care, she completes her required schooling and homework requirements as specified from time to time by the child's school.
4. That each parent is at liberty to attend the child's school for the purpose of any function or activity normally attended by parents, including parent/teacher interviews and sporting days.

1. That these Orders are sufficient authority to enable either parent to obtain any and all information required by that parent from the child's treating medical or allied health practitioner as and when requested and at the expense of the requesting parent.

1. That each of the parents, their servants and agents be hereby restrained from:

(a) abusing, insulting, belittling, rebuking or otherwise denigrating the other parent; and

(b) discussing these proceedings or the contents of any documents filed in, or intended for use in these proceedings to, with, or in the presence or hearing of the child and from permitting any other person to do so.

1. That in the event either parent wishes to travel overseas with the child, the parents shall provide to each other written notice of their intention to travel or overseas with the child not less than ninety (90) days prior to the proposed day of travel, and for no greater period than three (3) weeks (with make up time to be provided), and such notice shall include details of the following:

(a) A copy of the child's return travel arrangements;

(b) Detailed itinerary for the duration of the child's overseas travel;

(c) Confirmation of all accommodation including address, telephone, email and facsimile details of the relevant accommodation service providers;

(d) Contact details for the child for the duration the child is overseas; and

(e) Evidence of comprehensive travel insurance having been obtained for the child.

1. That within fourteen (14) days of the date of these Orders, the parents shall do acts and things and sign all documents required, to obtain an Australian passport for the child.
2. That neither parent shall obtain a passport for the child other than an Australian passport.
3. That upon receiving written notice of the other parent's intention to travel overseas with the child in terms outlined above, the relevant parent shall release the child's passport to the travelling parent within seven (7) days of the date of departure, and the travelling parent shall return the child's passport within seven (7) days of their return from overseas travel.
4. That any travel with the child overseas shall not be to any Country that shall not be signatory to the Hague Convention, more particularly described as the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and further in respect of which a Level 3 (or higher) travel warning is provided for from time to time, via the Australian Governments Smart Traveler website.
5. That the parents shall consider waiving or abridging the timeframes referred to in Order 3 hereof so to enable the child to travel overseas, in the event of special or extraordinary circumstances, including but not limited to compassionate grounds, such as visiting a family member that may be terminally ill or experiencing life threatening illness.

1. That the process that shall be used for resolving future disputes about the child, or the terms of these Orders shall be as follows:

(a) A Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner shall be appointed by Relationships Australia, Legal Aid or Family Relationships Australia;

(b) The parents shall consult with the Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner and Family Relationship Centre to assist with resolving any dispute in relation to the child or reaching agreement about changes to be made to the parenting arrangements for the child;

(c) They shall pay the cost of the Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner equally;

(d) In the event that they are unable for any reason to have an appointment with the Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner and cannot agree on an alternate Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner:

(i) the mother shall nominate three (3) practitioners and advise in writing their fees, experience and availability;

(ii) the father shall choose one (1) of the listed practitioners within seven (7) days of receipt of the list; and

(iii) if the father fails to choose, then the mother may choose a practitioner.

1. That the Independent Children's Lawyer be discharged.

1. That Orders 4 and 21 hereof were made by the Court and not with the consent of both parents.
2. That without limiting the parental responsibility of each parent pursuant to Order 1 hereof, each parent shall keep the other parent informed of and shall properly consult with the other in respect any significant parenting issue effecting the child, and for the purpose of these Orders, "significant parenting issues" includes but is not limited to:

(a) any medical or health matter concerning the child;

(b) any medical or health matter effecting either parent which may affect the ability of that parent to care for the child;

(c) matters relating to the education of the child, including but not limited to the choice of school or curriculum;

(d) disciplinary matters other than of a trivial nature;

(e) matters concerning the social development and support activities of the child;

(f) matters concerning the religion or faith of the child;

(g) any intended change in the surname by which the child is commonly known from that which appears on the child's birth certificate; and

(h) generally, any matter regarding the child in respect to which a parent should be informed of or consulted with respect to having regard to the provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

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

1. One would hardly be surprised, when a loving parent who is spending equal time with a child, in this case a little girl, X born 2017, is effectively approached on the street by members of the Queensland Police Service ("QPS") without notice or warning and told that they had, that day, interviewed the child who has made a disclosure of inappropriate touching by the mother's partner, and that the police not only believe the child but, on the strength of an interview at school, believed the allegation - that loving parents would be concerned.
2. When the father, Mr Baylor, was approached in the street by police which was, quite unusual in my experience, he reacted as I would expect any loving, caring parent would react. In fact, he was both surprised and did not seem immediately accepting of the allegation. What followed, in my view, is an example of some of the most unusual interrogation and conduct regarding an allegation of low-level sexual abuse at best that has astounded me. I have viewed many hours of interviews by the QPS, being:

(a) body worn camera footage of police officers informing the mother of the child's disclosure, occurring on a footpath verge on the side of a street;

(b) a pretext interview, where the mother was encouraged by police to effectively try and entrap her partner, Mr B;

(c) body worn camera footage of police officers informing the father of the child's allegations, again occurring outside by the side of a street with two officers of Child Safety (at that time being the Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs) also being present; and

(d) of course, the child was the subject of more than one interview pursuant to s 93A of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld).

1. I regard it, in the circumstance of this case, that the questioning of the police officers involved was onerous and relentless, leading to the extreme and confusing behaviour of the child. It was a technique which I regarded as grossly inappropriate and flawed. I will go so far as to say that, in my experience in this jurisdiction, where I have had to endure, sadly, interviews of children who were very appropriately interviewed by qualified police officers on serious matters, seeking to find a balance between the rights of the child, of the possible accused and the community, that I have never seen anything like it. I do not know why it is. I did not have any evidence from the lead officer in particular, who I saw on many occasions on the tape, because that officer is no longer a police officer. I make no comment about why that might be the case. I am purposely not referring to her by name in my judgment.

1. The sad reality of this case is that after these parties separated in February 2018, when the child was an infant, and despite their differences in culture; slight difference in age; background and parenting approaches from a very young age, the parties appear to have essentially managed the child in a consensual way with little dispute. I can only imagine that was achieved by the parties communicating at a reasonable level. Such was their confidence about the value each parent brought to the life of this child, that by 20 June 2019, they offered to the Court and Orders were made by Judge Jarrett (as he then was) for parenting orders, which by December 2021, were effectively equal time.
2. All these arrangements fell into disrepair when the police intervention seemingly activated by an after-school carer at the child's school who heard a statement made by the child and regarded such statement as serious and reportable; and I make no criticism of that person; which then resulted in some very confronting issues.
3. Firstly, criminal proceedings were commenced against the mother's partner, Mr B, very quickly, and it seemed to me, with very little investigation. He was effectively, ultimately charged in mid-2022, as I understand it. Not surprisingly, the father, concerned about his daughter and what the police had told him, filed an Application in this Court on 4 July 2022.
4. Despite the uncertainty of the criminal proceedings against Mr B, although I accept, at times, the mother was not fully honest about her relationship with Mr B (and particularly to Ms C, the report writer), on 23 August 2022 a Senior Judicial Registrar ordered that the child return to the mother and, thereafter, equal time arrangements continue.
5. Effectively then, for most of this child's life, she has been spending regular, if not equal, time with each parent.
6. During the trial, it was brought to my attention that there was a somewhat confusing notation contained to the Order dated 23 August 2022 being:
   1. The mother has accepted the disclosures made by the child regarding [Mr B].
   2. The mother has today advised the Court that she does not have any intention of resuming her relationship with [Mr B] and has no intention of continuing to contact [Mr B] other than of a formal type with respect to any ongoing legal and [finalising] any joint personal affairs.
7. Clearly, the mother was in a relationship with Mr B. However, such notation was founded, and I do not know, having not seen a transcript, it was wrong, and it did not go to the credit of the mother. However, in cross-examination, she explained why she was not totally honest.
8. This is an unusual case but notwithstanding the overhanging charges against Mr B - charges which were dismissed without a trial or any prosecution against him in May 2023 - the Orders and injunctions made against the mother restraining Mr B from being a member of household, when the child X was there, have been maintained.
9. The father, in the witness box, said that he still believed abuse had occurred, and I accept that, whilst he said that, he was, to a large degree, at that stage, relying upon the integrity of the investigation such as it was, and the comments made to him by the department and the QPS. He found it difficult to give an overall perspective to the whole matter. Yet, equal time continued to operate without really any difficulties at all.
10. In an effort to try and prevent this matter going to trial, Mr B was even the subject of a specialist expert report by Mr D, who not surprisingly, in my view, on all the evidence, came to the conclusion that Mr B was a low risk of sexually abusing children.
11. The matter was in Division 2 and was transferred to this Court, and ultimately, I decided, on 18 October 2024, that the matter should be listed for trial as soon as possible.
12. The trial commenced on 28 January 2025. All parties were represented. The father retained a private solicitor and counsel. Some three days of evidence was undertaken, although the first day was taken up with viewing a range of the videos and the like.
13. When we finished on Thursday, 30 January, I was told that the parties would need to make submissions another day and such that the matter was listed today, 28 March 2025.

1. Between 30 January 2025 and today, the father, I accept, with limited financial resources available to him, ceased retaining a private solicitor and counsel, and Mr Martin, a senior family lawyer employed by the Men's Legal Service, has appeared today and has not only prepared for today by taking instructions from the father, but he also heard the submissions and has obtained further instructions from the father after those submissions. Importantly, Mr Martin says, today, that the father accepts that the police investigation was flawed.
2. He accepts that Mr B is not a risk of an unacceptable nature to the child.
3. He agreed that the injunction restraining Mr B from coming into contact with X should be discharged.
4. The father agreed that week-about time should continue, and he also agreed that it would be in X's best interests, on appropriate notice, to be able to travel to Country E with her mother and perhaps other members of the family in Australia.
5. Now, it might be said that the father's coming to this position at this time shows a reluctance to accept the evidence. He could, with all the evidence closed on Thursday, 30 January 2025 have undertaken some steps to try and resolve the matter, and I understand he did so. I do not know the nature of those negotiations, but I am prepared to accept that the father in this case, confronted as he was with the circumstances presented by the police, needed convincing before he came to the conclusion he came to today, as expressed by Mr Martin on his behalf.
6. His conclusions are correct, totally consistent with any findings that I would have made and consistent with the findings that the Independent Children's Lawyer's counsel, Mr McGregor, and Ms Oakley of Counsel on behalf of the mother, made to me today.
7. Let it be clear, I do not regard Mr B as an unacceptable risk in any form to X.
8. I also take on board that this has been a torturous journey for this family.
9. The father and his mother, who I regarded as a very impressive witness and the epitome of a loving grandmother, were always burdened by the approach the QPS had taken and the comments they had made to her and her son. I am sorry that they were confronted with that when there was so little foundation.
10. The mother and her family have had, in many ways, a much more difficult time.
11. Apart from perhaps at some level disguising the true nature of her relationship with Mr B, such disguise in itself being a difficulty, Mr B and the mother conceived a child, who was born 2024, who has been described, I think, correctly, as F. Because of the nature of the relationship that Mr B could reside with the mother when X was in the father's care, because of the injunction order, he has not been able to develop his relationship with X, and it has in many ways, in my view, probably affected the capacity for the mother and Mr B to provide a united family appearance to both the children.
12. Many relationships would have been tested by those events. It is a testament, in my view, to the strength of both the mother's character and I would find the commitment the mother and Mr B have to each other and to the children, including X, that they have weathered this storm and are looking positively to the future. Ultimately, the parties have reached a consent, as the record will show, effectively on the terms set out in the mother's case outline. There are some small variations, which I have ruled on today, and that order will be perfected today, signed by the parties and handed to my Associate.
13. It is often said in a Court like this that behaviour in the past is a perfect predictor of future behaviour. That always presumes that the stressors, pressures and events relating to past behaviour are never any different. As I have already identified, both the father and the mother are capable and loving parents of X; have been under enormous pressure, including financial pressure, with this litigation overhanging them; and that they have been able to maintain in some way equal time, is a tribute to both of them.
14. Hopefully, they will be able to do so as they commit to today, again, into the future. Only time will tell.
15. I should mention in closing that, although Ms C provided two family reports, she was not required for cross-examination. To the extent that some of the comments made by Ms C are not consistent with the findings I have made, quite frankly, it is a perfect example of why, in many cases, judges make decisions and are not bound my family reports. However of course, there was this uncertainty until the evidence could be tested, and so I am not critical of Ms C in that regard.
16. So, the matter finishes. Hopefully, the parents can move on. Hopefully, X can get all the best of each parent and the wider family, grandparents, other children to make a strong contribution to the Australian society as apparently her agreed intention to have an Australian passport identifies as their hope as parents.
17. The Court will make the orders, but I do require that order to be signed and handed to my Associate before you leave the Court.

I certify that the preceding thirty-three (33) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex-tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Baumann.