Bonhomme & Bonhomme (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1F 17 | Case summary

[2022] FedCFamC1A 1Bonhomme & Bonhomme (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1F 17 | Case summary | Zoe

[38]

This is an application for final parenting orders between the applicant mother, Ms Bonhomme ("the mother") and the respondent father, Mr Bonhomme ("the father") in respect of X (currently six years of age) and Y (currently four years of age).
During the trial, orders were made by consent resolving a number of parenting orders that had previously been in dispute. Having been satisfied that the orders proposed were in the best interests of the children, they were made on 26 November 2025.
The remaining issues in dispute concerned parental responsibility, the time the children will spend with their father, which school the children will attend and several ancillary issues.
In respect of parental responsibility, the mother sought orders for sole decision-making responsibility while the father sought orders for joint decision-making responsibility.
The mother had unilaterally changed the residence of the children from the Suburb B area to the City H area, but by the time of the final trial, there was no dispute that the children would continue to live with their mother in the City H area and spend time with their father in the Suburb B area. There were no issues of risk. There was no dispute that both parties had the capacity to meet the developmental, emotional, psychological and cultural needs of the children in their respective households.
The parties each sought orders for the children to spend significant time with their father with whom they have a close and loving relationship. The mother sought an arrangement where the children would spend four nights each fortnight with their father in 2026 during the school terms, transitioning to five nights each fortnight during terms in 2027, and time increasing to half school holidays. The father sought orders for five nights per fortnight in 2026, transitioning to six nights each fortnight in 2027 during term and half holidays.
The parties remained in dispute about which school the children should attend. The father gave evidence that he considered the travel burden on the children if they attended the school preferred by the mother would be too great, such that if an order was made for the children to attend the mother's preferred school, his time with the children would, by necessity, not increase.
The question of what time with the father is in the best interests of the children is informed by considering each of the matters set out in s 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act"). In this case, given the distance between the parties respective homes, the benefit of the children having a relationship with each parent is also informed by a consideration of time arrangements that can practically be implemented.

[39]

The father is 45 years of age, and the mother is 36 years of age. Cohabitation commenced in 2012 or 2013. They married in 2016 and separated on a final basis on 13 September 2023, the same day the mother commenced parenting proceedings.
The mother commenced a romantic relationship with Mr G in around May 2023. They reside together and Mr G's two children are in a shared time arrangement with their respective mothers. The mother and Mr G are currently engaged.
Following separation, the father remained and continues to live in the former matrimonial home.
The mother and children resided in a friend's home in Region BB prior to residing with the mother's grandmother in Suburb J. By August 2024, she and the children were spending up to six nights a fortnight in the City H area with Mr G.
Interim orders were made on 24 October 2024 by Senior Judicial Registrar Turner for the children to live with the mother and spend increasing time with the father on an unsupervised and overnight basis; for X to be enrolled in D School in 2025; and for Y to continue schooling at E Early Learning Centre from Monday to Thursday in 2025. No orders were made as to where the mother was to live. The practical effect of these circumstances was that the children travelled between their school in Suburb B and the mother's various residences in the City H area for approximately 18 months. The interim orders remained in force at the date of the trial.
The mother filed an Application for Review on 28 November 2024 which was dismissed by McGuire J on 12 December 2024. The mother appealed this decision which was dismissed by the Full Court.
Notwithstanding the interim orders, the mother again relocated with the children without notice to Suburb CC in on 20 December 2024, further away from Sydney due to Mr G's lease ending at Suburb K.
On 2 October 2025, the mother once again relocated with the children without notice to Suburb AA, to a home she had purchased, which was again a move further away from Sydney.
The practical effect of these circumstances has required the children to travel a long distance between their school in Suburb B and the mother's residence in Suburb AA.
Prior to the mother's unilateral relocation, the parties had agreed that the children would receive a private education such that the children were to attend M School from Year 3. The mother sought orders for the children to attend F School (being the school the youngest of Mr G's daughters attends) and the father sought orders that the children attend U School, a school approximately midway between the parties' respective homes.

[50]

Although both parents sought orders that the children spend significant time with the father, and there was no contest that each had the capacity to provide for the development, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the children, the mother sought orders for sole decision-making responsibility.
The mother contended that issues of family violence, the type of family violence perpetrated at various points in the relationship, the mother's response to family violence in the context of her history, the work undertaken by the parties with their individual therapists and their ability to co-parent in the future were relevant to the determination of parental responsibility and to school choice.
The father sought joint long-term decision-making responsibility which he contended was necessary to prevent the marginalisation of his role with the children and to prevent him becoming "sidelined" in his role as their father, which he contended was not in the children's best interests.
Dr N observed in the 2025 Single Expert Report that the mother's proposal that she be granted sole parental responsibility "would protect the children from exposure to ongoing parental conflict". He opined that joint decision-making responsibility would "perpetuate the current issues associated with the lack of mutual respect, trust and goodwill which impedes communication and problem solving." This weighs in favour of an order for sole decision‑making authority being held by the mother.
In his oral evidence, however, Dr N opined that the mother should not hold sole decision making in respect of the children's names, religion and where the children live and he supported a restraint on further relocations by the mother.
Dr N also identified that an order for sole decision-making responsibility may result in the exclusion of the father and paternal family from involvement in the children's lives, as feared by the father.
I have carefully considered the opinion of Dr N as set out in each of the four reports he prepared from 2023 to 2025, and have considered and give weight to the opinions he expressed when he gave his oral evidence. I accept, as identified by Dr N, that the level of distrust and dysfunctional communication between these parents is a strong indicator against an order for joint decision-making responsibility.
However, another significant consideration in determining decision-making responsibility is the extent to which the mother has made unilateral decisions, excluded the father from decisions and failed to inform him of significant issues impacting the children, thus marginalising the capacity of the father to be informed and involved in decisions impacting the children. That exclusion and potential loss of connection between the children and the father and paternal family, particularly given the young ages of the children, is of concern and weighs against an order for sole decision-making authority being held by the mother.
It is balancing these competing considerations that is at the nub of the determination of what orders for decision-making are in the best interests of these children.

[60]

The mother made allegations the father was coercive and controlling during the relationship, was emotionally abusive, stalked and psychologically threatened her and she reported that he had restricted contact with her friends and family. She said that he was still a stalking risk to her. The mother reported to her treating psychologist, Ms P (who she commenced seeing in March 2024), "an extended period of domestic abuse and coercive control which escalated following their separation."
The mother deposed that during the relationship the father frequently called her "dumb", "stupid", "a bogan" and a "stupid fucking bitch", including when the children were present. The father agreed he said "slit your wrists you psycho" on 20 October 2022 and that he verbally denigrated the mother by reference to her intelligence. He agreed that he had called her "dumb", "stupid" and "a bogan" and said that some of his comments were said in front of the children.
The mother gave evidence that she was required to have a nanny present to oversee her at all times if she went out, complained of a lack of privacy, and gave an example of the control being illustrated by questions as to why she was longer than 15 minutes in the shower. The mother deposed that the derogatory taunts and abuse and oversight was ongoing throughout the marriage.
The mother gave evidence of the father's behaviour after she attended a "Hens party" of her friend in April 2023, where there was a dispute about the time she was to return home. The text messages sent by the father in April 2023 were arrogant, belittling, demeaning and offensive. He directed that the mother was to transfer to him $360 to cover the nanny's costs and referred to her as "an extremely stupid woman". The text exchanges included the father asking the mother to take three months away from work and accusing the mother of putting her job ahead of their marriage. The messages do not reflect well on the father.
The mother gave evidence of further conflict between the parties following the wedding of the same friend they attended later that month.
The mother's reports to Dr N of isolation from family as a form of coercion and control is at odds with her evidence that she had a complex history with her family, particularly her mother, including a period of estrangement from her mother of a decade and a complex childhood impacted by her mother's psychological health.
The mother reported to Dr N ongoing communication and support from friends such that her reports of isolation from friends because of the father is inconsistent with these reports. The mother reported to Dr N that she kept in touch with her friends and had kept a diary of the father's behaviours at the suggestion of one of her friends. No witness was called by the mother, and the "DV diary", although requested in a Notice to Produce, was never produced and was not part of her evidence. If the mother had contemporaneous notes corroborating her evidence it is unexplained why they were not produced.
The mother gave evidence that she had been away for work for several days in March 2023 and that she had not responded to a message sent by the father about Y's sleeping. She complained that the father had ignored her text messages and calls the following day. She gave evidence of him minimising her work successes, requiring her to leave a work awards event when Y could not be settled and criticising her work choices.
The mother complained the father took pictures of her. She also deposed that after she had taken a photograph of the father at changeover on 11 January 2024, he sent her an abusive message the following day, saying:

[62]

The mother complained that the father would not communicate at handover and of his abusive behaviour. The mother deposed that she attended handover with Mr G and his children on 25 January 2024. Her evidence was that "[Mr G] and his children were also in the car, where they remained with the windows wound up." She said that the father then went over to the car and took photos of Mr G yelling abuse, including "[d]on't ever come to the property again! You're a scumbag mate!".
The father then sent the picture he had taken of Mr G to the mother's uncle. The event reflects poorly on both parents. On the mother, firstly by taking Mr G to the property when there was tension and mistrust between the parties, and secondly by her sworn evidence that Mr G remained in the car "with the windows wound up" when the photograph depicts Mr G with the window down, his elbow out of the window, smiling toward the camera. On the father, firstly by yelling and being abusive to Mr G, and secondly, by being unable to restrain himself from such conduct in the presence of not only his own children but also Mr G's children.
The father agreed that on 13 September 2023 he said to Ms Q he "might just obliterate" the mother and it was "time for her to feel the boot psychologically and financially." The language he used is aggressive, threatening and concerning. It is the context of the language that is important in considering the mother's case that the father was coercive and controlling and thus a perpetrator of family violence.
In explaining his words to Ms Q, the father said that at the time he made the comment, he had just received a text from the mother that she had taken the children. The mother sent a text to the father at 2.25 pm advising she had taken the children. It was suggested that he did not receive or see the message until after the appointment because Ms Q had not recorded any detail of him having received a text message in her notes. I accept the father's evidence as to the timing of the counselling appointment and the receipt of the message because he had an appointment scheduled that afternoon with Ms Q, and his explanation as to his high emotion and inappropriate comments made at the time he was advised that the mother had left with the children is inherently likely.
The mother's application for parenting orders and affidavit in support was served on the father's lawyers on 13 September 2023. This day was one of high emotion for the parties and was the day of final separation. I accept that the father's comments on this occasion were as he explained, highly charged and emotive in the context of the parties' separation and having been told the mother had taken the children, rather than a course of conduct as contended.
The mother contended that the father's hostility and attempts to control her have continued since separation. She gave evidence that after she left the home, the father set up additional cameras in the home, and on an occasion, recorded her on his mobile phone. The father agreed that on 20 October 2023 he had advised the mother he had additional cameras at the house and on an occasion when the mother attended the home and the parties had a dispute over a music box, the father had recorded the mother. Despite requests to produce the recordings, the father did not do so. If the father had a recording of the interaction between the parties that corroborated his version it is unexplained why he did not produce it.
There was also mutual poor communication between the parties that occurred during the period around separation and after separation. In many instances, such as the refusal to reply to each other when the mother attended an event in March 2023 and the taking of pictures of each other at handover, the conduct has a flavour of tit-for-tat.
On 20 October 2023, shortly after separation, the mother attended the family home to collect belongings that were agreed to by the father. In addition to the items that were agreed, the mother deposed that she "picked up the children's music box which they liked to help them sleep". She said that the father then snatched the music box from her hands and knocked her and Y over in the process, and then called for his friend present in the house to call the police, claiming that the mother had assaulted him. The father agreed there was an incident but said the mother pushed him backwards, causing him to accidentally trip Y over. The mother said she was fearful and left immediately with Y, making a police report herself about the incident. She contended that this was an example of the father's lack of insight and the impact of the father's conduct on the mother.
The mother sought to take an item not agreed. The father could simply have agreed to the mother taking the music box. Equally, the mother could simply have collected the agreed items and not sought to remove an additional item. The behaviour of both parties at this time was poor and highlights the extent of the conflict and high emotion in the time around separation.
After separation, there was conflict in respect of some parenting issues such as a complaint the father made of the children living in an "insect infected abode" on 26 December 2023. The language used was critical of the mother's care of the children. More recently, there was conflictual communication between the parents over a dispute as to the appropriate treatment for a suspected tick.
After careful consideration of the evidence and the context in which it occurred, I find that the father was emotionally abusive and denigrated the mother's intelligence both during the relationship and shortly after separation. The father's conduct prior to and at the time of separation included using language that was demeaning and denigrating. It was inappropriate and would have been upsetting for the mother, particularly given the mother's developmental vulnerabilities and her experience of having been exposed to coercion and control in her childhood by her parents, as identified by Ms P.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the mother was subject to the claimed control and isolation by the father that she contended. Additionally, her claim of oversight, control and lack of privacy was inconsistent with her engagement in a clandestine relationship with Mr G over many months, undetected.
The father gave evidence that he completed a 12-week in-person Men's Behavioural Change Program in June 2024. He also completed two parenting courses which he said have helped him learn about working cooperatively with the other parent, managing conflict and endeavouring to focus on the interests of the children by minimising the conflict between the parties. He said one of the techniques he learned was to "not allow a cycle of spiralling" and to let the conversation end, rather than make tit-for-tat accusations. I accept the father's evidence that he has made efforts to work on improving his previous poor behaviours and inappropriate communication style and now has a greater appreciation of the impact of his behaviour on the mother. I also accept that the father has at times failed to employ the techniques he claimed to have learned in some ongoing inappropriate communication with the mother.

[69]

Dr N observed that around the time of separation the father had become depressed, acted in an angry and threatening manner, and was suspicious. His conduct referred to above is consistent with that observation.
The father relied on evidence from his treating psychologist, Ms MM. Ms MM gave detailed evidence of the treatment she has provided since April 2024 and of the father's progress in respect of his parenting. She opined that the father continues to present with relationship distress and adjustment stressors, but that their sessions have been beneficial to him in coping with his grief symptoms while "fostering emerging awareness of the relational factors influencing the co-parenting dynamic" and working on emotional regulation and reflective functioning. She said that he has shown active engagement and commitment in their treatment sessions. The treatment in these sessions includes personal-centred therapy, trauma-informed Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy and psychoeducation. She opined that the father is "very motivated to engage in further restorative conciliation."
Ms MM was not required for cross-examination. I accept her uncontested evidence.
The mother contended that the father's inflexibility in changing arrangements, which were reasonably requested, supported the making of an order for sole decision making in respect of parental responsibility. She gave various examples including the camping trip of January 2024 and the Mother's Day 2025 request in support of the contention that the father lacked insight.
In respect of the Mother's Day request, it was accepted it was received only days prior to the event and the response was that arrangements had already been made for that weekend. It was not unreasonable that the father refused a late request when plans for his otherwise quite limited time had already been made.
The father refused the mother's proposal during January 2024 for the children to attend a camping trip from 15 to 21 January 2024 in circumstances where he knew he would be away on a trip in Country NN. His refusal in this instance lacked insight and child focus. The father's oral evidence was that the trip was a family trip agreed to in May or June 2023. The itinerary produced evidenced only a single adult airfare to travel to Country NN from mid-January until late January 2024, and not for a family trip. This lack of transparency with the Court and his explanation it was a family trip is not supported on the independent evidence.
In this instance the father was aware of his travel plans and his refusal to vary the time which would have enabled the children to engage in a camping experience shows a lack of flexibility and insight at this time and reflects poorly on him. Equally, the father's rigidity in refusing to alter the weekend arrangements to coincide with Mr G's children's time appears to have been a petty and inflexible approach by the father, particularly because if he had altered the arrangement, it could have been an indicator of a positive and cooperative co-parenting relationship.
The mother, through her lawyers, asked the father if they could push back the changeover time to 9.30 am on Saturday to allow her the option of travelling with the children by train. His lawyers responded with questions about the details of the travel and arrangement. The father's evidence was that he needed clarity on the travel arrangements to understand whether the children would be exhausted from an arduous travel journey. He accepted it would not have inconvenienced him significantly. However, he said that he sees his elderly father on Saturdays and that might have been a factor he had to consider, but that he could not recall exactly why he did not accept that change in travel that day. The father lacked flexibility and lacked child focus in this refusal. He knew the train travel was from the City H area and would have given the mother respite from the driving commitments, which were significant. This again reflects poorly on him.
The father accepted that these were not examples of him implementing what he had learned from the courses he participated in and from his work with the Men's Behaviour Change Program with Mr OO. In his oral evidence he acknowledged his shortcomings, and I accept his evidence that he is always learning new ways to improve the co-parenting relationship, that the course has not completed him as a good co-parent but that he is constantly working on that. It does not detract from his past inflexible and at times petty responses to co-parenting, but gives some optimism for improvement.

[75]

In March 2024, Y told her father that Mr G had touched her in her red zone. The following day, after the father had taken her to a GP, the father made a formal allegation to the police regarding Y's disclosure to him that Mr G touched her in her "red zone". His lawyers informed the mother that an allegation had been made.
The mother informed Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) in March 2024 that Mr G had once assisted Y with toileting. The mother subsequently swore an affidavit in May 2024 deposing that Mr G had not previously assisted the children with toileting. Mr G deposed in October 2024 that he once helped Y wipe her bottom after she had "done a poo" while the mother was present.
The mother maintained her narrative that the father fabricated a report that Y said Mr G touched her in her "red zone." In her sworn evidence, the mother deposed that she did not believe that Y made the allegation the father claimed she did. The mother largely maintained this position in her oral evidence. She answered in cross-examination that Y's comment to her father that she had a sore "bum-bum" was taken out of context and was then used by the father to lie and manufacture a malicious allegation.
The mother started seeing her clinical psychologist, Ms P, on 26 March 2024 and in a report dated 17 April 2024, Ms P recorded that the mother had told her that DCJ had determined the father's claim to have been vexatious.
Because of the claimed false or vexatious report, the mother sought supervised time between the father and the children. The father then had limited supervised time with the children for a period of time.
Dr N accepted the proposition that the depth of antipathy held by the mother to the father was illustrated by the mother's maintaining her steadfast belief that the father had made up allegations in circumstances where Mr G had assisted with toileting at the time the concern was legitimately raised and the disclosure was made in language that Y uses. In cross-examination, the mother simultaneously accepted that Mr G had touched X in her "red zone", but maintained that the father had made up the allegation. The mother did not seem to appreciate that such a position was illogical and illustrates the depth of the animus she holds.

[80]

In oral evidence, it was revealed by Mr G that he had been involved in the children's discipline at this time. Mr G gave oral evidence about X having "blackouts" in 2024 lasting up to 10 minutes, due to a loss of control of her emotional regulation. He said this would occur once or twice a week but is now happening approximately once a month. He said he was involved in her discipline which included placing her outside during such periods.
In response to the father's reasonable request for information about the discipline of the children the mother was misleading about the discipline of X undertaken by Mr G.
Neither the mother nor Mr G deposed in their sworn evidence about the blackouts and the emotional dysregulation of X or the discipline of X by Mr G, including him putting her outside during periods of dysregulation. I find that they were both less than frank by this omission.
Dr N confirmed that he was aware of the use of "Time-Out strategies" for managing X's meltdowns but gave oral evidence that he had not been provided with the details that X had exhibited behaviours that led to her blacking out for up to 10 minutes at a time because she was unable to regulate herself. This was important information to withhold.
The mother reported to Dr N that her experience was that the father continued to pursue her partner, Mr G, despite there being "a lack of evidence to support the father's concerns that the children were at risk of child sexual abuse or inappropriate discipline in the care of the mother and her partner, [Mr G]."
The mother was not a frank witness about the issues of X's blackouts, the extent of her dysregulation or of the discipline of X by Mr G. She did not include any detail of X's dysregulated behaviour in her sworn evidence, and the father was positively told by her lawyers that Mr G was not involved in the disciplining of the children when this was untrue. The mother maintained her narrative that she did not accept X held the view that Mr G had been "mean" to her, when she well knew that he had been involved in the discipline of X, when it was recorded in the L Contact Service notes and when the father had raised concerns about it.
The mother claimed the children would never see her poor view of him. It was contended that there is no evidence that X and Y are currently aware of the poor view held by the mother and Mr G of the father, such that there is no risk to the relationship because the children have been shielded from the animus. I do not accept that contention in circumstances where Y was recorded in the L Contact Service notes from 14 June 2024 saying to her father "Mummy doesn't like you", and when Dr N asked X what Mr G and her father thought about each other, she stated to him that they had bad thoughts about each other. Additionally, their older stepsisters were present on the occasions that Mr G attended the home for changeover when the father was angered by his presence and made abusive comments toward Mr G when he was in the car. The mother accepted that Mr G's children feared the father and said something like "he looks like he's mad" about the father.
The children have been exposed to the poor view held by the mother's household of the father and it is reasonable to infer they will continue to be. There is an awareness of the mother's and Mr G's feelings towards the father, and of the tensions between the father and Mr G. In my view, given the history, it is more likely than not that the children will become more aware of the poor view of their father in the mother's household, particularly as they grow older.
Dr N observed at paragraph 208 of his August 2024 Single Expert Report that:

[88]

The only major long-term issue apparent at the present time is whether and which treating therapist X should attend upon for counselling. An order directing the means by which the parties will facilitate the children's attendance on a counsellor will overcome any issue of poor communication having a deleterious impact on the children by exposure to conflict or by delay in a decision being reached, in respect of this defined issue.
Dr N identified that X has been a "people pleaser". During the evidence, it became apparent that X has had significant "meltdowns" or "blackouts" and suffered emotional dysregulation when in the care of the mother. No information about this concerning behaviour had been shared with the father.
The mother initially did not acknowledge that the move from Sydney to the City H area and into a new home with new siblings, a new parental figure, and away from the father and paternal family, may have negatively impacted the children. In cross-examination, the mother conceded that the children were impacted by the swiftness of these changes.
Dr N agreed with the proposition that both parents should be involved to the maximum extent possible in any therapy for X. Given the evidence of X's emotional dysregulation, I am satisfied that such an order is in her best interests. It is accordingly appropriate that an order be made for a mechanism for the children to attend upon a therapist, should either parent seek such to occur, and prescriptive for the process of selection of a therapist if the children or either of them attends counselling, such that both parents can be involved to the maximum extent possible.
If either parent wishes for either child to attend a therapist or psychologist and the parties cannot come to an agreement as to a counsellor or psychologist, the mother shall nominate three practitioners, and the father shall select the practitioner to be seen. This is to avoid the parties being in conflict about the selection of a practitioner and to avoid any delay in the process of selection of a practitioner. It also creates a framework to minimise dispute and create certainty of timeframe and the practitioner.

[99]

Fourthly, Dr N and Ms P identified that the mother had underlying vulnerabilities arising from her own developmental experience in her family of origin. Dr N opined that her underlying vulnerabilities had not been effectively addressed, despite these being identified both by him and by her treating therapist, Ms P.
The father's conduct in having sent a message to the mother of one of Mr G's daughters and to Mr G's father was perceived by the mother as threatening and scared her. Dr N opined that these behaviours of the father which were both provocative and inappropriate, have been a cause of stress for the mother and have had a serious impact on her. Dr N considered that her earlier developmental experiences with her family of origin and her experiences in the latter stages of her marriage, including the father's comments on Father's Day 2023, have made her particularly vulnerable.
Dr N reported that the mother's therapist, Ms P, has formed a positive and enduring therapeutic alliance with her client, such that the mother has felt respected, supported, and has developed coping strategies in the context of this therapeutic intervention. He said that there was a need for more intensive intervention with Ms P, and reported that Ms P was of the same view and could provide the more intensive intervention. The mother's evidence was that the lack of time and travel burden to Sydney for school from the City H area has impeded her capacity to engage more regularly. I accept this is the case.
Post-separation, the mother continued to consider the father to be a threat. The mother has not engaged in the supports she needs to address her long-standing vulnerabilities which may impede her capacity to support the relationship between the children and the father. By these orders, the mother will have set times when the children are in the father's care five nights per fortnight and will not have the significant travel burden between the City H area and Suburb B anymore, which will open more opportunity for her to attend to her therapy needs.
The mother will remain the primary carer for the children, as she has been since at least separation. By these orders, she will be able to engage in her necessary therapy more readily. For her to be psychologically supported and be able to address her long-standing vulnerabilities is in the children's best interests.

[100]

The mother has been diagnosed with [redacted] and gave evidence of her concern of the impact of this diagnosis on the parenting orders to be made.
She deposed that her [redacted] has not progressed since January 2022, which was her last episode and course of treatment, and it is mostly well managed through medication with the occasional relapse.
Her evidence was that she requires monthly blood tests reviewed by her GP and biannual health checks by Dr DD, and MRI's. She deposed that because of the time she spends travelling, "[t]here are not enough hours in the day for me to prioritise these health checks and I have been inconsistent with my monthly blood tests." She also deposed about her concerns that her inability to undertake activities to maintain her physical health, such as attending the gym, and continuing to sleep for about four hours each night, will negatively impact her [redacted]. The mother was required to undertake six hours of daily travel, 11 days per fortnight in order to comply with the orders. She was awake from 4.00 am and completed her work and domestic tasks, usually at midnight, in order to leave home by 5.30 am for the commute to Sydney. Upon return home after the children were asleep, the mother would have some hours of work and domestic tasks to attend to. There is no doubt the arrangements were arduous.
The mother relied on evidence from her treating clinician. Dr DD said that the mother has done well with treatments and there has been no decline in her capacity and no progression of the disease since her first consultation in 2014. He did not consider that her condition impacted her in any lasting or clinical way. His evidence was not challenged and I accept his evidence.
In considering the practicality of the implementation of orders that are in the children's best interests, I accept that the mother's capacity to manage her symptoms by ensuring compliance with blood tests and reviews and by looking after her physical health are relevant and I have regard to these matters.
The father gave evidence in respect of a back condition that he said placed some limit on his capacity to drive long distances. The mother contended the father's claim regarding his back condition and its impact on his capacity to drive was a confection. I reject that contention. The independent evidence is that the father reported to his GP and to Dr PP that he has had issues relating to pain in his back for a number of years.
Having said that, the evidence before the Court does not permit me to make any finding as to any impediment of the father to drive between Suburb B and the City H area. I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the father's health has any impact on the practical implementation of orders for time.

[101]

Fifthly, there is a risk that the children will lose the benefit of regular and ongoing involvement, connection to and understanding of their paternal family and to their Country QQ heritage, of which the children have been exposed to and aware of since birth by the involvement of the paternal family.
The father contended that the proximity to the paternal family in Suburb B facilitates the children's connection to their paternal family and a connection to their culture.
The father expressed to Dr N his concern that the "children's cultural engagement with his extended family had been impeded by the mother's relocation from Sydney". Dr N observed that "[t]he children's cultural needs to maintain a relationship with their [Country QQ] roots had been addressed by the father". Dr N accepted that weekend time and block time with their father would still enable the children to understand and enjoy their Country QQ heritage. I accept that to be so, however, the nature and extent of their cultural engagement would, by necessity, reduce and thus be impeded.
The paternal grandfather provided evidence of his active involvement with and close relationship with the children. His evidence included his regular involvement with the children, attendance at school events, birthday parties, and sporting events. He described a close and involved relationship with the girls from which they derive benefit. He speaks to the girls about their cultural background and family in Country RR. He was not required for cross‑examination. I accept his evidence.
The paternal aunt gave evidence of her close relationship with the children, and of their close relationship with her children, their cousins, aged three and seven. The aunt spends time with the children at least once a month and on special occasions as well as family catch ups. She was not required for cross-examination. I accept her evidence.
The paternal grandmother gave evidence of her close relationship with the children. She spent regular time during the week and weekends with the children prior to separation and was involved in their care. She speaks to the children about their Country QQ culture and heritage and intends to continue to introduce them to their history, family, food and culture. She was not required for cross-examination, and I accept her evidence.
I accept the evidence of the paternal family of the close and loving relationship they have and of the regular and enjoyable times the children spend with their significant extended family members.
The mother agreed that she had a good relationship with the paternal family prior to separation, that the paternal family are a great resource to the children, that the children benefit from having the maximum amount of involvement with their extended paternal family, and that the paternal family were a valuable connection to the children during the relationship and still are. She acknowledged the positive relationship and the time the paternal family enjoys with the children, including holidays at Suburb SS.
Dr N opined that the mother "failed to recognise the benefit to the children of maintaining a connection with their paternal extended family and [Country QQ] community. As she was estranged from her family of origin, she appeared to underestimate the importance of the children's extended family."
Dr N opined, and I accept, that the children would be impacted by not spending as much time with the paternal family both because of the supportive extended family and because of the loss of as much exposure to their Country QQ culture. Significantly reducing the time the children spend with the paternal family and isolating the children from those relationships could deprive the children of a supportive relationship with the paternal extended family into the future.
The children by these orders will live primarily with the mother who will be able to expose them to her Country TT culture and heritage during their time with her, should she wish to do so, including by travel to Country TT. Knowledge and understanding of their cultural heritage is important for the children and I give these matters some weight.

[106]

The mother was on notice that her employment requirements were relevant to the consideration of the practical implementation of the orders each party sought. Not only had the issue of her employment and the vague details provided were identified by McGuire J, but the Full Court in Bonhomme & Bonhomme [2025] FedCFamC1A 75 observed that:
1. Further, at [87] and [126], the primary judge was critical of the mother's failure to disclose the location and terms of her employment, or indeed any changes to her employment from when she lived in Sydney. It is tolerably clear that the failure to disclose this information was relevant to the alleged "logistical difficulties" created by the mother's relocation to City H when her place of employment had previously been (and may have continued to be) located near Suburb B.
Notwithstanding this notice of the significance of this issue, the mother gave limited evidence about her employment in her primary affidavit. She was permitted to rely on an affidavit filed on 17 November 2025, giving evidence about a new role she had taken up with UU Company, the same employer as Mr G.
The mother gave evidence that on 17 September 2025 she applied for a role and was interviewed on 13 October and 15 October 2025. On 31 October 2025, she was offered employment with UU Company and accepted it. The mother received her written contract on 13 November 2025 and notified the father on 14 November 2025. The mother also relied on an email from her supervisor, Ms VV, which indicated that she could work from home "when that is permissible" and that most employees work from home on Mondays and Fridays. There are offices of UU Company that are located at Suburb WW, and in City S, although it was unclear when the mother would be working in Sydney, City S or working from home.
The difficulty with the late evidence relied on is that it was general and vague. The mother was uniquely placed to bring evidence to the Court setting out when and where she would be required to work. She could have called evidence from Ms VV, the author of the email. She could have set out with particularity what her expected hours and days were and the location.
The mother gave evidence that she said to Ms VV "it is also important for me to be able to work from the [Suburb XX] office", to which Ms VV replied:

[110]

The mother and Mr G both gave evidence that they would be required to work in the Sydney office from time to time. The mother deposed to having an agreement with UU Company that she will work from home two to three days per week, that she can primarily base herself in the Suburb XX office whenever possible, and that she can work from home during the school holiday periods. In her previous working role she was able to work from home five days per week, but she deposed that she was unable to do this because of the current school enrolments.
There is no sound basis to make any finding as to where and on what days the mother will work, other than that she is likely to work from home Mondays and Fridays and that it is likely that the mother will have the benefit of some flexible working arrangements. Her failure to present clear evidence in respect of these matters leaves a lacuna. Her late filing of vague evidence, failure to call evidence from a supervisor who could have illuminated the nature of her flexible work arrangements, and late notice of the change left little opportunity for the father to enquire or issue subpoena. The obligation for disclosure on such a key issue relevant to the determination of the practicality of the proposed arrangements rested with her.
Under the father's proposed orders, the children would be collected from school Thursday afternoon each week such that there will be no Friday morning school drop-off, and only a Friday afternoon and Monday afternoon collection each alternate week. This arrangement would seem to assist the mother's work from home arrangement each Monday and Friday, with limited pick-up and drop-offs to and from school. She will still have the burden of ensuring the children get to and from school on the balance of the days that they reside with her each fortnight.
The mother gave oral evidence that if the children attended U School, it would reduce her flexibility to work from home, and she would be burdened by travel if she was working from the Suburb XX office. The mother did not give evidence that she was required to work from the Suburb XX office but that she "can" primarily base herself there presumably for the two to three days per week she is not working from home. Equally, she may be able to primarily base herself in the Sydney office for those days. If she is driving to Sydney, U School is en route. If she is working from home for the anticipated days per week and the school bus service was not used, the burden would fall to the mother. If the children attended F School, the Suburb XX office would be more convenient for the mother and reduce her driving time for school drop off and pick up.
It was not in dispute, and was observed by Dr N, that Mr G had a positive relationship with both children when they interacted. Dr N opined that the blended home environment provided by the mother and Mr G had appropriately met the children's developmental needs. The children enjoyed their relationship with their mother, her partner, and his children.
Mr G said that he was currently working in the Sydney office at least three days per week. Both the mother and Mr G said Mr G would assist the mother to the extent that he could with school drop-off and pick-up. Mr G is in the fortunate position that he has the support of his mother for the care of his own two children when he is unable to take his children to school due to his work commitments. He gave evidence that both of his daughter's catch a bus to and from school. These are factors which assist me to find that the mother will have support from Mr G in arranging the logistics of the management of school drop-off and pick-up.
I am unable to make a finding other than the most general of findings in respect of the mother's employment obligations and its impact on the practicality of time orders being able to be implemented because of the state of the evidence. I accept her evidence that her employer has flexible work arrangements as she deposed. I also accept that she may have to work from time to time from the various offices she identified and take this into consideration in respect of the practicality of the arrangements.

[116]

The positives of F School included its proximity to the mother's home and the school community the children would experience, the significantly reduced driving time to and from school during the additional time with their mother, more capacity to attend extracurricular activities in the local areas, the benefit of attending a school with their stepsiblings and the benefit to the mother's family unit of less logistical issues to manage.
The negatives of F School include practically the limited opportunity for the father to be involved in the day-to-day schooling of the children, with classmates and families of the children, with teachers, and the additional lengthy driving time to spend time with their father five nights per fortnight. If the children attended F School, the meaningful time the father would spend with the children would be reduced and the time the children could spend with the paternal family would also reduce. The suggestion of the father spending time with them in the Suburb YY area has some positives, including the maintenance of the regular time, however, the regular connection with the paternal family would still be diminished. The mother proposed to deliver the children to the AB Service Centre to reduce driving time for the father, however, this does not reduce the travel time for the children and causes ongoing and regular contact between the mother and father, something Ms P strongly recommended should be avoided for the mother's mental health.
The positives of U School include the capacity for substantial involvement of both parents in the daily schooling of the children, the capacity for both parents to attend assemblies, parent teacher interviews and extracurricular events and to be actively involved in all aspects of the children's primary education. Any contact between Mr G and the father would be minimised by the children attending different schools. The children attending U School removes the need for regular face-to-face handovers between the parents.
The negatives of U School include that each day the children will have a commute to and from school for between approximately 45 minutes (from the mother's home) to 1 hour and 10 minutes (from the father's home); they will likely have less connection with the local school community in both Suburb AA and Suburb B; there may be more complex logistical issues for the mother in managing her work commitments with school drop-off and pick-up (even if the children catch a school bus from Town ZZ); and there will be the competing logistics of Mr G's children and their school attendance.

[118]

I have carefully considered Dr N's opinion as to the midpoint school being a "lose-lose" option, however, I do not agree that the negative aspects of the proposal outweigh the positive aspects, the most significant of which is that it will ensure the benefit to the children of maintaining their connection to the father and the paternal family.
Whatever orders are made, the children will be experiencing a significant change from the current schooling arrangements in the Suburb B area. That will significantly decrease the time they spend and the relationships they have with their current school peers. This will be a big change, but one that both parents sought.
The travel time that will be required from both homes is not insignificant, but in my view, is not so burdensome as to prevent the practical implementation of these orders which will ensure these young children maintain very important relationships with both parents and their respective families.
Respectfully, I adopt the comments of Christie J in Luo & Bassett [2022] FedCFamC1F 178, citing the Full Court in Hamady & Mansour [2022] FedCFamC1A 1; (2022) FLC 94-071. Justice Christie stated at [79] that "[t]he fact that an adult might find the travel inconvenient (indeed onerous) does not mean the proposal is not reasonably practicable."
There are many positives and many negatives to each proposal. The considerations as identified throughout these reasons are very finely balanced. Each proposal has merit and each has negative aspects. On balance, the evidence in this case weighs in favour of an ongoing and significant relationship with each parent, enabling both to be involved regularly in school, extracurricular activities, home routine, and significant time in each household while maintaining regular connection with both extended families. U School ensures the children will continue to have regular and significant exposure to their grandparents and paternal family and through them, their Country QQ culture, while still enjoying the benefits of a primary home with the mother, Mr G and his daughters. The children will maintain the benefit of time with their stepsiblings and the extended family of Mr G and have the local church community in which they are already established. In my view, these factors, on balance, outweigh the identified negative aspects, including that the children will continue to have to commute some way to and from school and may have less opportunity for local extracurricular activities.

[125]

The parties agreed in principle that the mother should be restrained from relocating the children's residence further away or from increasing the travel distance. The form of order sought by the father refers to a restraint from the father's residence but does not contemplate that he might move residence. To ensure certainty in respect of the restraint, I will order the mother is restrained from moving further away than Suburb AA and that she is restrained from moving to a location that would increase the present distance by road to the father's current residence without his express written consent.
I prefer the father's orders for Mother's Day and Father's Day because it maintains the drop-off and collection directly from school, rather than the mother's proposal which sought there be a handover at 4.30 pm on the Friday. The school collection and return minimises the children's exposure to interactions between the parents.
Both parties sought time over Easter if it fell outside of school holidays time, which will avoid potential conflict, uncertainty for the children and interruption of block holiday times. The mother sought that time during Easter should commence at 4.30 pm and conclude at 7.30 am and the father sought the time commence from after school, with a mid-point swap over at 3.00 pm, and conclude at 9.00 am at school.
The father's proposed orders avoid the parties having a direct handover at the commencement and conclusion of time which avoids the children being exposed to interactions and tensions between the parties and also avoids exposing the mother to direct contact with the father as recommended by Ms P in her 7 October 2024 report, in circumstances where she opined the father is "so triggering to [the mother]". Dr N also opined that it is important to protect children from exposure to further high conflict and instability. For these reasons, the father's orders which avoid direct contact between the parties in front of the children are preferred as orders that are in the best interests of the children.

Bonhomme & Bonhomme (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1F 17 (20 January 2026)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (129 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (1)