Bonvisi & Bonvisi [2026] FedCFamC1F 49 (16 January 2026)

3A. Conditional on the Paternal Grandparents MRS B BONVISI born in 1966 and MR C BONVISI born in 1955 ("the paternal grandparents") complying with order 8 below, which is a continuing condition precedent, the children shall spend time with and communicate with the paternal grandparents in accordance with orders 3 and 4 below.

1. The paternal grandparents are to spend time with the children as agreed between the mother and the paternal grandparents in writing, and failing agreement as follows:

(a) for two (2) hours on the last Sunday of each month from 2:30pm until 4:30pm;

(b) at a location advised by the mother in writing;

(c) that Order 3. a. and 3. b. above be varied in the month of December, for the children to celebrate Christmas with the paternal grandparents, as follows:

(i) for four (4) hours on the last Sunday of December being from 12:30pm to 4:30pm

(ii) at the location being the residence of Ms D (the paternal grandparent's daughter):

(iii) The mother will cause the changeover of the children at the residence of Ms D.

(iv) The only persons permitted to be in attendance at the residence of Ms D during this visit with the children are: the paternal grandparents; Ms D; Mr E; the children of Ms D & Mr E being F, G, H, J and K.

1. The paternal grandparents are at liberty to telephone the children by phone or facetime as follows:

(a) each alternate Wednesday between 6:00pm and 6:30pm, with the paternal grandparents calling the mobile telephone of the mother to facilitate the call;

(b) on the following days between 6:00pm and 6:30pm, with the paternal grandparents calling the mobile telephone of the mother to facilitate the call:

(i) V - [Date redacted];

(ii) W - [Date redacted];

(iii) X - [Date redacted];

(iv) Y - [Date redacted];

(v) Z - [Date redacted];

(vi) Mrs B Bonvisi (paternal grandmother) - [Date redacted]; and

(vii) Mr C Bonvisi (paternal grandfather) - [Date redacted];

(c) The mother shall answer the call;

(d) The call shall be on loudspeaker and the mother is at liberty to hear the call;

(e) in the event that the paternal grandparents breach the restraints set out in Order 8, herein, the mother is to terminate the call.

1. In the event that there is a serious medical emergency relating to any of the children, the mother will notify the paternal grandparents by text message as soon as practicable.
2. The mother is to do all acts and things necessary to link the children with their Indigenous culture and heritage and also ensure that the children are enrolled at school as first nations children and that she authorises the children to participate in cultural activities at their school where appropriate.
3. That without admissions, pursuant to section 68B Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the mother is restrained, and an injunction is granted from the following:

(a) Denigrating the paternal grandparents in the presence or hearing of the children;

(b) Denigrating the father MR BONVISI born in 1985 ("the father") in the presence or hearing of the children;

(c) Discussing Court proceedings with or in the presence or hearing of the children or showing the children any document relating to Court proceedings.

1. Pursuant to section 68B Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) paternal grandparents are restrained and an injunction granted from the following:

(a) Contacting or communicating with the father MR BONVISI born in 1985 ('the father") by any means whilst spending time or communicating with the children;

(b) From allowing or facilitating any contact or communication between the children and the father by any means whatsoever.

(c) From speaking to the children about the father or allowing any communication or contact between the children and the father.

(d) Discussing with the children information about the father.

(e) Sharing photographs of the children with the father or posting and/or uploading to social media.

(f) Providing letters, cards or presents to the children from the father.

(g) From questioning the children about their care arrangements or their living arrangements or their counselling.

(h) From allowing any other person to attend the visits with the children unless otherwise approved by the mother in writing or as provided by an Order of this Court with the exception of Order 3. c. iv) above.

1. If there is an allegation that the paternal grandparents breach Order 8 above then:

(a) Within fourteen (14) days the mother will provide to the paternal grandparents in writing, the full details and particulars of any alleged breach and any proposal on how the mother wishes to proceed.

(b) If the children's time with the paternal grandparents is proposed to be suspended, then the parties will firstly attempt to mediate through an approved mediator such as Relationships Australia with the initial mediation intake to be made within twenty-eight (28) days.

(c) Failing resolution the mother may commence proceedings to terminate the time and communication pursuant to orders 3 and 4 on the basis that the continuing condition precedent has not been complied with.

Father to spend no time and have no communication with children

1. The father is to spend no time and have no communication with the children.
2. Pursuant to section 68B Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the father MR BONVISI born in 1985 is restrained and an injunction granted from:

(a) Attending within 100 meters of any place the mother lives or works;

(b) Attending within 100 meters of any school or event the children or any of them attend;

(c) Attending within 100 meters of any medical or treating provider the children or any of them or the mother attend;

(d) Contacting the mother either directly or indirectly by any means, unless through a Legal Professional;

(e) Contacting the children either directly or indirectly by any means, including through any third party.

Provision or orders and settled reasons for judgement

1. The mother may provide a copy of these orders to any educational institution, any medical or allied health professional treating the children, any Government or other similar body, NSW Police, NSW Department of Communities and Justice, and any other person who is reasonably required to be put on notice of the orders in particular for sole parental and decision making authority and that the father is to spend no time and have no contact or communication with the children.
2. The mother may provide a copy of the settled reasons for decision in these proceedings to any medical or allied health practitioners treating the children, to assist in their understanding of the circumstances in which the no time and no communication orders have been made in respect of the father, but is to provide these orders with the reasons and direct them to the confidentiality obligations.

1. Pursuant to section 11(1)(b)(ii) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 the Mother is permitted to apply for a passport for the children V born in 2010, W born in 2013, X born in 2016, Y born in 2017 and Z born in 2019 without the consent of the Father.
2. Pursuant to section 65Y(l)(c)(ii) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Mother is permitted to travel to a place outside Australia with the children V born in 2010, W born in 2013, X born in 2016, Y born in 2017 and Z born in 2019 whether or not the Father has consented to such travel.

1. The Independent Children's Lawyer may, at their discretion, explain these orders to the children, or any of them, in a child appropriate way.
2. The Independent Children's Lawyer is otherwise discharged.
3. There be no order as to costs.

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

1. These are oral reasons for decision in a final parenting hearing to determine the parenting orders pursuant to Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ('the Act'), which are in the best interests of the five subject children: V, born in 2010, aged 15; W, born in 2013, aged 12; X, born in 2016, aged 9; Y, born in 2017, aged 8; and Z, born in 2019, aged 6 ('the children').
2. The applicant mother is Ms Bonvisi, born in 1990, aged 35.
3. The first respondent father is Mr Bonvisi, born in 1985, aged 40.
4. The second and third respondents to these proceedings are the paternal grandmother, Mrs B Bonvisi, born in 1966, aged 59, and the paternal step-grandfather, Mr C Bonvisi, born in 1955, aged 70.
5. The mother and father met in 2006, when they were approximately 16 and 20 respectively, and commenced cohabitation in around 2008. After the birth of V, they married in 2011. The mother says the parties separated under one roof in around November 2020, following the father being charged in 2020 with sexual intercourse without consent of a person over the age of 16, and then in the specific context of an allegation by her younger sister, L, that she, L, had been sexually assaulted by the father when she was a minor living with, or spending time with, the mother and father, when the father was in effect in a form of loco parentis to L.
6. In August 2021, the father moved out of the family home. The father was tried in respect of the first allegation, the rape case, and in 2022, he was sentenced to incarceration for several years, with a non-parole period of over two years, commencing at conviction and his entry into incarceration in 2022.
7. On a separate date in 2022, the father was charged with sexual offences against child between the ages of 10 and 16 and several counts of domestic violence, and in 2023 he was charged with aggravated indecent assault, victim under authority, domestic violence. He was also charged with a number of other offences. These charges related to the historic sexual abuse claims of the mother's two younger sisters, L when she was 11 to 12, and M when she was between eight and 16. These were said to be perpetrated by the father through his access to them when they spent time with him in the familial context.
8. The outline of these allegations is included in exhibit ICL3.[1]

The complainants [M] and [L] still reside at the family home with their brother [N] and their parents [Ms O] and [Mr P]. [Ms Bonvisi] and the POI were previously married until the POI was arrested and charged for sexual offences upon a child in [date redacted] 2020. Prior to their separation they resided at various addresses during their relationship including locations 1, 2 and most recently 3. [Ms Bonvisi] and the POI have five children, [V], [W], [X], [Y] and [Z]. While [Ms Bonvisi] and the POI were residing at LOC 1, [L] would visit on a regular basis. While she was in the company of the POI he would offer her money to kiss him on the lips and on the cheeks. At the time [L] was aged about 8 - 12. Following this [Ms Bonvisi] and the POI moved to LOC 2, where the POI walked into the bathroom while [L] was showering on three or four separate occasions. She also reported that on one occasion she noticed that a mobile phone had been placed in the bathroom while she was showering. Upon reviewing the phone she saw it was recording her in the shower. The video clip also depicted the POI placing the camera in the bathroom. [L] immediately deleted the video and she did not notify her sister [Ms Bonvisi] or anyone else as she did not want to cause problems for [Ms Bonvisi]. At the time [L] was aged 11 to 12 years. About the same time the POI touched [L] on the breasts and he also placed his hands down her pants and touched the outside of her vagina. Further details of this offending is yet to be obtained. Sometime about 2018 [L] was visiting [Ms Bonvisi] and the POI at LOC 3. During the evening [L], [Ms Bonvisi] and the POI had consumed alcohol. [L] was aged 16 years at the time. [L] went to bed before the POI entered the room and laid on top of [L]. This was briefly observed by [Ms Bonvisi], however she dismissed the behaviour at the time as the POI being drunk. Shortly after [L] sat up and vomited due to her intoxication before the POI left the room. [L] did not disclose the offending of the POI to [Ms Bonvisi] or other family members as she did not want to cause any separation. In 2018 or 2019, [M] was aged 11 or 12 when she was visiting her sister [M] and the POI at [DD Street], [Suburb EE]. [M] was sleeping on the floor beside another young person [Q]. Also in the bedroom was [M's] brother [N] and her nephew [V] ([Ms Bonvisi's] son) who were asleep on the bed. During the evening the POI entered the room and asked where [Q] was before he stuck his head up from the bed. The POI told [Q] to move back before the POI laid down on the mattress beside [M] and began cuddling her from behind. [M] tried to push him off before he grabbed her tighter. He put his hand down her pant waist band and moved his other hand around the top and under [M's] breasts under her clothing. The POI rolled onto his back and began moving his hands about under the blanket before he grabbed hold of [M's] hand and placed it on his penis. [M] moved her hand away after a couple of seconds. The POI reached over with his right arm and grabbed hold of her right shoulder and tried to pull her towards him however she pretended to be asleep. The POI placed his hand back down the waist line of [M's] pants and left it there for the following fifteen to twenty minutes before he left the room. [M] stated that on most occasions when she visited the POI at that address he would take opportunities to pick her up and in doing so he would place his fingers on her vagina on the outside of her clothing and at times underneath her clothing. [M] reported an occasion when she was swimming in the pool with the POI and other children including [V], [W], [N] and [Q]. During this time the POI put his hand between [M's] legs and reached under her bikini and touched her vagina. His fingers did not penetrate her vagina. [M] told her boyfriend [R] about one month ago that the POI made her feel uncomfortable and he had touched her. She has also told her best friend [S] however she cannot recall exactly when she disclose this. About 9:00pm on Thursday 24 February 2022, [M] disclosed the incident where the POI climbed into bed with her and touched her to her mother, [Ms O]. [L] then disclosed to [Ms O] that the POI had also touched her when she was younger. [Ms O] contacted her son [Mr P] and requested that he come over to take [M] and [L] to [GG] Police Station to report the matter. Shortly after [M], [L], [Ms Bonvisi] and [Mr P] attended [GG] Police Station where a brief version was obtained from [M].

1. The father pleaded not guilty. At trial, the mother and her sisters gave evidence, which the mother says was very traumatic for her.
2. V and W were also required to give police statements about their observations relevant to the allegations, which caused them some distress. They were taken to court to be familiarised with the setting, but were not ultimately cross-examined, being notified of this the day beforehand. This was also said, and I accept, to have caused them some distress.
3. At the end of 2025, the father was convicted of these further serious offences. He remains incarcerated, serving a full-time term of imprisonment. The head sentence for these offences ends on [date redacted] 2032, which is six and a half years' time, with the minimum term or non-parole period ending on [date redacted] 2028, which is to say, approximately two and a half years' time.
4. The father says he is appealing these later convictions, but there is no evidence of an appeal on foot. I also note that to the extent to which the father says he is appealing the convictions, implicit in that is a denial of responsibility. I proceed upon the basis that the convictions are presumed to be sound.
5. I note the mother also recounts a significant history of sexual violence towards her throughout the relationship, which is, I find, though not admitted by the father, consistent with the father's conviction history, and which I therefore accept on the balance of probabilities.
6. The father has, as the ICL submitted, a further long history of sexual misconduct. In 2009, the father was convicted in respect of an act in 2008 when the father was about 23, and the history of that event is at MFI9, part of exhibit ICL 3.[2]

On Tuesday the [date redacted] 2008 about 11: 20am the POI drove the VOI through drive thru at McDonalds [Suburb FF]. The POI ordered a meal and then proceeded through to drive thru window 2 to pay for his meal... Upon taking the money for the meal the victim, [Ms T] noticed the POI 's pants were just underneath his hips and his penis was exposed. The VIC then handed the POI his change and proceeded through to the next drive through window to collect his meal. The Vic then altered the manager on duty... The POI then collected his meal from the next window. Once the manager was alerted he ran outside to attempt to stop the vehicle, however he was unable to do so. The vehicle then left the location...

1. The father was convicted, as noted at page 202 of MFI9, in 2009 of "commit act of indecency". He was imprisoned for six months, although that was suspended, entering into a bond.
2. I note that earlier in 2008, there was a complaint made[3]

About 10.45am on the [date redacted] 2008 the PR, [Mr U] attended [GG] Police Station in relation to what he believed in-appropriate sexual communications the POI, [Mr Bonvisi] was having with both victim, who are the daughters of the PR .. The PR and the POI have worked together for the past 3 years and as a result have developed a close friendship, to the point where the two victims often attend the POI's address to visit him . . The PR stated approximately 18 months ago victim 2, [BB] attended the POI's address to visit, sometime during that visit the POI has had a shower, leaving the door to the bathroom open. At some point [BB] has walked past the bathroom to see the POI standing naked, with seeing this [BB] has left the premises and walked home. The PR states that he believed at the time this was an accident and nothing more was said . The PR stated there were no more incident he new off up until approximately! week ago . . The PR stated about 1 week ago, he was approached by his daughter [AA] in relation toa text message she had received on her mobile phone from the POI, this message said, "Morning sexy bum, hope you have a good day, love you" . . The PR has instantly became concerned with the message, finding this in-appropriate, given [AA's] 'sage of 15 and the POI being 21. However the PR said again he felt this might have been an accident, as the POI has a girlfriend by the name of [Ms CC] and it was possible he selected the wrong contact in his phone. Again the PR has given the benefit of the doubt .. On the 12th February the PR has been chatting with his youngest daughter, victim 2, [BB]. During this conversation the PR has mentioned the text message in which [AA] had received. At this point [BB] has disclosed to her dad that she received a call via phone from the POI approximately week prior. The PR said [BB] stated that the POI said words to the effect of, "Remember when you seen me nude?, what's the oldest guy you have been with?, and what sexual things would you do?". At this point the PR has become extremely concerned and believed this was no coincident and believes this to be totally in-appropriate sexual nature .. However, the PR has stated he wished only to report this to police in an effort to obtain a Personal Violence Order preventing the POI having any further contact with the victims. The PR stated he was not interested in, nor would he allow the victim to participate in interviews, nor was he interested in police prosecuting the POI. . Personal Violence Orders applied for by police on behalf of the victims.

1. Whilst hearsay and not prosecuted, in the context of the other convictions, and noting that the rules of evidence do not apply, but that I am required to consider what weight should be given to evidence admitted contrary to the rules of evidence, I do give this evidence of what is said to have occurred by the father of those girls in 2008, some weight, noting that the reason there was no prosecution was that he did not wish his daughters to be involved in that process, and where it is consistent with the pattern of behaviour shown in the other convictions.
2. I find that the father's pattern of predatory sexual conduct, including towards young girls in particular, extends as the ICL and the mother both submitted, from 2008 to recent times.
3. After the father's incarceration, the father's contact with the children was relatively limited, although there were some telephone calls and prison visits, but there has been, as I understand it, no contact since about March 2024.
4. These proceedings commenced on 18 December 2023, when the mother filed an initiating application seeking final orders.
5. On 9 January 2024, the matter was allocated to the Specialist Indigenous List, noting the children's Indigeneity, which I will come to later.
6. On 14 February 2024, the matter was allocated to the Magellan List, and an ICL was appointed.
7. On 13 June 2024, the paternal grandmother was added to the proceedings as the second respondent.
8. A family report was ordered and released, and I note that is an exhibit before me.
9. On 3 April 2025, the paternal step-grandfather was added to the proceedings as a further respondent.
10. I will note that I do not spend a lot of time in this judgment on the family report, noting that the family report and its recommendations were published prior to the conviction of the father over the contested child sex abuse charges in respect of the mother's sisters.
11. On 3 April 2025, consent orders were made for the children to live with the mother, spend time with the paternal grandparents on one occasion per month for a period of two hours, such time supervised, and I note that supervision was in the context of the mother's concerns that the paternal grandparents were aligned with the father, and were seeking to facilitate contact with the children, or promote the father's case to the children. There was substance to that concern as noted by the expert in the family report in the interview with the paternal grandparents.
12. Orders were made for the children to spend no time and have no communication with the father. The children presently live with the mother and spend supervised time with the paternal grandparents as per the interim orders.
13. On 8 December 2025, following the father's further conviction and sentencing, the parties, including the ICL, advised that it was agreed that the children should live with the mother and that she should have sole parental responsibility and sole responsibility for long-term decision-making. Those are inevitable orders, and clearly in the children's best interests, and as I will come to, I will make them by consent of all parties.
14. The only outstanding issues were the paternal grandparents' time and communication with the children, in the context of the mother's concerns, and the father's application to have communication with the children.
15. In that context the parties sensibly agreed that a short one-day trial process, where the Court considered the sworn evidence and submissions, but where there was no cross-examination, noting that most of the facts are not genuinely in issue, would be appropriate. I consider that permissible, within the provisions of section 102NE(7) of the Act, I find it is and was appropriate, as well as being consented to. The matter was therefore set down for this hearing before me today. As I said, on that basis, no cross-examination was required.
16. The trial was conducted before me today. The father appeared on his own behalf from prison electronically. To level the playing ground, so to speak, the mother and the independent children's lawyer, who were represented including by counsel, also appeared electronically, as did the paternal grandparents who appeared on their own behalf electronically.
17. I note that the affidavit of the mother of 13 January 2026 was read; the affidavit of the father of 13 January 2026 was read; the affidavit of Mrs B Bonvisi filed 13 January 2026 was read, and the affidavit of Mr C Bonvisi filed 13 January 2026 was read.
18. The Magellan report dated 14 March 2024 was admitted as Exhibit ICL1 without objection. The Magellan family report of the child court expert Ms HH, dated 25 September 2024, was admitted without objection as ICL2. A series of police records, including some of those I have cited, were admitted without objection and are exhibit ICL3.
19. As I have said, it is common ground that the children should live with the mother and the mother should have sole parental responsibility.
20. I also note that I took into account, and the matter proceeded on the basis of, the amended application for final orders filed by the applicant mother on 19 December 2023; the amended response filed by the father on 14 January 2026; the amended response filed for both the second and third respondent on 14 January 2026; the independent children's lawyer's case outline filed 15 January 2026, which included the ICL's proposal which was MFI8.1, and the applicant mother's proposed minute and her updated proposed minute both filed today, which were MFI10 and 11.
21. I note that it became apparent with the filing of the orders that the ICL, mother and paternal grandparents were sensibly, I believe, substantially in agreement as to time and communication between the paternal grandparents and the children.
22. There is no suggestion that the paternal grandparents themselves pose any risk to the children.
23. The real issue, as identified in the family report and by the mother, was her concern that, understandably, this is the paternal grandmother's son, and although he has done wicked things for which he is being punished, he will always be her son, and in those circumstances she remains sympathetic to him.
24. Nevertheless, she and her husband, Mr C Bonvisi, seem to have come to understand that whilst they view the father in that way, the objective evidence of his history of predatory sexual conduct in respect of minors means that he poses risks and concerns that the mother genuinely holds, as does the Court, and I note that in that regard there can be no doubt that the mother is not motivated by trying to exclude the broader paternal family, noting the deep connections between the families and, as she says in her affidavit, the fact that she has been maintaining contact for the children with their cousins and those parents.
25. So, it is in that context that ultimately, after some discussion, the ICL, mother and paternal grandparents, with the father's consent, agreed to orders, which are in effect that conditional on the paternal grandparents complying with an injunction that:

(a) they shall not contact or communicate with the father by any means while spending time or communicating with the children;

(b) they shall not facilitate any contact or communication between the children and the father;

(c) shall not speak to the children about the father or allow any communication or contact between the children and the father, or discuss with the children information about the father, share photographs with the children of the father, or post or upload them to social media, provide letters, cards, etcetera to the children from the father;

(d) question the children about their care arrangements or the living arrangements; or

(e) allow any other person to attend visits with the children unless otherwise approved by the mother,

1. That on that condition, which is consistent with the obligation to protect the children, and which they accept, they will have time and communication with the children, which are set out in the orders I will make by consent.
2. It was also agreed, and again the father agreed with this, that in the event there is a serious medical emergency, the mother will notify the paternal grandparents by text message.
3. It was agreed by all parties that the mother shall do all acts and things necessary to link the children with their Indigenous culture and heritage, and also the children enrol at school as First Nations children, and that she will authorise them to participate so that their cultural connection is maintained.
4. The mother also, very fairly and sensibly, agreed, without admissions, to a restraint on herself pursuant to section 68B, that she will not denigrate the paternal grandparents in the presence or hearing of the children; she will not denigrate the father in the presence or hearing of the children, or discuss Court proceedings with or in the presence of the children, and this is also clearly in the children's best interests that they not be further drawn into this dispute.
5. There was also an agreement reached, noting that there will be that compliance with the injunction effectively not to bring the children into contact or communication with the father or raise the father and promote his case to them, that if the mother believes that the grandparents have breached that injunction, then she is to provide them with details of what she says.
6. The paternal grandmother raised her concern, which is a legitimate concern, that the children, particularly the younger ones, may want to talk to her about the father, which puts her in a difficult position, and that they may go back and say that they were chatting with her about the father when there was not much she could do to stop them from raising the topic. So, the mother will have to be aware of that, and that is something that is unfortunate. I am going to ask, at the end of these reasons, whether the ICL is willing to explain the orders to the children, but we will come to that in due course.
7. Now, if the mother wants to suspend time because she believes there has been a breach, the mother and paternal grandparent are to have a mediation, and I will make it clear that if they cannot resolve the issue, the mother can commence proceedings to determine whether or not there has been a breach, in which case time will terminate until the issue is resolved.
8. I am going to make all those orders by consent, including by the consent of the father. I think it is a sensible resolution. I think it is in the children's best interests that they maintain their relationship with the paternal grandparents, who they are close to and who are good people, and I congratulate the mother for being open to that. It is difficult for her, I accept, and I am satisfied that in consenting to those orders, she has clearly prioritised the children's best interests.
9. I also note that I have made it clear to the paternal grandparents, and they indicated to me that they understood, so there is no issue if the matter returns to court, that should they breach the injunction, they should expect that a finding that occurred will, in effect, be the end of any time or communication they will have with the children, or any of them, until each of those children is 18. They indicated they understood that.
10. The only remaining issue, therefore, was the very narrow question of the father's application for communication. The father seeks orders to send letters and cards to the children through a relatively complex arrangement. He seeks that the children be able to communicate with him. I also note the father seeks a notation as per notation C of his response. I also note the father's proposal at notation E that in future he will have time, but where he does not seek those orders at the moment.
11. For simplicity I will set out the father's position is that he seeks orders 9 and 10, and notations C and E as follows:
    1. The First Respondent (the father), may write to each of the children via letter or card to be no more than one page in length per child (the letters or cards), each second month subject to the following conditions:
       1. The letters will be sent solely to a Legal Representative of the father, with the father providing instructions to that Legal Representative to contact the mother to arrange for her to collect the letters or cards or request postage of the same to her nominated address;
       2. The mother, shall within seven (7) days of receipt of correspondence from a Legal Representative of the father advising her of receipt of the letters or cards, will contact the Legal Representative to arrange collection or provide an address for the delivery of the letters or cards on behalf of the children, and if the letters or cards are to be delivered on behalf of the children, and if the letters or cards are to be delivered this is to be at the sole cost of the father.
       3. The mother shall within three (3) days of receipt of the letters or cards read the letters or cards and determine in her sole discretion whether they are suitable to be provided to each child, and shall thereafter give the letters or cards to each child, or retain the letter for that child until 1 day prior to their eighteenth birthday when she will then provide them to that child.
       4. Pursuant to section 68B Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the father is restrained and an injunction granted from sending post directly to the mother. The provision of all letters and cards to the children sent by the father must be facilitated by the father's Legal Representative and not posted directly by the father to the mother or the children.
       5. Without admissions, pursuant to section 68B Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the father is restrained and an injunction granted from containing any references in any letter or card to the following:
          1. gaol fights;
          2. illicit substances;
          3. criminal matters;
       6. Without admissions, pursuant to section 68B Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the father is restrained and an injunction granted from containing any references in any letter or card to the following:

iii. Denigrating the mother or the mother's extended family;

1. Discussing or showing the children any content relating to Family Court proceedings.

2. The children are at liberty to write to the father via letter or card at any time, and in the event that any child wishes to writer to the father, the mother will do all necessary to facilitate that, including contacting the Legal Representative for the father to arrange delivery, and if no Legal Representative exists, the mother shall provide such letter or card to the Paternal Grandmother on behalf of the father.

1. Under Orders 9. and 10. above the father has engaged Effective Legal Solutions as the Legal Professional at a cost to be met solely by him. Effective Legal Solutions contact details are - [address redacted] Email: [...@...].

1. It is the intention of the father to propose to the mother, face-to-face time with the children upon his release from custody. The father will only provide any proposal through a Legal Representative or an approved mediator such as Relationships Australia. If no agreement can be reached, the parties are at liberty to make an Application to the Family Court for this purpose
2. The father also seeks or accepts a section 68B injunction under his proposed order 11:
   1. Pursuant to section 68B Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the father is restrained and an injunction granted from:
      1. Attending within 100 meters of any place the mother lives or works;
      2. Attending within 100 meters of any school or event the children attend;
      3. Attending within 100 meters of any medical or treating provider the children or the mother attend;
      4. Contacting the mother either directly or indirectly by any means, unless through a Legal Professional;
      5. Contacting the children either directly or indirectly by any means other than by way of Order 9. and Order 10. above.
3. Now, that restrains the father from doing the various matters that the ICL also seeks restraint in respect of, with obviously the very significant exception being other than by way of order 9 or order 10 above, ie he will not approach the home or the mother or seek to communicate with the children, he says, other than orders 9 and 10.
4. So, that really leaves us then to look at the question of whether or not the father's proposal for communication, as set out at his prayers 9 and 10, is in the best interests of the children.

1. The father's submissions were that, as noted in the family report, the children want to speak with him and have a relationship with him.
2. The Court is required, by section 60CC(2)(b), to consider any views expressed by the child.
3. V's views were set out in the family report as the father noted at [48], including that:

He reported not wanting to feel compelled to speak with his father when he called, but said he would like to speak to his father about once a month.

1. W's views were at family report [51], and they were similar in that she said:

She is of the view that the children should be allowed to choose when they wanted to speak to and spend time with the father.

1. X's views were considered at [53] which noted that:

[X] appears to be struggling with conflicted feelings about her father in his current circumstances.

1. Y's is at family report [56] which noted that:

[Y] was outspoken on his wish to spend time with the father, saying he wanted to visit him in jail.

1. Z's views were reported broadly at [58] where it was said that:

She appears to view her relationship with her father positively.

1. Given their ages, V and W's views must be given some weight. With the younger three children, their ages mean that their views can be given limited weight, particularly given the concerning issues in this case.
2. The father submitted that it would be beneficial for the children to be able to speak with or communicate with him and know that they have two parents that love them and want to be there for them.
3. There is always, of course, in an application for no time or communication case, the risk that the children will internalise the separation as being their fault, or think that they have been rejected by the absent parent because of some failing in them in that perhaps they are not good enough. There are also the various concerns that arise that they may come to idealise the absent father when the mother is required to impose strict discipline, and a whole variety of matters which underline the usual principle that, where it is safe to do so, children should have relationships with both parents.
4. The father also submitted, correctly, that the children are going through mental health issues, and that this is in part due to his absence. That is true.
5. His submission is that him being out of the equation has made it worse for them, and his submission is that his involvement could help them. However, while the children are going through mental health issues, in part due to his absence and incarceration for his conduct, and where the older children appear to have, because of their involvement in the police process and for V his age, some understanding of the reasons for it, it is not clear to me on what basis the father's further involvement in their lives would assist in their mental health concerns, given the reason he is absent.
6. The ICL submitted that the father is a dangerous sexual predator with a long and persistent history of sexual offending, and that the Court would be gravely concerned about not only that history, but the fact that he sexually abused his wife's sisters whilst acting, in effect, in loco parentis, the most grievous of possible breaches of trust. The ICL points out that this is not a single or momentary event, but a persistent history over almost 20 years of sexual predation, including through the use of violence.
7. The ICL submitted that, and I note the principles in M & M which are uncontroversial and the issues in Isles & Nelissen, in this context the father presents an unacceptable risk of harm, that nothing can be done to adequately ameliorate the risks, and that there is no evidence that the children are likely to benefit from a relationship with the father, given the position that he has been found to have committed multiple sexual offences, including against children in his care.
8. The mother adopted the ICL's position and also submitted that all children are in counselling, and that in fact, contrary to what the father says, in those circumstances it is not in their best interests to have communications with the father, given the extent to which he is responsible for that counselling and the complications it will or may cause.
9. The mother also points to her evidence of the father's sexual abuse of her during the relationship, which I note is consistent with the kind of predation for which he has been convicted and which I therefore accept is likely to be true, and says that in that context the requirement that she continue to be engaged with the father, even through solicitors, but being required to read his letters, to facilitate the children communicating with him, and given the knowledge of the abuse of her sisters while, in effect, in her care would adversely affect her.
10. It was submitted that to require the mother to do this would not promote her safety, as required under section 60CC, nor section 60CG, and could have, as I understand the submission is, a deleterious effect upon her and her parenting capacity when dealing with children who are already requiring counselling and who have various other vulnerabilities which I have not been required to go into. In effect, as I understand it, to some extent, although without being specific, it was, although not going quite so far, a Re Andrew type case.
11. The paternal grandparents, as parties, were entitled to make submissions, and did. They said they thought the ability to receive communication from the father might help the children's anxiety about the father, in effect adopting the father's case.
12. And certainly, it is a complex question whether it might be in the children's best interests to have some, limited, communication.
13. I note that the objects of Part VII of the Act which bind me are to ensure that the best interests of the children are met, including by ensuring their safety, as well as to give effect to the Convention on children's rights.
14. The paramount consideration is the best interests of the children, or each child, pursuant to section 60CA and 65AA, and indeed, as the reading speech for the current iteration of section 60CC made clear, safety is the core of the inquiry.
15. Parental responsibility is agreed, as is the live-with provision, as is the injunction against the father proposed by the ICL, except to the extent of the communication exception sought by the father which is the sole issue.
16. I am required to consider the section 60CC factors, in particular section 60CC(2) factors. At the heart of that is what arrangements would promote the safety, including safety from being subjected to or exposed to family violence, abuse, neglect or other harm of the child, and of each person who has the care of the child, whether or not that person has parental responsibility for the child. That, of course, in this case, is the mother.
17. I am satisfied that the children's safety and here, since we are only dealing with communication, it is psychological safety, is best promoted by not having any contact with the father.
18. I consider he poses a real risk to the children of psychological manipulation and long-term harm, given the clear pattern of manipulation to obtain sexual gratification and benefit from innocent children in his care in the past.
19. The risk that he will manipulate the children, if not for sexual pleasure, then for other benefits for himself, is grave.
20. I find it would also be contrary to the children's best interests to require the mother, who, as their sole carer is clearly traumatised by all these events, including the sexual assaults upon her, and her knowledge of the father's other conduct, to have to deal with the father, even as to the requirement to read cards and to facilitate contact, given that this will go on for another decade or so until the youngest child turns 18, and given her genuine, and I find well-founded, fears for the children if they maintain a relationship with the father.
21. I have considered the views of the children, and I note that with two of them even, they are quite old, but this is a case where the gravity of the father's offending and conduct is such that even in respect of the older children, it seems to me that the only way to ensure their safety is to not permit such contact.
22. The needs of the children can only be dealt with by the mother as the father is incarcerated. In any event, his prioritising of his own sexual needs shows he has, in my view, no demonstrated capacity to care for the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the children. Whereas, the mother has a good capacity to provide for the children's need.
23. There is a presumption, in effect, in the Act that there is a benefit to the child, or children, of being able to have a relationship with both of their parents, and for good reasons, many of those relating to the risks the children will internalise the loss as their own fault.
24. The ICL and mother submit there is no overall net benefit to the children in having a relationship with a father who is a long-term convicted sex predator and rapist.
25. While there is always the risk that the termination of the relationship will continue to cause psychological harm, which it appears to already have done, on balance, that psychological harm can be ameliorated through counselling, and I am satisfied it is by far the lesser risk to the children than having any ongoing contact with the father.
26. I am required to consider family violence, which, in this context, includes the father's family violence against the mother, and I consider it relevant to consider, whether it falls strictly within the definition or not, the sexual abuse of the mother's sisters when they were in her household.
27. The question of the children's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural identity has been dealt with appropriately by consent orders.
28. Accordingly, for reasons I have given, and noting that the nature of the father's convictions and history of sexual predation weighs so heavily that virtually no other factor can be given great weight, firstly, I make orders by consent as already indicated.
29. There is to be no contact.
30. Accordingly, I make an order in relation to the father that there be an injunction permanently prohibiting contact as proposed by the ICL and the mother, without the exception proposed by the father.
31. I will make an order in the usual terms that the mother, since I think it is necessary, may give a copy of these orders to any educational institution, any carer, any medical or allied health professional or treating the children in a government or other similar body, including NSW Police, the New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice, and any other person who is reasonably required to be put on notice of the orders, in particular the order for sole parental and decision-making authority.
32. The father is to spend no time and have no contact or communication with the children.
33. I will make a sole passport order in case the children need passports at any time. I cannot see there could be any objection to that. There is no real suggestion the mother has any capacity or intention to permanently remove the children overseas. They may want to go on school trips and things like that.
34. I think it is appropriate that the mother may provide a copy of the settled reasons for decision to any medical or allied health practitioner treating the children, as that may assist that allied health practitioner in understanding the background to why the Court has made orders that the children, from their point of view, are not allowed to have time with the father.
35. I will make an order that the independent children's lawyer may explain these orders to the children in a child-appropriate way, but will not require the ICL to do so. I think it is a question of discretion for the ICL.
36. The independent children's lawyer is otherwise discharged.
37. There shall be no order as to costs.

I certify that the preceding one hundred (100) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Smith.