Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte

1. The parents make joint decisions in relation to all major long-term issues in relation to the children, X born in 2011 (age 13) and Y born in 2013 (age 11) ("the children").
2. Within 7 days, the parties do all acts and things necessary to enrol:

(a) the child, X born in 2011 (age 13) into B School; and

(b) the child, Y born in 2013 (age 11) into C School with schooling to commence at the commencement of Term 4, 2025.

1. The children live with the Father.
2. The children spend time with the Mother as follows:

(a) In Suburb D, Queensland unless the parties agree a different location in writing, for one half of all school term holidays as agreed between the parents and in default of agreement:

(i) in odd numbered years from the conclusion of the last day of school term until 5pm the mid Saturday of the school term holidays; and.

(ii) in even numbered years, from 5pm the mid Saturday until 5pm on the Saturday before the commencement of the first school week of Term 1.

(b) In Suburb D, Queensland unless the parties agree a different location in writing, for one half of all long summer holiday vacations at such times as agreed between the parents and in default of agreement:

(i) in even numbered years from the conclusion of school for the school year until 5pm on the mid-day of the school holidays; and

(ii) in odd numbered years, from 5pm the mid-day of the school holidays until 5pm on the Saturday before the commencement of the first school week of Term 1.

(c) Upon the Mother giving the Father 48 hours' notice of her intention to travel to Victoria, the children spend time and communicate with the Mother as agreed between the parents in writing and failing agreement:

(i) For a period of not less than 8 hours on two consecutive days if the Mother is to travel to Victoria on a weekend; and

(ii) For a period of not less than 4 hours on two consecutive days if the Mother is to travel to Victoria on a weekday.

(d) And at such other times as may be agreed between the Mother and Father in writing.

1. To facilitate time pursuant to orders 6(a) and 6(b):

(a) The Mother is to pay the children's flights to Town E Airport;

(b) The Father is to pay the children's return flights to Melbourne Airport; and

(c) the Father shall deliver the children to Melbourne Airport at a time and in accordance with the flight recommendations including as to any requirements regarding accompaniment of a minor and any associated costs.

(a) at the children's school on school days;

(b) at McDonalds F Shopping Centre, on non-school days

(c) as otherwise agreed between the parents in writing including by text message.

1. That the children communicate with the Mother by video calls on two days each week at such times and on such days as agreed between the parties in writing and in default of agreement, on Monday and Friday at 7:00pm with the Mother to call the children and the Father to facilitate those calls;
2. The children be at liberty to communicate with each parent by telephone, Facetime at all reasonable times they seek to do so, with the other parent to facilitate any calls.
3. The children and the parent with whom they are not living be at liberty to communicate by text and snapchat at all reasonable times.
4. The parties will communicate in writing by the parenting application AppClose in relation to all matters of health, welfare, development and travel of the children except in the circumstances of urgency when they party seeking to alert the other about an emergency will call at first instance and if they are unable to reach the other party will communicate the circumstance through AppClose.
5. Until further order and without admitting the necessity for same, the parents and their servants and/or agents be restrained from the following:

(a) abusing, insulting, belittling or otherwise denigrating the other party or their family in the presence or hearing of the children and from allowing anyone else to do so;

(b) discussing these proceedings, adult matters or exposing the children to parental conflict within the presence or hearing of the child or allowing anyone else to do so;

(c) using the children as messengers to communicate with the parent;

(d) exposing the children to all forms of family violence or allowing anyone else to do so;

(e) being under the influence of any alcohol and/or illicit substances whilst the children are in the parent's respective care; and

(f) bringing the children or either of in contact with MR FROST (the maternal grandfather) in any way unless another adult is present.

1. Pursuant to ss 65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders are set out in Attachment A and these particulars are included in these Orders.
2. Order 6 (c) has been amended pursuant to rule 10.1.3 of the F_ederal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021_ (Cth) on 2 October 2025.

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

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

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

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

1. On 24 September 2025, I conducted a hearing of an Application for Review filed on 1 September 2025 ("the review application") by Ms Frost, the respondent mother in the substantive proceedings ("the mother"), in respect of interim parenting orders made by a Senior Judicial Registrar ("SJR") on 12 August 2025 ("the interim orders") concerning two children, X born in 2011 and Y born in 2013("the children").
2. The respondent to the review application is the children's father Mr Maple ("the father"). The SJR had ordered that on an interim basis the mother return the children to live in Victoria by 25 September 2025 in circumstances where she had unilaterally relocated with them to Queensland in mid-2024. The mother had asserted that the reason for the relocation was for her safety and the safety of the children.
3. The orders of the SJR also provided for the children to live with the mother and spend time with the father. They did not provide alternative orders in the event that the children returned to Victoria but the mother remained living in Queensland. By her review application, the mother seeks review of the interim orders in respect of the children returning to Victoria, their enrolment at school in Victoria, and the time that the children spend with the father.

1. The order of the SJR was one which was amenable to judicial review as the decision of the SJR exercised delegated powers.[1] Applications for Review are governed by Part 14.3 of Chapter 14 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) ("the Rules").
2. The procedure for the review is governed by Rule 14.07 of the Rules, and I exercise the same power the SJR exercised on the interim hearing. I am to determine the parenting issues de novo, that is, afresh.

1. There are well-established legal principles concerning interim parenting orders. These reasons are delivered orally and in short form, pursuant to s 69ZL of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act"), as the judgment concerns interim parenting orders. When making interim parenting orders, the Court is guided by the paramount consideration of the best interests of the children as required by s 60CA of the Act.
2. In determining interim parenting orders, the Court must consider the matters set out in s 60CC of the Act, including the benefit to the children of having a meaningful relationship with both parents, the need to protect the children from physical or psychological harm, any views expressed by the children, the capacity of each parent to provide for the children's needs, and the likely effect of any changes in the children's circumstances.
3. The Court is also mindful of the principles in Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346 and Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101, which emphasise that interim orders are made on the basis of undisputed or unchallenged evidence as the evidence is not tested by cross-examination, and that it may not be possible to make findings of fact about disputed matters or circumstances.

1. Based on the undisputed or unchallenged evidence before the Court at the hearing of the review application, the following assessment is made of the relevant s 60CC considerations.

1. There is no current family violence order or child protection involvement.
2. The mother alleges historical family violence at the parties' separation by the father, but the children spent regular time post-separation for three to four nights per fortnight with the father for at least four years before the mother unilaterally relocated the children to Queensland.
3. Although the mother asserts that the relocation to Queensland was precipitated by the mother's concerns about family violence, either by the maternal grandfather Mr Frost or some sort of alleged collusion between the father and maternal grandfather, the evidence, including that contained in the Child Impact Report dated 11 July 2025, indicates that both children feel safe with the father and describe him as a "good person".
4. The relocation was sudden and without the father's consent or knowledge, such that the Court Child Expert is of the view that it had a detrimental impact on the children's emotional and psychological wellbeing, particularly X. This is a matter that is relevant to the safety of the children.

1. Both parties raised concerns about alcohol abuse by the other parent.
2. The father's hair follicle test before the Court indicates low to moderate alcohol consumption. The mother delayed her test and produced a damaged sample with explanations that were not fully supported by medical records. On the basis of the independent test results before the Court, it seems unlikely that the father currently has an alcohol misuse problem or that his alcohol use poses a material risk of harm to the children.

1. There was considerable evidence before the Court about the children's views. When interviewed by the Court Child Expert in July 2025, X stated he wished to live with the father in Victoria and spend time with the mother during school holidays if she remains in Queensland. Y was uncertain, but missed her friends, school, and family in Victoria.
2. Both children were missing spending time with the father and said that they were comfortable in his presence.
3. When the Independent Children Lawyer ("ICL") spoke to the children shortly before the review hearing, they reported to the ICL as follows:

(a) X wants to return to live in Victoria, which is consistent with his previous views;

(b) Y is more circumspect, but wants to spend more time with the father;

(c) Both want to spend time with the maternal grandfather;

(d) Y asked what would happen if they returned to live in Victoria but the mother remained in Queensland, and the ICL explained that they would live with the father and spend time with the mother during holidays. Y said that only spending time with the mother during the holidays would make her sad; and

(e) Y does not have an issue with returning to her previous primary school, despite the submissions made by the mother to the contrary effect at the review hearing.

1. I give little weight to what the mother says now about Y's views as I infer it is quite possible that Y knows that the mother does not want the children to return to Victoria. It is more likely that the views the children expressed to independent persons, namely, the Court Child Expert and the ICL, are more reliable. I take those views into account.
2. The children have consistently reported their views as being safe and accepting of return to live in Victoria, and a willingness to live with the father if the mother does not return. Both children stated they would miss their mother if she continued to live in Queensland and they lived in Victoria with the father. The children's views as expressed in the Child Impact Report and to the ICL are given significant weight, consistent with their ages and maturity (see Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte [2017] HCA 8[2]).

1. The father works full-time, pays child support, and resides near the children's former school. He has extended family support in Region G with whom the children have had a shared and good relationship in the past. The father can be expected to support the children's relationship with the mother if they return to Victoria.
2. However, the mother's actions in unilaterally relocating the children with little, if any, evidence that she or the children were at risk of harm from the father demonstrates that she has limited understanding of the importance of the children's relationship with the father as discussed by the Court Child Expert in the Child Impact Report at [74], whose views I accept.
3. The children have a close, loving relationship with extended family in Victoria, which has been disrupted by the relocation. This raises significant concern about the mother failing to prioritise the interests of the children over her own. The mother has been the primary carer of the children, but the father has also been involved to a significant degree in the care and support of the children, and there is no evidence that he has been or is unable to meet the children's needs.

1. The Court accepts the Child Impact Report as persuasive evidence of the children's views, feelings, and experiences. The absence of current protective orders or child protection involvement weighs against the finding that the father poses a risk to the children's safety and welfare. Further, the fact that the children were spending significant time in the father's care before their relocation confirms that the mother did not have real or genuine concerns about the father posing a risk of harm to their safety or wellbeing. The preponderance of evidence is to the effect that the father does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm or any material risk to the children were they to live in Victoria.
2. Having regard to the evidence to which I have referred and the assessment of the considerations which inform the best interests of the children, it is in the best interests of the children that they return to Victoria. This will restore their relationships with the father and extended family, ensuring their developmental and emotional needs are met and also acknowledging their expressed wishes, which should be given significant weight given their age and developmental stages.
3. There is no concern on the evidence before the Court about the children resuming school in Victoria as the children are familiar with the school to which they will return and they have friends there. They have knowledge and familiarity with the teachers and the school environment.
4. The review application will be dismissed, but I will need to hear from the parties about variation of the live and spend time interim orders made by the SJR because the mother stated at the review hearing that she would not be returning to Victoria in the near future, essentially, due to financial constraints.
5. Accordingly, it may also be necessary to vary some of the other interim orders that the SJR made on 12 August 2025. Further, as I assume the children travelled to Victoria as planned on 25 September 2025, given their experiences when they were unexpectedly relocated to Queensland, careful consideration should be given to how the children will be informed about the Court's orders and that they will not be returning to live with the mother in Queensland.
6. It may also be necessary to make further orders to ensure seamless implementation of the Court's orders for the children to live in Victoria, especially so if the mother does not return in the near future. I need to hear from the parties about those matters.

I certify that the preceding twenty-nine (29) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge Taglieri.

[1] Section 254 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) and in Schedule 4, Clause 2 of the Rules, by adoption; Rule 14.05 of the Rules.