Borrell & Lamont (No 3) [2026] FedCFamC2F 37 (9 January 2026)

(a) Education; and

(b) Health/medical; and

(c) Change of Name

1. For the purpose of paragraph 2 herein, before making any such decisions about major long-term issues about X ('the decision');

(a) Save in emergency, the Father advise MS BORRELL ('the Mother') in writing of his proposal relating to the child and, where applicable, provide to her any reasonable written direction or advice from X's general or specialist practitioner, psychologist or other allied health professionals; and

(b) If the Mother wishes to comment on the Father's proposal (or if the Mother has any proposal she wishes to make relating to X on the relevant issue) she shall, within 14 days after the date of the Father's communication, advise the Father in writing of her views; and

(c) Upon receipt of any comment or proposal by the Mother, the Father shall give consideration of the Mother's views when making the decision and advise the Mother in writing of the decision as soon as reasonably practicable; and

(d) If the Mother does not respond in writing as provided in order 3(b) hereof, then the Father shall be entitled to make the decision; and

(e) The Mother shall do all acts and things necessary to facilitate and give effect to the decision.

1. The parties are not required to consult each other when making decisions about day-to-day matters while X is in their care.

1. Save as otherwise ordered, the X live with the Father from and including 23 January 2026.

1. X spend time and communicate with the Mother as agreed between the parents in writing and, failing agreement, as follows:

(a) Commencing 30 January 2026, in each alternate week from after school Friday (or 3.30pm if a non-school day) until before school Monday (or 9.00am if a non-school day) during school terms; and

(b) Commencing 4 February 2026, in each other week from after school Wednesday (or 3.30pm if a non-school day) until before school Thursday (or 9.00am if a non-school day) during school terms;

(c) Order 6 (a) and (b) shall be suspended for the weekends during any school holiday period (which shall be deemed to include the first weekend after the school term ends and the weekend before school recommences) and to recommence on the weekend after the school term recommences determined as if the sequence had not been interrupted; and

(d) Commencing from the first term school holidays in 2026, for one half of all school holiday periods:

(i) Being the first half of the Easter, June/July, September/October and Christmas school holidays in odd numbered years; and

(ii) The second half of the Easter, June/July, September/October and Christmas school holidays in even numbered years.

(e) On the telephone at such time as X reasonably requests or as agreed between the parties in writing but otherwise between 7.30pm and 8.00pm each Tuesday and in relation to such communication the Father shall:

(i) Ensure that X is available to receive the telephone call;

(ii) Arrange for X to telephone the Mother on the following night if, for any unforeseen circumstance, X misses the telephone call from the Mother;

(iii) Ensure that X has privacy during the conversation.

(iv) In the event that X has her own mobile, such communications may be direct to X's mobile.

1. Notwithstanding paragraph 6 of these Orders and unless otherwise agreed between the parents in writing, X shall spend time with each parent on the following special occasions as follows:

(a) For Easter Sunday, X spend time with the parent X is not living with for that week, but for paragraph 6 of these Orders, from 9.00am to 2:00pm in odd numbered years and from 2.00pm to 7.00pm in even numbered years.

(b) On X's birthday, X spend time with the parent X is not living with for that week, but for paragraph 6 of these Orders, from 9.00am to 2:00pm in odd numbered years and from 2.00pm to 7.00pm in even numbered years.

(c) With the Mother each year on Mother's Day from 9.00am to 5:00pm;

(d) With the Mother each year:

(i) If a non-school day, from 9.00am to 5.00pm on the Mother's birthday; and

(ii) If a school day, from after school on the Mother's birthday until before school on the following day.

(e) With the Father each year on Father's Day from 9.00am to 5.00pm.

(f) With the Father each year:

(i) If a non-school day, from 9.00am to 5.00pm on the Father's birthday;

(ii) If a school day, from after school on the Father's birthday until before school on the following day.

(g) For Christmas, X will spend time:

(i) Each year with the Mother from 10.00am Christmas Eve until 12.00pm on Christmas Day;

(ii) Each year with the Father on the first Sunday following 4 December from 2.00pm to 7.00pm; and from 12.00pm Christmas Day until 12.00pm on Boxing Day; and

(iii) In the event the Mother elects to travel with X to City H for Christmas, this shall occur no more frequently than once every two years, unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing, and the Father shall not unreasonably withhold his consent to X travelling to City H.

1. For the purpose of these Orders, the school holiday time shall be calculated as follows:

(a) If the Mother's time falls in the first half of the holidays then from after school on the day the school term finishes until 5.00pm on the day calculated to be half of the holidays;

(b) If the Mother's time falls in the second half of the holidays then from 9.00am on the day calculated to represent half of the holidays until 9.00am on the day the term commences;

(c) School holidays shall be deemed to commence at close of school on the day the school term finishes and conclude at 9.00am on the day X returns to school and the number of nights in each school holiday period is to be used to calculate one half of the school holiday period and if there is an uneven number of nights the Mother shall retain the additional night;

1. The Mother, her servants and agents, be and are hereby restrained from taking X into her care or permitting X from any other arrangement other than in accordance with these orders, and for the avoidance of doubt:

(a) Save on the occasions when the Mother is delivering or facilitating delivery of X to school, the Mother, her servants and agents, be and are restrained from attending at X's school, unless attending for a school event that parents are usually invited to attend;

(b) the Mother, her servants and agents, be restrained from permitting X to be in the care of any parent other than in accordance with these orders.

(c) in the event X, while in the Father's care, runs away from the care of the Father to the Mother (or to a location of which the Mother is otherwise aware):

(i) the Mother forthwith contact the Father to inform him that X has arrived in her care or at the relevant location; and

(ii) the Mother forthwith return X to the Father at the Father's home.

1. Notwithstanding order 9 herein, in the event X refuses to enter the Father's vehicle or the Father's agent's vehicle for the purpose of returning from school to the Father or attending school from the Father's home then the Mother will at the Father's written request transport X from school to the Father's home or from the Father's home to X's school as the case may be.

1. The parties communicate via the 'AppClose' application, or such other agreed parenting application in the event that AppClose becomes unavailable/unsuitable, with communication limited to matters concerning X's routine, health, medical appointments, school activities, extra-curricular activities, social events relating to X, and matters necessary to give effect to these Orders.
2. In addition to AppClose the parties be at liberty to copy each other into email correspondence with relevant professionals for matters regarding X.
3. In the case of an emergency, the parties may communicate by any other means necessary, including by text or telephone.
4. All communications between the parties shall be child-focused and cordial.

1. In the event changeover pursuant to Order 6 above does not take place at X's school due to such day being a non-school day then, save as may be agreed between the parents in writing, changeover shall be effected as follows:

(a) the Mother or her agent shall deliver X to the Father's home (at the entrance to the driveway) at the commencement of X's time in her Father's care; and

(b) the Father or his agent shall deliver X to the Mother's home at the conclusion of time when X is in his care.

1. For the avoidance of doubt either the Mother or the Father or an agent of either of them may attend changeovers provided such agent is known to X.

1. Each of the parents do all acts and things necessary to enable X to continue attending counselling and therapy at B Clinic ('B Clinic') for trauma recovery counselling with Dr C (or her nominee), hereafter referred to as 'X's Trauma Clinician', and for such purposes:

(a) the Father provide copies of the following documents to B Clinic and copy the Mother into such communications as follows:

(i) a copy of these Orders;

(ii) a copy of the Family Report by Ms F, dated 30 October 2025; and

(iii) such other court documents (including reasons) from these proceedings as X's Trauma Clinician requests be available to her or him; and

(b) each of the parents comply with all lawful requests and directions by X's Trauma Clinician, including requests for attendance and therapy.

(a) when the Mother elects to make contact with X's Trauma Clinician further to that directed or requested by X's Trauma Clinician then the fees of that contact be at her expense; and

(b) subject to the directions of X's Trauma Clinician, both parents be at liberty to communicate, at their own expense, with X's Trauma Clinician provided all communication is child focused; and

(c) each parent be at liberty to attend any therapeutic sessions involving X, if and only if, invited to do so by X's Trauma Clinician; and

(d) any costs incurred by a parent in attending a session without X are to be borne by that parent individually; and

(e) otherwise the costs and fees of X's therapy be paid for by the Father.

1. The Father be authorised to provide a copy of these Orders and the Family Report of Ms F dated 18 November 2024 and 30 October 2025 to any school X attends or is enrolled in.

1. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of these Orders, the parents do all such things to cause and ensure that:

(a) Each parent is named as an emergency contact and/or next of kin with all of X's medical practitioners and any child educators including providing their contact telephone number for emergencies; and

(b) X's name is recorded on all enrolment and/or intake forms for medical, educational, and extracurricular activities to reflect X's legal birth name: LAMONT, X Borrell; and

(c) X is enrolled under her legal birth name, LAMONT, X Borrell, in all future enrolment forms for medical, educational, and extracurricular activities.

(a) Keep the other parent informed of their residential address, email address and mobile telephone number, and of any changes within 48 hours of any change occurring;

(b) Keep the other parent informed of the names and addresses of any treating medical or any allied health practitioners who treat X and authorise such practitioners to provide the other parent with all information that they are lawfully able to provide about X;

(c) Inform the other parent as soon as reasonably practicable of any serious injury, or serious non-routine medical issue or illness suffered by X. This Order authorises any treating medical practitioner to release X's medical information to the other parent;

(d) Consult the other parent and obtain their written consent prior to enrolling X in sporting or other extra-curricular activities that shall impinge or infringe on the other parent's time and acknowledge that each parent is able to attend any sporting or other extra-curricular activities X is participating.

(e) Authorise, by this order, any school attended by X to give each parent information about X's education progress and other school related activities and supply them with copies of school reports, photographs, certificates and awards obtained by X (at that parent's cost).

1. That each parent be herewith restrained by injunction from:

(a) Denigrating the other parent or the other parent's family members and friends or permitting another to do so in the presence of or hearing of X;

(b) Denigrating the other parent on any social media network site or electronic media;

(c) Exposing X to any adult conflict, argument or disagreement during changeover and;

(d) Committing family violence against the other including but not limited to harassing, intimidating or threatening the other parent or allowing or instigating a family member or friend to harass, intimidate or threaten the other parent or causing an agent to do likewise.

1. Each parent provide the other with at least 14 days prior notice of the intention to travel interstate with X, during their spend time, together with particulars of the locations to which X will be travelling and contact details for X whilst on holiday.

1. That either parent sign a Passport Application for X within seven days of the other parent's request to do so and the costs of any passport applications shall be shared equally between the parents.
2. In the event of either parent refusing to sign the passport application, the Registrar of the Federal Circuit and Family Court at Dandenong shall be authorised to sign X's passport application.
3. Within seven days of the passport being issued for X, the Father retain the passport in his safe keeping.
4. When X is spending time with a parent during the school holidays, that parent shall be at liberty, during their school holiday time, to take X to a country which is a signatory to the Hague Convention and against which there is no Australian Federal Government travel warning issued at the intended time of travel provided the following conditions are met:

(a) The travelling parent shall provide to the other parent with at least 42 days' notice in writing of their intention to travel, including:

(i) a copy of their itinerary for the trip including but not limited to departure and return times and dates, a contact telephone number for the travelling parent and X, and the address at which they will be predominantly be based (provided that they will not be required to provide details of every address at which X will stay).

(ii) in the event the intended period of travel time exceeds two (2) weeks and does not occur wholly during a school holiday period, the travelling parent must obtain express written consent from the non-travelling parent.

(b) No less than 28 days prior to any proposed overseas travel, the travelling parent shall:

(i) Provide to the other parent, copies of final travel itinerary and return airfares for X including all countries of stopover or final destination;

(ii) Pay for comprehensive travel insurance in relation to X and produce a copy of the certificate of insurance to the non-travelling parent;

(iii) Provide to the other parent written confirmation that the travel has been registered on smarttraveller.gov.au.; and

(iv) Provide dates for confirmation of make-up time if any time between X and the non-travelling parent would be affected by the proposed travel.

(c) Where the Mother is the travelling parent:

(i) The Father's written consent to the proposed travel is also required which shall not be unreasonably withheld; and

(ii) Upon providing the Father's written consent in accordance with paragraph 27(c)(i), the Father shall forthwith release X's passport to the Mother, and the Mother shall return the passport to the Father within seven (7) days of her return from the overseas travel.

1. Pursuant to sections 68P, 68Q and 68 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to the extent that these orders are inconsistent with any Magistrates' Court Intervention Orders, the Orders of this Commonwealth Court take precedence and override those State Orders.
2. The Father be and is at liberty to apply on short notice by email to ...@....

1. These orders authorise the Father to do all acts and things necessary to forthwith enrol X at J School, K Street, Suburb L.
2. Pursuant to ss.65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in Annexure A and these particulars are included in these orders.

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

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

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

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

1. These are the settled reasons of an oral judgment delivered some short time after the hearing, but not immediately after. These reasons were delivered orally. They have been corrected from the transcript of the oral reasons. Grammatical errors have been corrected. Legislation, citations and/or passages of authorities referred to, but not recited, have been added. Observations and evidence not included in the oral reasons_,_ whether not included due to time constraints or overlooked have been added. And an attempt has been made to make the orally delivered reasons easier to read but the substance is unchanged.

1. Having separated after a relationship of some years, the mother of X, Ms Borrell ('the Mother'), and the father of X, Mr Lamont ('the Father'), seek the assistance of the Court to work out the living arrangements for their child, X, born in 2012 and now 14. For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that the orders as to the living arrangements sought by the Father in regard to a change of residence are indeed in X's best interests, and I will so order.
2. These oral reasons are delivered after a final hearing over seven days that was required to determine orders about the living and schooling arrangements for X. The last day of hearing was 23 December 2025, and the parties sought a final decision urgently because each parent pressed for orders that X attend different schools in the 2026 school year.
3. I make orders by the application of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ('the Act').
4. I have determined that, with some minor changes, the scheme of the orders as sought by X's father, and the Independent Children's Lawyer ('the ICL'), are in X's best interests, and I will make those orders.
5. These are the reasons why I have so determined.

1. The background is that the Mother was born in 1985 and is 40 years old. She is currently unemployed but has asserted that she intends to seek employment in the property industry. The Father is 39 years old and is employed as a community worker on shift work, being four days on, four days off. During the trial, the Father clarified the logistics of his shift work, being that he works for four days then has four days off. Within those four days "on", the Father will work two day shifts of 10 hours each, followed by two night shifts of 14 hours each, from 6 pm to 8 am. I note the Father's work arrangement as his work schedule was a significant issue in this matter and a key complaint in the Mother's case.
2. The parents commenced cohabitation in 2011. They separated when then living in Melbourne on 1 May 2016. X was then four. Proceedings were first issued in July 2018. However, these proceedings were later issued in 2022.[1]
3. X is now 14 years. It is with great concern and with great care that the Court finds it necessary to make court orders compelling parents to deal with the living arrangements of a 14-year-old.

1. It is important to note that final orders were made in this matter by consent on 12 May 2020. Those orders provided, inter alia:

1. All previous parenting orders be discharged.

1. The parties have equal shared parental responsibility of the child [X] born [in] 2012 ('the child').

2. Each parent shall have responsibility for the day-to-day decisions about the care, welfare and development of the child while she is in that parent's care.

4. The child live with the mother.

1. Until the commencement of the child's school term 2 in 2021, the child spend time with the Father as follows:

(a) During school terms:

(i) Commencing on Friday 15 May 2020, from after school on Friday (or after school on Thursday if Friday is a non-school day) until before school on Monday (or 9:00am if a non-school day), and each alternate weekend thereafter;

(ii) Commencing on Thursday 21 May 2020, from after school (or 8:30am if a non-school day) until before school on Friday (or 6:00pm if a non-school day), and each alternate Thursday thereafter;

(b) During the term 1, 2 and 3 school term holidays, the child spend time with each parent for one half of the school holidays at such times by agreement, and in default of agreement for the first half with the Father with such time to commence at the conclusion of school on the last day of term until 7.00pm on the day which falls on the second Monday of the school holiday;

(c) During the long summer school holidays as agreed in writing between the parties and failing agreement, on a week-about basis with the father to spend the first, third and fifth week of the holidays with the child, with the first week to commence from the last day of the school term, and

(d) At such other times as agreed between the parents.

6. From the commencement of the child's school term 2 in 2021

(a) During school terms and subject to the father providing the mother with a copy of his "4 days on 4 days off" full year work roster upon the father receiving the same from his work/employer prior to the father's scheduled time commencing, the father spend time with the child for 4 consecutive days (3 nights) on which the father does not work unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing;

(b) During the term 1, 2 and 3 school term holidays, the child spend time with each parent for one half of the school holidays at such times by agreement, and in default of agreement for the first half with the Father with such time to commence at the conclusion of school on the last day of term until 7.00pm on the day which falls on the second Monday of the school holiday; and

(c) During the long summer school holidays as agreed in writing between the parties and failing agreement, on a week-about basis with the father to spend the first, third and fifth week of the holidays with the child, with the first week to commence from the last day of the school term, and

(d) At such other times as agreed between the parents.

1. The arrangements in paragraph 5(a) and 6(a) of these Orders are suspended during school holidays and recommence at the start of each school term on the same cycle as if the school holidays had not intervened.

[...]

1. The Father pay the cost of the child's airfare for one return trip to [City H] each year as follows:

(a) The mother shall provide the father with her selected travel dates with the child at least two weeks prior to the proposed dates of travel;

(b) The father shall then provide the mother with two quotes for return airfares for travel times between 9:00am and 6:00pm within the proposed travel dates for the child; and

(c) The father shall reimburse the mother for the child's return airfares to the mother's nominated bank account within 3 days of the mother producing a receipt for payment made by her.

1. Those orders also provided for special occasion time, communication, travel, and a host of other ancillary .orders. It is common ground that those orders were followed for a period of approximately two years, until 27 March 2022 when the Mother unilaterally ceased all "spend time" and contact between X and her father.

1. After a long time of not being able to spend time with X in accordance with the 2020 final orders, the Father filed a contravention application in August of 2022 alleging eight counts of contravening the orders.
2. The circumstances, as each parent asserts them, surrounding those contraventions and the cessation of time from 27 March 2022 is discussed in further detail later in these reasons, but the long and the short of it is that the Mother concedes that she ceased X's time and communication with the Father back on 27 March 2022. But she says that she had a reasonable excuse to do so as she alleges that X's health and safety were at risk were she to permit X to spend time or communicate with the Father following incidents during March 2022.
3. On 17 October 2022, the Mother filed an application for final orders seeking that she have sole parental responsibility (as it was then known) for X, that X live with her in City H, and that X spend time with the Father for half of the school term holidays, and a period of three weeks over the summer holidays, but with the qualification, "should it be deemed appropriate for the Father to spend substantial time with the child by a family consultant".
4. On 7 November 2022, the Father filed a further contravention application alleging that Mother had continued to breach the 2020 orders. Both contravention applications were consolidated for final hearing before another Judge of this Court on 7 June 2023. At that final hearing, the Mother did not deny contravention without reasonable excuse of seven of the alleged contraventions, and therefore seven counts were found to be proven. The Father did not, however, seek a penalty in relation to those contraventions.

1. On 25 January 2023, interim orders were made before Judicial Registrar Taylor, that upon providing a minimum of 28 days' notice to the Mother of his availability, the Father spend time with X on two two-hour occasions in January 2023, and two four-hour occasions in February 2023, with such time to be in a public place. The ICL for X was also appointed on 25 January 2023.
2. On 30 March 2023, further orders were made before Senior Judicial Registrar Kourtis, that X spend time with the Father from 9 am to 4 pm each Sunday, save for specific dates, and from 5.30 to 7.30 pm for an evening meal on five specific weekday dates.
3. On 18 May 2023, orders were again made by consent before the same Senior Judicial Registrar providing for specific spend time occasions roughly following a 9 am to 4 pm one day each weekend and 5.30 to 7.30 pm one weekday per week arrangement, with time still being limited to a public place, as well as telephone time each Tuesday between 7.30 and 8 pm.
4. On 7 June 2023, alongside the hearing of the contravention applications, interim orders were made by consent that provided for:
   • telephone communication between 7.30 and 8 pm on Tuesday evenings;
   • spend time from 9 am to 5 pm each Saturday or Sunday as provided in the orders, with changeover to occur at M Shopping Centre, that is, a regional shopping centre; and
   • one weeknight occasion each week from 5.30 to 7.30 pm, with days changing as detailed in the orders.
5. On 11 September 2023, further interim orders were made by consent that provided for:
   • telephone communication each Tuesday between 7 pm and 8 pm; and
   • spend time from 9 am to 5 pm on designated Saturdays or Sundays for approximately four months, and then thereafter from 9 am to 5 pm with changeover to occur at M Shopping Centre.
6. On 4 December 2023, orders were made by consent by Judicial Registrar Taylor for additional spend time on top of the 11 September orders relating to special occasions.
7. On 15 April 2024, orders were made by consent designating specific Saturday/Sunday times each week from April to July, with most being from 9 am to 5 pm.
8. Further consent orders were made on 2 July 2024 providing for Tuesday telephone time and Christmas Day time in 2024, in addition to the time otherwise set out in the previous 15 April orders.
9. On 26 August 2024, the matter was listed for a compliance and readiness hearing on 4 December 2024, and on that day, the matter was listed for final hearing on 14 April 2025.
10. On 24 and 25 February, the matter came on before me for another interim defended hearing on the Father's urgent application in a proceeding, filed 23 January 2025, seeking trauma recovery counselling for X to address a "resist-refuse dynamic", as it was so described, that X was said to be presenting when Court orders provided her to spend time with the Father, and for X to be enrolled in J School. The Father did not then pursue the J School position. By this time, X was attending N School in Suburb O. She had been so enrolled there the previous year unilaterally by the Mother and without forewarning to the Father of her intention to do so. When pressed by the Father as to what school X had been enrolled at, the Mother more or less told him or confirmed that she had been enrolled at N School.
11. At that hearing in February, I made orders that the Mother provide written documents to the Father and the ICL to show that she had paid for, or was able to pay, X's private school fees at N School for 2025. I also ordered that all the spend time orders of 15 April be discharged, and that X spend time with the Father each Sunday from 9.30 am sharp to 5 pm sharp, with the Mother to deliver and collect X from the paternal grandparents' home, and each Wednesday from 6 pm sharp to 7.30 pm sharp, with changeovers to occur outside a hamburger shop in Suburb P.
12. It was thought necessary at that time to have the Mother use her parental authority to deliver X to the paternal grandparents' home, that is, the Father's parents' home, to enable X to spend time with the Father. It was alleged, and is common ground, that on occasions where the Father intended to collect X for these orders, he was unable to persuade X to enter into his car. It is also apparent that the combined parental authority of the Father and the Mother, as exercised by each at that time, was unable to assist X spend time with the Father in compliance with the orders.

1. The final hearing commenced on 14 April 2025 and had my attention for two days. All parties were represented by solicitor and counsel. When the matter came on for hearing back in April, the Mother's formal application was to have the Father's time with X stay at daytime only, and that X otherwise live with her. At that time, at the start of this final hearing, the Father pressed for orders that would provide for an equal time living arrangement.
2. For much of those two days, by agreement of the parties in which I acquiesced, the matter was stood down for without prejudice discussion.
3. On day two of the trial, the parties came to substantial agreement and consent orders were made regarding spend time arrangements between the Father and X until the matter came back for an agreed part heard final hearing in December 2025.
4. Further context in relation to that April hearing and orders is detailed in my decision of Borrell & Lamont (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2F 635.
5. The substance is that the orders provided for a fixed, alternate week arrangement of from after school Thursday till before school Monday, as well as the following Thursday, with such arrangement to continue during school holidays. That arrangement was a dramatic change to the existing orders, and, at the time, I regarded it as reflecting well on both parents. It is important to note, and I draw attention to the unusual orders at #4 & #5 (that are now to be reproduced at orders 9 and 10 of the orders that I have made this day). The orders made on 15 April included:

THE COURT ORDERS BY CONSENT (SAVE WHERE INDICATED[2]) THAT:

UNTIL FURTHER ORDER:

1. All previous parenting Orders with respect to live with and spend time arrangements for the child [X], born [in] 2012, (]X]) be discharged.

2. [X] live with the mother.

1. [X] spend time and communicate with the father, on a fortnightly basis, as follows:

(a) in week one (1) from the conclusion of school on Thursday (or 3pm in the event of a non-school day) until the commencement of school on Monday (or 10am in the event of a non-school day), commencing Thursday, 1 May 2025; and

(b) in week two (2) from the conclusion of school (or 3pm in the event of a non-school day) on Thursday until the commencement of school on Friday (or 10am in the event of a non-school day), commencing Thursday, 8 May 2025.

(c) unless otherwise agreed by the parents in writing.

1. The mother, her servants and agents, be and are hereby restrained from taking the child into her care or permitting the child from any other arrangement other than in accordance with these orders, and for the avoidance of doubt:

(a) the mother, her servants and agents, be restrained from attending at the child's school, where changeover occurs at the child's school;

(b) the mother, her servants and agents, be restrained from permitting the child to be in the care of any parent other than in accordance with these orders

(c) in the event [X] runs away from the father, while in the father's care, runs away from the care of the father to the mother (or to a location of which the mother is otherwise aware):

(i) the mother forthwith contact the father to inform him that [X] has arrived in her care or at the relevant location; and

(ii) the mother forthwith return [X] to the father at the paternal grandparents home.

BY THE COURT:

1. Notwithstanding order 4 herein in the event [X] refuses to enter the father's vehicle or the father's agent's vehicle for the purpose of returning from school to the father or attending school from the father's home then the mother will at the father's written request transport the child from school to the fathers home or from the father's home to the child's school as the case may be.

BY CONSENT:

1. In the event changeover pursuant to Order 3 above does not take place at [X]'s school due to such day being a non-school day then, save as may be agreed between the parents in writing, changeover shall be effected as follows:

(a) the mother or her agent shall deliver [X] to the paternal grandparents home at the commencement of [X]'s time in her father's care; and

(b) the father or his agent shall deliver [X] to the mother's home at the conclusion of time when [X] is in his care.

1. For the avoidance of doubt either the mother or the father or an agent of either of them may attend changeovers provided such agent is known to [X].

BY THE COURT:

1. Each of the parents have the parental responsibility of day to day care and decision making of [X] when [X] is in the Mother's or Father's care.

BY CONSENT:

Family Therapy

1. Each of the parents do all acts and things necessary to enable [X] to attend for the purpose of reportable counselling and therapy at [B Clinic] ([B Clinic]) for trauma recovery counselling with [Dr C] (or her nominee), and for such purpose:

(a) the father provide copies of the following documents to [B Clinic] and copy the mother into such communications as follows:

(i) copy of these Orders;

(ii) copy of the Family Report by [Ms E], dated 23 March 2020;

(iii) copy of the Child Impact Report by [Ms D], dated 20 March 2023;

(iv) copy of the Family Report by [Ms F], dated 18 November 2024; and

(v) copy of the therapy reports by [Ms G], dated 8 April 2024 and 21 November 2024

(b) each of the parents comply with all lawful requests and directions by [Dr C] (or her nominee), including requests for attendance and therapy;

(c) the costs of therapy and counselling sessions by [B Clinic] be paid in the split of 80% by the Father and 20% by the Mother.

(d) each of the parents hereby direct and authorise [B Clinic] and/or [Dr C] (or her nominee) to discuss and provide to the ICL progress details and updates with respect to the counselling and therapy and/or as to [X]'s relationship with each of her parents.

10. That a copy of these orders be provided to any school attended by [X].

1. That the parties communicate by Appclose or in cases of emergency by text or phone and all communications must be cordial and child focussed.

2. That in addition to changeovers, each of the parties is at liberty to attend any school attended by [X] for the purpose of parent teacher interviews, school concerts, sports days, or any other event a parent may attend.

3. That each of the parties may contact any of [X]'s treaters for the purpose of discussing any medical issue (if any) from time to time.

BY THE COURT:

1. The parties are to not retain or publish any photographs of [X] or communications about [X] on social media including "Facebook" and "Instagram". The parents be at liberty to send photos of [X] via text message to friends and family.

BY CONSENT:

Injunctions or Restraints

1. In addition to the provisions set out at Order 4 above, each of the parents, their servants and agents be and are hereby restrained from denigrating, abusing, insulting or belittling the other parent or his/her extended family to or in the presence and/or hearing of [X].

...

1. It is common ground that in complete distinction to the arrangements that had ensued on the ground since 27 March 2022, that the combined parental authority of the parents was then such, with the assistance of those orders, that X attended on each and every occasion as required by those orders. The extent to which X enjoyed or had enjoyed that time to her benefit in the Father's care remains controversial in these proceedings.
2. The Father's case is that that time went, by and large, very well in all the circumstances. And the Mother's case is that the time ensued and, in final address, her counsel pressed that the time was proceeding satisfactorily, and that X was happy to see her father on those occasions. Despite that, the Mother's affidavit is a catalogue of problems and complaints about the Father's household during that time. As set out later, I do not accept any of the criticisms, largely being opinions, that the Mother holds about what is alleged to have occurred in the Father's household at those times.
3. On day two of the final hearing in April, at the parties' request, the part heard hearing was adjourned to 15 December 2025, and the parties were permitted to file updating material, and they did so. The matter then proceeded over 15, 16, 17, 18, and 23 December.
4. Part of available time was lost due to counsel's illness, and the family report writer, being only available for cross-examination on a particular day, was cross-examined by the Mother's solicitor when her counsel was ill. The solicitor, Ms Albore, in a competent cross-examination, demonstrated skill as an advocate, a thorough knowledge of the case, and a Dr C to her instructions and the Mother's case. I reserved my decision at approximately 5.35 pm on 23 December 2025 and advised then that orders and oral reasons would be made and delivered by electronic hearing at 10 am this day, and so I do.

1. The intense nature of this dispute can be understood from the notice of risk filed by the Mother when the current proceedings commenced. It is convenient to recite part of that, what was then intended to be, formal document. The notice of risk was cross-examined upon and tendered in the proceedings as exhibit 'C1' on 18 December 2025.

6. Has a child to whom proceedings relate been abused (or are they at risk of abuse) by a party to proceedings or any other person relevant to these proceedings?

Yes

7. Name the person you allege has subjected or exposed the child to abuse or neglect or who poses a 7 risk to the child.

[Mr Lamont], [Ms Q] Moron and [Mrs Lamont]

...

8. Have the allegations been reported to an outside authority (such as police, child welfare authority, school, hospital, a medical practitioner)?

Yes

9. If you reported the allegations to an outside authority, identify to which authority the allegations were reported.

[Suburb R] Police Station

Date you made the report?

10/2022

...

14. Name the person you allege has subjected or exposed you or the child to family violence.

[Mr Lamont], [Ms Q] Moron and Mrs Lamont]

...

15. Have the allegations been reported to an outside authority (such as police, child welfare authority, school, hospital, a medical practitioner)?

Yes

16. If you reported the allegations to an outside authority, identify to which authority the allegations were reported.

[Suburb R] Police Station March 2022 and October 2022

Date you made the report?

10/2022

...

28 ... Step-Mother

10. [Ms Q] may cause further physical harm to [X].

11. [Ms Q] admits in her affidavit filed 15 August 2022 paragraph 11 that she has mental health issues.

12. I do not know the extent of [Ms Q]'s mental health issues.

13. [Ms Q] has inflicted physical abuse on [X].

14. [Ms Q] has inflicted emotional and verbal abuse on [X].

15. [Ms Q] has previously used drugs and alcohol. I cannot comment on whether she is presently using. I do not know.

16. [Ms Q] has told me personally she gets anxiety and she has admitted the same in her affidavit filed 15 August 2022. The same would have a terrible impact on [X] if not in control or treated properly.

17. [Ms Q] may inflict emotional and verbal abuse on [X] to deal with her mental health issues.

29. The Father and the paternal grandmother attended [X]'s school on Monday 3 October 2022 in an attempt to take her home with them. [X] did not want to go. [X] was extremely distressed following the attempt on 3 October 2022 and the Father attempted to collect her again on 4 October 2022 despite the distress, mental anguish, fear and harm it caused to [X].

...

31. Have there been any recent threats to harm the child or another person relevant to the proceedings?

Yes

If 'yes', provide details.

The Father has threatened to kill the Mother in January 2021**.**

...

35. If you have provided information related to abuse, neglect or family violence, or risks posed by substance misuse, mental health issues or abduction in this form, provide details of what caused you to become concerned about those matters.

1. CHILD ABDUCTION

The Father has not seen [X] since March 2022. He issued contravention proceedings on 15 August 2022. There were two hearrings [sic] but no determination was made on the contravention. The Father then attempted to on the 3 October 2022 to collect [X] from school. [X] broke down in tears in the classroom when a teacher went to get her. She was significantly distressed. This did not stop the Father coming back on the 4 October 2022 and causing similar distress.

...

2. FAMILY VIOLENCE

The Father threatened to kill the Mother on or around [...] January 2022 before the child [X]. The Father admits to the same in his affidavit filed 15 August 2022 and tries to play down the circumstance. The Father and the Step-Mother denigrate the Mother before the child although the same causes the child emotional distress and she asks them to stop it they continue. [X] has no access to a shower or clean personal female garments whilst in the care of her Father. She frequently returned home with her underwear heavily soiled after spending time with the Father.

PHYSICAL ABUSE

[Ms Q] physically hit [X] [in] March 2022 causing her a bruise and scaring her. The Father threw a lunch box at [X]'s head [in] March 2022 which has frightened and scarred [X]. [X] was crying in the comer of her bedroom. She got all her things togethers and asked her Dad to bring her home and her refused. The Father then turned the internet off so she could not contact the Mother to ask her to be collected and only turned it on again the next day.

3. FAMILY VIOLENCE

[X] has reported that the Father and [Ms Q] bicker and argue before her. She has reported that the Father tells [Ms Q] she eats too much. [X] reports that the Father goes through the grocery list and makes [Ms Q] pay for what she wants, which is what he used to do to me. [X] would frequently tell her Father she was hungry and he would refuse and decline her access to food in his care. She would often complain of being hungry and stomach pains when she returned home after being in his care.

FAMILY VIOLENCE

[X] reports that the Father drives erratically and fast and that the same scares her. The Father and [Ms Q] put [X] down which devastates her and negatively impacts her mental health and development.

The Father engages in pornographic photoshoots for his business and the child is a witness to the same. The Father did not allow [X] to take her iron supplement tablets whilst in his care (maltofer).

The Fahter [sic] would not allow [X] to have her extra protein supplement shake (Pedisure) that the doctor requested she have.

1. None of those allegations were ever withdrawn, nor was the making of them adequately explained in these proceedings. The Father, Ms Q (the Father's partner), and the Father's mother, Mrs Lamont, who was a witness in the proceedings, deny all of those allegations.

1. It is now convenient to turn to the first family report, dated 18 November 2024. I use the term "the first family report" because it is the first family report in this wave of proceedings, but prior to this wave of proceedings, there had also been a family report released in 2020.
2. It is convenient to recite at this point some of the observations of the first family report, and as was current when the final hearing commenced in April of 2025. The interviews had taken place on 10 and 29 October 2024, and the report was dated 18 November 2024 and released to the parties soon after. All of that report is of assistance to me, but it is convenient to recite the following parts of the report.

PROPOSALS OF THE PARTIES

1. [Mr Lamont]'s initiating application proposed that visits with [X] are reinstated immediately and [Ms Borrell] is contravened for withholding [X].

15. [Mr Lamont] stated in interview his current proposal is:

a) Joint major decision making for [X]

b) [X] lives with [Ms Borrell]

c) [X] spends overnight time with [Mr Lamont] a few nights a fortnight

1. [Ms Borrell]'s initial response proposed [X] relocates to [City H], a Family Report is completed with visits recommencing after the Family Report.

...

Issues Identified During Assessment

• Resist refuse dynamic is strongly evident for [X] with her father
• The emotional harm to [X] as a consequence of her mother's conduct

• ...
• [Ms Borrell] age 39
  1. ... [Ms Borrell] appeared strongly fixed in her view that [X] should spen[d] less time with [Mr Lamont] and that [Mr Lamont] should not attend school or other activities for [X].

...

1. [Ms Borrell] described herself as "vulnerable" during the relationship with [Mr Lamont], that he "promised her a future" and "life" and he "didn't" make it "work". [Ms Borrell] said she and [Mr Lamont] met in [City H] which is where [X] was born and that they moved to Melbourne for [Mr Lamont]'s career. [Ms Borrell] said she tried "to keep" their "relationship" positive and indicated she separated from [Mr Lamont] due to his difficult behaviour. [Ms Borrell] said [Mr Lamont] "goes silent" and ignores having a conversation and his silences made their relationship difficult. [Ms Borrell] made several references to apparent disappointment and hurt that the relationship with [Mr Lamont] had ceased and her belief that he "broke promises" he made to her.

...

1. [Ms Borrell] claimed that [X] "does not want to go" on visits with [Mr Lamont], she "expects" that [X] will be "angry" if "overnight visits" are ordered and there will be "problems" for [X] emotionally if visits increase. [Ms Borrell] said that [X] "does not want dinner" or additional time with [Mr Lamont], that [X] "does not come home happy" and "struggles with all day" visits.

2. [Ms Borrell] said she is proposing that visits remain as a few hours on a Sunday and that [X] has the option to refuse to attend a visit if [X] does not want to see her father or has other activities to attend such as a friend's birthday.

...

1. [Ms Borrell] appeared to complain that the Court and the Independent Child Lawyer (ICL) "blame" her when [X] "doesn't want visits" and appeared frustrated that the Court determined [X] could not relocate to [City H] in 2018.

2. [Ms Borrell] said she is proposing a relocation to [City H] to increase her family support and income, that she has no family in Melbourne and she described a supportive friendship network in Melbourne. [Ms Borrell] spoke about an aunt in Sydney who is a celebrity having access to wealthy clients for "career connections" and "financial improvement" and appeared unable to explain how that would benefit her in [City H]. ...

...

1. [Ms Borrell] said, "I agreed" the contraventions of the Parenting Orders "to end the process" regarding the "nine withholding" contraventions as she was unable to be legally "represented" due to costs and due to [Mr Lamont] reporting her lawyer to "the board". [Ms Borrell] said she had ceased visits for [X]'s safety and appeared to imply she would not have been "found guilty" if she was legally represented. [Ms Borrell] indicated she did not know why [Mr Lamont] reported her lawyer and indicated this was an act of "coercive control" by him.

2. [Ms Borrell] said she has made sole major decisions since separation and she is proposing that she has sole responsibility for major decisions regarding [X].

[Mr Lamont] age 38

1. [Mr Lamont]... appeared polite, despondent and tearful; he appeared capable of participating in his interview. [Mr Lamont] appeared flexible and thoughtful regarding arrangements for [X] and how to enhance his relationship with her without being intrusive to [X].

...

1. [Mr Lamont] described a loving and committed relationship with [Ms Q] and that they have been together for almost eight years. [Mr Lamont] said that [Ms Q] is a caring and fun stepmother for [X].

...

1. [Mr Lamont] said the impact of [Ms Borrell] withholding [X] for one year has seriously harmed [X], with a "distinct change" in [X]'s attitude and behaviour, he believes that [X] has formed a belief that [Mr Lamont] "abandoned her" and is "dangerous" and this damaged the "momentum" of their relationship. [Mr Lamont] described a loving, positive and "proud" parent child relationship, that [X] was "OK in the car" and enjoyed visits before 2022. [Mr Lamont] said, "I was like her hero" and "now I'm nothing" to [X].

2. [Mr Lamont] stated that [Ms Borrell] removing [X] from a sleep over at a school friends' home whilst [X] was in his care[3] caused disruption to [X]'s friendships, caused [X] to believe he did not make a safe decision about her and that [Ms Borrell] had to take drastic action to protect [X]. [Mr Lamont] has deposed in affidavits instances of [Ms Borrell] interfering and attempting to remove [X] from paternal family whilst [X] was in his care, with [Ms Borrell] involving the police at times. There appears no evidence to suggest that the paternal family or the school friend's family posed a risk to [X] to justify [Ms Borrell]'s actions.

...

1. [Mr Lamont] said that [X] makes "similar" statements to those made by [Ms Borrell] and he is concerned that [Ms Borrell] is engaging [X] into conversations to "undermine" relationships and this is causing [X] to "align" with her mother. [Mr Lamont] said he believes that [Ms Borrell] "makes [X] feel guilty for loving her family" (paternal family).

...

[Ms Q] age 39

1. [Ms Q][4] appeared casually dressed, of average height and build; she appeared confident, thoughtful and engaging. [Ms Q] appeared to speak positively and lovingly of [X] and has strong views about the negative impacts of [X] being withheld from her paternal family.

...

1. [Ms Q] expressed sadness that [X] has "lost time" and lost her "loving relationship" with [Mr Lamont] and the paternal family. [Ms Q] said that [X] "does what [Ms Borrell] says" and indicated that [X] has been "coached" into making false statements for many years and that [Ms Borrell] has actively undermined [X] by "encouraging" [X] to "be rude" which "hurts" the paternal family.

2. [Ms Q] described a "difficult" relationship with [Ms Borrell] and said she believed that [Ms Borrell] has "unresolved feelings" about [Mr Lamont] and is "jealous" of her and [Mr Lamont] having a successful relationship. [Ms Q] described herself as "a passive avoider" who will "avoid confrontation" and that her strategy for the difficult relationship with [Ms Borrell] has been to "ignore" issues. [Ms Q] said that [Ms Borrell] "still talks about" [Mr Lamont] "promising her a life" together more than eight years after the separation. [Ms Q] denies the various allegations made by [Ms Borrell] that suggest [Ms Q] has been abusive or unsafe to [Ms Borrell] or [X].

...

1. [Ms Borrell] applied for a Family Violence Intervention Order in [early] 2022 citing allegations of physical and emotional abuse of [X] by [Mr Lamont] and [Ms Q] including grabbing [X] causing injury and throwing a lunchbox at [X]. [Mr Lamont] said he did not admit the allegations nor oppose the granting of the Intervention Order. [Mr Lamont] and [Ms Q] deny the allegations and [Ms Q] explained that she had grabbed [X] by the jumper to prevent [X] from running away during a disagreement. [X] indicated to the writer the disagreement occurred, she denied she was harmed and appeared unable to recall details. [Ms Borrell]'s application for and use of Intervention Orders appears to correlate with Family Court matters.

2. [Ms Q] said that [Ms Borrell] has recently applied to extend the current Intervention Order claiming that [Mr Lamont] is "stalking her" and that [Ms Borrell] fears [Mr Lamont]. [Ms Q] said she does not believe that [Ms Borrell] is "scared" as [Ms Borrell] attended family counselling with [X] and [Mr Lamont] in person when [Ms Borrell] was offered online sessions for her safety...

...

1. [Ms Borrell] alleged that [Mr Lamont] has threatened to "kill her" in the presence of [X] which caused [X] and [Ms Borrell] considerable fear. [Mr Lamont] said he muttered words to the effect of I could kill her when [Ms Borrell] was not answering the door for change over and this occurred in the context of extended parental disputes with [Ms Borrell]. [Mr Lamont] expressed remorse and denied any intention to harm [Ms Borrell].

...

1. [Ms Borrell] deposed in her affidavits that [X] is scared and petrified of [Mr Lamont], experienced nightmares about [Mr Lamont] and [Ms Q] who have told [X] that [Ms Borrell] is manipulating [X] and [Ms Borrell] has something wrong with her.

...

1. [Ms Borrell] said she is "sad for her" when discussing [X]'s parental relationship with [Mr Lamont]. [Ms Borrell] explained that [X] "sees other dads" who "do things with their kids" such as social activities and shared dinners with both parents. [Ms Borrell] described [X] being hurt by [Mr Lamont] not having an active presence for [X] since the parents separated.

...

1. [Mr Lamont] has deposed in affidavits many examples of [Ms Borrell] "coaching" [X] to provide inaccurate information including to police, of [Ms Borrell] threatening to breach Intervention Orders if [Mr Lamont] followed the Parenting Order or attended [X]'s school and [Ms Borrell] denigrating [Mr Lamont] in [X]'s presence.

2. [Mr Lamont] has deposed in affidavits many examples of [Ms Borrell] attempting to erase [Mr Lamont] such as recording the maternal grandfather as a parent on primary school enrolment forms, registering [X] as [X Borrell] not [X Lamont] at recreational activities and on flights. This appears to cause [X] considerable confusion and to enmesh her into the acrimonious parental relationship. The prior Family Report noted [X] using both her parents surnames in her effort to ameliorate this problem.

3. [Mr Lamont] said [X] is "less loving" towards him since [Ms Borrell] withheld [X] and unilaterally ceased visits in 2022 and he believes that [X] does not understand she is being "hurtful" as [X] is "coached and encouraged" by [Ms Borrell].

...

1. [Mr Lamont] engaged with [X] in six counselling sessions with [Ms G] (Social Worker) who noted the following in her report. [Mr Lamont] provided [X] with reassurance and answered her questions about their visit arrangements, he acknowledged her concerns and apologised for [X] feeling hurt. [Mr Lamont] was able to carefully provide [X] with his perspective of events which were different to [Ms Borrell]'s perspective, with [Mr Lamont] explaining he respected [Ms Borrell]'s safety which is why he cannot be in close proximity to [Ms Borrell]. [X] indicated she wanted more phone time and activities during visits with [Mr Lamont], further that she wants [Mr Lamont] to attend her school events. [X] appeared to experience joy and fun during sessions and indicated she enjoys visits with [Mr Lamont]. [Ms G] noted that [X] appears to have emotional dysregulation and trauma because of the acrimonious parental relationship, being withheld by [Ms Borrell] and that [Ms Borrell] has transferred her concerns about [Mr Lamont] to [X].

...

1. [X] described her relationship with her father as "alright" and her father as "pushy", "sometimes nice" and "distracted". [X] said she does not "like being around negative relationships" and said her father tells [Ms Q] to "eat less" and "workout". [X] said her father "won't buy" her a "$3 lunch box" but will spend his money on "tattoo's" and she believes he has been unwilling to pay for her recreational activities. [X] said she "knows he has money" and he "doesn't spend it on us having fun". [X] said her father "goes silent" and doesn't speak to her during visits or in family counselling. The prior Family Report noted [X] describing her father has "kind, helpful and nice" and that she "loved" both her parents.

2. [X] described her stepmother as "mean" and "rude", she "swears" at [X] and says, "don't act like you haven't heard it (swearing) before". [X] said [Ms Q] has "put her finger up at us" during change over and indicated she does not have a positive relationship with her stepmother. [X] said that she "used to kinda like [Ms Q]" and her stepmother "trash talks mum" and has told [X] that [X] is being "manipulated" by [Ms Borrell]. [X] appeared unable to give examples of the trash talk.

...

1. [X] said she does not "talk to her dad", her "mum is proud" of her for that because "dad didn't come to my school play". [X] indicated feeling sad and disappointed that her father has not attended her school and dance performances in recent years and she indicated this was because her father is not interested. [X] said she was "disappointed" when [Mr Lamont] did not attend a Father's Day event at her school, [X] explained her mother had purchased the tickets and she did not appear to understand that [Ms Borrell] had not arranged the tickets with [Mr Lamont] or that [Ms Borrell] had purchased the tickets knowing a Court hearing was scheduled. [X] said her father "doesn't listen", he is "dismissive of kid issues" and he "doesn't help" or provide her support. [X] appeared unable to provide examples of this.

...

1. [X] said she would like to relocate to [City H] to be closer her mother's family and claimed that she has friends made during holidays to [City H] that would become her college friends. [X] said if she moves to [City H], she "won't come back" for "overnight visits" with her father if that means staying with her father. She indicated she would come back for visits if she could stay with a friend and see her father for a few hours during the day. [X] said that her father would not let her "call" her mum "to say goodnight" as the reason not to stay overnight with [Mr Lamont]. [X] said moving to "[City H] to start a new family life" is her "wish" and "space apart without dad is appealing" as "he can't get along with her ([Ms Borrell])".

...

1. [X] expressed disappointment that her father has not attended her "school" performances or "dance recitals" and she has "seen other dads go to things". [X] said, "I don't look or feel happy", it is "hurtful for me" that her father does not attend her activities and she stated a belief her father has been invited by [Ms Borrell] to attend and refused. [X] appeared to cry as she speaking about her father missing her activities.

2. [X] said, "I don't like his driving" and indicated that she is aware that [Mr Lamont] "speeds" and "drives fast" when she is in the car and in general. [X] appeared unable to provide details when questioned. [X] said that her father has told her that "it's not true" about his driving and she "remember, its true". [X] said, "he is gaslighting me" and that she "won't be in a car" with her father driving. [X] did not appear receptive to any ideas about being in a car with [Mr Lamont] and she appeared to understand that the activities she wants to do during visits require travel by car.

3. [X] said two or three years ago, "we used to do things" and "have fun" and indicated visits with her father used to be enjoyable.

...

1. [X] and her mother appeared affectionate and light-hearted as they settled into playing cards and they appeared to chat amiably about school and having lunch at a local cafe later in the day. [X] and her mother appeared to have a good-natured competitiveness with [X] saying "sorry about that" when she put down a draw two card and she laughed when her mother also put down a draw two card.

...

1. [X] and her father sat on the floor and played cards with [X] leading the interaction apparently to avoid greeting her father. [X] appeared to make minimal eye contact with her father and to give closed responses to his attempts to start a conversation. [Mr Lamont] appeared patient and gentle as he encouraged [X] on her "good strategy" as she played. [Mr Lamont] did not appear to pressure [X] and he appeared to allow her to lead the conversation and activities.

2. [X] appeared tense in her posture and to sit back from her father playing cards.

...

1. [X] appeared to ignore her father when he was saying goodbye and wishing her a good weekend, she did not look at him nor reply. [X] appeared to look at her mother with a smirk and walked out of the consult rooms with [Ms Borrell].

...

1. [X] presents as strongly aligned with [Ms Borrell] and with a strong resist refuse dynamic towards [Mr Lamont] and towards the paternal family. [Mr Lamont] describes [X] enjoying visits and her paternal family relationships and watching [X] disengage and remove herself from a game, interaction or fun activity and to separate herself during visits as if forcing herself to reject them, apparently this was not evident prior to 2022. This is congruent with the observation between [X] and her father, she started laughing and interacting then appears to stop and disengage by disrupting their play. This is highly problematic and requires immediate intervention with ongoing support from both parents, extended family and professionals.

2. [X] is at the critical onset of adolescence, she will be experiencing physiological, hormonal and emotional growth and changes, having consistent loving support from both her parents is important for her healthy development and progression through adolescence. It appears throughout her childhood that [X] has experienced generally stable and loving care from her parents, her stepmother and her paternal grandparents. This foundation has likely supported her global development and personality formation, highly likely giving her the emotional and cognitive capabilities to engage in counselling for emotional, attitudinal and behavioural change.

3. [X] appears to blame and reject [Mr Lamont] for the disruption to visits, to believe an inaccurate perspective and to be confused about Court proceedings. [X] and [Ms Borrell] use the same words to described [Mr Lamont] such as silent and to use strikingly similar phrases. [X]'s apparent alignment with [Ms Borrell] is not healthy or beneficial, [Ms Borrell]'s role is to be a parent and their apparent confidante friendship dynamic requires recalibration through counselling. To give [X] an optimal opportunity in her adolescence, it is critical to repair the fractured relationship with [Mr Lamont] and for [X] to have both her parents actively and appropriately involved in her life.

4. [Ms Borrell] appears to have conflated information to support her decision to unilaterally withhold [X] in 2022 ceasing all communication and visits. The detrimental consequences for [X] are clear, she is expressing significant grief and distress about missing time with her father, missing his presence at school and recreational activities and expressing confusion about the decisions and actions of her parents. [Ms Borrell] appeared unable to provide information to evidence her decisions and to have deliberately encouraged a resist refuse dynamic over the last two years. This is considered emotionally abusive and is highly likely causing harm to [X]'s self-esteem, emotional regulation and belief system, in addition to damaging [X]'s relationship with her father.

5. [Ms Borrell]'s actions to rename [X] enmeshes [X] into the acrimonious parental relationship and places [X] in the insidious position of having to choose between her parents and their surnames. This is likely confusing for [X] and is likely to negatively impact her identity development at this critical stage of the onset of adolescence. If [Ms Borrell] is seeking to amend [X]'s surname she should make proper application via Court for this consideration. It is strongly suggested that [Ms Borrell] is restrained from having conversations with [X] about surnames and that [Ms Borrell] uses [X]'s name correctly. If [X] seeks to be known by both her parent's surnames, this could be explored with her counsellor or the Independent Child Lawyer, it is not uncommon for children to have dual surnames.

...

1. [Ms Borrell] described [X] as "confident", "resilient" and "open" which is congruent with the writer's observation of [X]. During interview [X] said she was open to continuing family counselling with [Mr Lamont] expressing a hope for change and not wanting to miss out on having her father in her life. It is strongly suggested that [X] and [Mr Lamont] continue with family counselling to repair their relationship, it is anticipated that this may require several months of intervention and would be beneficial for [Ms Q] to engage in some sessions. It is suggested that this Family Report, the prior Family Report and the Child Impact Report are shared with the family counsellor to inform and guide the intervention.

...

1. [Mr Lamont] and [Ms Q] respectively indicated they have a persistent awareness of the Intervention Order based in fear of [Ms Borrell] claiming [Mr Lamont] has breached the Order and they have formed a view that [Ms Borrell] tries to set [Mr Lamont] up to breach the Order or conflates information to report breaches to the police. [Mr Lamont] appeared uncertain about how the Intervention Order and Parenting Orders interact and how to apply them into without breaching either Order. [Ms Borrell] has an application to extend the current Intervention Order on foot, it is unclear what evidence [Ms Borrell] has provided to support this application and whether [X] is subject to the Intervention Order extension. It is strongly suggested that this Court makes arrangements that enable [Mr Lamont] to attend and participate in [X]'s education and recreational activities to ensure that an Intervention Order can not be used to exclude him from [X]'s life.

2. ... It is apparent that prior to [Ms Borrell] enmeshing [X] into this dispute on arrangements and withholding [X] in 2022, that [X] travelled without concern in cars driven by [Mr Lamont], [Ms Q]and the extended paternal family. It is of significant concern that [Ms Borrell] has created and sustained this refusal within [X] and that [X] now bears an insidious burden of being responsible for an adult decision about recommencing travelling by car... If [Ms Borrell] is encouraging [X]'s refusal to travel by car this must cease immediately and she must encourage [X] to travel by car. Any encouragement of this refusal by [Ms Borrell] is interpreted by the writer as emotionally abusive, [X] is missing out on meaningful time with her father and paternal family during visits and her relationship with her father is being diminished. Further, [X]'s refusal to travel is a direct defiance of a reasonable parent direction and places her in a detrimental position of disregarding [Mr Lamont] as a parent and having to participate in the parental acrimony...

...

1. [Ms Borrell] and [Mr Lamont] provide similar narratives of a seemingly unhappy and unsatisfying relationship with significant difficulties with coparenting after separation. The parents provide disparate narratives regarding family violence, they separated more than eight years ago and the continued acrimonious relationship is problematic for themselves and for [X]... There were no current family violence risk factors identified for [Ms Borrell] or [X] regarding [Mr Lamont]. It appears that there were family violence risk factors for [Ms Borrell] and [X] regarding [the Mother's new partner following separation].

...

1. It is of concern that [Ms Borrell] will continue to make allegations about [X]'s safety, this has been a feature of disputes regarding parenting arrangements for eight years and the pattern of disrupting and undermining visits with [Mr Lamont] is also likely to continue. It is suggested that the Court makes arrangements for managing future allegations to ensure that [Ms Borrell] cannot unilaterally make decisions about ceasing communication and visits whilst allegations are addressed.

2. [Ms Borrell] appears to have unresolved issues from the separation from [Mr Lamont], she appears to continue to resent broken promises, resent that the relationship did not endure and resent that [Mr Lamont] has a positive relationship with [Ms Q]. It is acknowledged that being unable to return with [X] to [City H] and living away from her family would be frustrating and difficult for [Ms Borrell] and that [Ms Borrell] likely holds [Mr Lamont] responsible is understandable. It may be beneficial for [Ms Borrell] to address this in her counselling with [Ms S] and for a copy of this Family Report and the prior Family Report to be shared with [Ms S].

3. ... The writer strongly suggests that joint decision making between the parents is required and potentially sole decision making by [Mr Lamont] is required should [Ms Borrell] continue to enmesh [X] in parental matters and exacerbate the resist refuse dynamic...

RECOMMENDATIONS

...

1. [Ms Borrell] and [Mr Lamont] jointly make major decisions for [X]. The parents can solely make day to day decisions during their respective time with [X].

2. [X] lives in a shared arrangement between her parents, alternating weekly with changeover on Fridays.

3. [X] can call the parent she is not living with for up to thirty minutes on a Monday.

4. [Ms Borrell] is restrained from interfering when [X] is living with [Mr Lamont].

(emphasis added)

1. The parties relied upon the documents described in their respective outline of cases. Documents relied upon by the parties and exhibits tendered during the final hearing are detailed in Appendix 1 and 2 respectively in these reasons.

1. In these reasons, statements of fact are findings of fact. I apply section 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ('the Evidence Act') which states as follows:

(1) In a civil proceeding, the court must find the case of a party proved if it is satisfied that the case has been proved on the balance of probabilities.

(2) Without limiting the matters that the court may take into account in deciding whether it is so satisfied, it is to take into account:

(a) the nature of the cause of action or defence; and

(b) the nature of the subject-matter of the proceeding; and

(c) the gravity of the matters alleged.

1. It is also important to note in a case where in substance each party alleges the other is lying, I bear in mind the guidance of the Full Court in Blass & Blass [2022] FedCFamC1A 63; (2022) FLC 94-085 at [39] and [40] which is as follows:

[39] The grave allegation of untruthfulness and its concomitant finding of abuse of child X as essential aspects of the determination of the case constituted, in accordance with s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), a factual conclusion that required persuasion, itself, on the balance of probabilities. It was not established on the mere failure by the appellant to prove that the behaviours had in fact occurred to that same standard.

[40] While the failure to accept a witness's evidence is a necessary component of a finding of untruthfulness or fabrication, such mere failure is less than a finding of untruthfulness; untruthfulness is a further fact that is required to be found.

1. In Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118 ('Fox v Percy'), at first instance, the rider of a horse was found to be a more reliable witness than the driver of the Kombi Van that had collided with oncoming horses and riders who were coming around the bend. The issue was upon which side of the road the collision occurred. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales had to interfere with the first instance decision where it had been incorrectly determined, by reason of the apparent reliability of the witnesses, that the collision occurred on the Kombi Van's wrong side of the road. The Court of Appeal found the first instance decision was wrong because of the position of the braking skid marks of the Kombi Van that were in evidence. The skid marks of the Kombi Van incontrovertibly demonstrated that the Kombi Van had been on its correct side of the road at all material times relevant to the point of collision. The High Court found that the Court of Appeal was justified in upholding the appeal and upheld that courts findings.
2. When discussing the drawing of conclusions about truthfulness and reliability solely or mainly from the appearance of the witnesses, the plurality of the High Court in Fox & Percy observed:

[31] ...in recent years, judges have become more aware of scientific research that has cast doubt on the ability of judges (or anyone else) to tell truth from falsehood accurately on the basis of such appearances. Considerations such as these have encouraged judges, both at trial and on appeal, to limit their reliance on the appearances of witnesses and to reason to their conclusions, as far as possible, on the basis of contemporary materials, objectively established facts and the apparent logic of events...

1. I have endeavoured to rely on objectively established facts and the apparent logic of events in this case as well as the evidence and demeanour in the witness box of the parties.

Family Law Act provisions

1. I now turn to the Family Law Act provisions. In deciding what particular parenting orders to make, I must regard the best interests of X as the paramount consideration as commanded by section 60CA of the Act. I must consider the matters described in section 60CC of the Act in making a determination as to what is in X's best interest. I apply and take into account the whole of Part VII of the Act. Those provisions include the following.

major long‑term issues, in relation to a child, means issues about the care, welfare and development of the child of a long‑term nature and includes (but is not limited to) issues of that nature about:

(a) the child's education (both current and future); and

(b) the child's religious and cultural upbringing; and

(c) the child's health; and

(d) the child's name; and

(e) changes to the child's living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the child to spend time with a parent.

To avoid doubt, a decision by a parent of a child to form a relationship with a new partner is not, of itself, a major long‑term issue in relation to the child. However, the decision will involve a major long‑term issue if, for example, the relationship with the new partner involves the parent moving to another area and the move will make it significantly more difficult for the child to spend time with the other parent.

...

4AB Definition of family violence etc.

(1) For the purposes of this Act, family violence means violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family (the family member), or causes the family member to be fearful.

(2) Examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence include (but are not limited to):

(a) an assault; or

(b) a sexual assault or other sexually abusive behaviour; or

(c) stalking; or

(d) repeated derogatory taunts; or

(e) intentionally damaging or destroying property; or

(f) intentionally causing death or injury to an animal; or

(g) unreasonably denying the family member the financial autonomy that he or she would otherwise have had; or

(h) unreasonably withholding financial support needed to meet the reasonable living expenses of the family member, or his or her child, at a time when the family member is entirely or predominantly dependent on the person for financial support; or

(i) preventing the family member from making or keeping connections with his or her family, friends or culture; or

(j) unlawfully depriving the family member, or any member of the family member's family, of his or her liberty.

(3) For the purposes of this Act, a child is exposed to family violence if the child sees or hears family violence or otherwise experiences the effects of family violence.

(4) Examples of situations that may constitute a child being exposed to family violence include (but are not limited to) the child:

(a) overhearing threats of death or personal injury by a member of the child's family towards another member of the child's family; or

(b) seeing or hearing an assault of a member of the child's family by another member of the child's family; or

(c) comforting or providing assistance to a member of the child's family who has been assaulted by another member of the child's family; or

(d) cleaning up a site after a member of the child's family has intentionally damaged property of another member of the child's family; or

(e) being present when police or ambulance officers attend an incident involving the assault of a member of the child's family by another member of the child's family.

...

60CA Child's best interests paramount consideration in making a parenting order

In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, a court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.

...

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

Determining child's best interests

(1) Subject to subsection (4), in determining what is in the child's best interests, the court must:

(a) consider the matters set out in subsection (2); and

(b) if the child is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child--also consider the matters set out in subsection (3).

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), the court must consider the following matters:

(a) what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of:

(i) the child; and

(ii) each person who has care of the child (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for the child);

(b) any views expressed by the child;

(c) the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child;

(d) the capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child to provide for the child's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs ;

(e) the benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child's parents, and other people who are significant to the child, where it is safe to do so;

(f) anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child.

(2A) In considering the matters set out in paragraph (2)(a), the court must include consideration of:

(a) any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child (whether or not the person had parental responsibility for the child); and

(b) any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child's family.

Additional considerations--right to enjoy Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), the court must consider the following matters:

(a) the child's right to enjoy the child's Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture, by having the support, opportunity and encouragement necessary:

(i) to connect with, and maintain their connection with, members of their family and with their community, culture, country and language; and

(ii) to explore the full extent of that culture, consistent with the child's age and developmental level and the child's views; and

(iii) to develop a positive appreciation of that culture; and

(b) the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right.

(4) If the court is considering whether to make an order with the consent of all the parties to the proceedings, the court may, but is not required to, have regard to all or any of the matters set out in subsection (2) or (3).

...

60CF Informing court of relevant family violence orders

(1) If a party to the proceedings is aware that a family violence order applies to the child, or a member of the child's family, that party must inform the court of the family violence order.

(2) If a person who is not a party to the proceedings is aware that a family violence order applies to the child, or a member of the child's family, that person may inform the court of the family violence order.

(3) Failure to inform the court of the family violence order does not affect the validity of any order made by the court.

60CG Court to consider risk of family violence

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

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

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

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

...

61DAA Effect of parenting order that provides for joint decision-making about major long-term issues

(1) If a parenting order provides for joint decision - making by persons in relation to all or specified major long - term issues in relation to a child, then, except to the extent the order otherwise specifies, the order is taken to require each of the persons:

(a) to consult each other person in relation to each such decision; and

(b) to make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision.

(2) To avoid doubt, this section does not require any other person to establish, before acting on a decision about the child communicated by one of those persons, that the decision has been made jointly.

1. In addition, I take into account the helpful and comprehensive summary of authority from Licata & Buxton [2019] FCCA 3181.
   1. The parents' interests in securing an arrangement that is convenient for them is a matter that is appropriate to take into account: Eden & Eden-Proust. This is because, while the interests of the child are required to be the paramount consideration, s 60CA does not provide that those interests are the sole consideration: AMS v AIF; Eden & Eden-Proust. It follows that some regard should be had to the relative inconvenience to each of the parents with respect to matters such as any necessary transport arrangements: Eden & Eden-Proust.
   2. For example, in Low & Chapman, Monahan J observed that to enrol a child at a school which was located at a place mid-point between the parties' residences was perhaps 'an obvious option' where the parties live some distance apart. I did not understand His Honour to be suggesting any more than that such an option may be an obvious point for consideration alongside any other suitable options.
   3. While it will ordinarily be of importance to consider the effect on the resident parent, this does not mean that the convenience of the nonresident parent is ignored: Bilz & Breugelman. Again, it may be added that the distinction between a resident and non-resident parent becomes diluted where the parties have agreed upon a week about parenting arrangement, particularly one that has been on foot and to which the parties have adhered to for some years.
   4. The views of the children may be a relevant but usually not a determinative consideration: s 60CC(3)(a) Bilz & Breugelman; Re G. The child's views on schooling may be of lesser weight if the child is of a young age: Stevens & McLaren.
   5. The process of evaluating competing school proposals should not entail an assessment of the relative merits of the schools preferred by the parties, at least in circumstances where those schools are prima facie satisfactory: Bilz & Breugelman. The location of the school to the children's residence remains an important factor: Re G.
   6. The court may be assisted in the resolution of a schooling dispute by the opinions of an expert: Stevens & McLaren. By s 60CD(2) the court may 'inform itself of views expressed by a child' by a number of means, including a report given to the court by a family consultant under s 62G(2) or, subject to the Rules of Court, 'by such other means as the court thinks appropriate': Bondelmonte.
   7. Competing views have been expressed as to the relevance of the parties' agreement as to how schooling should be implemented. In Eden & Eden-Proust, Thackray J indicated that the existence of an agreement between parties would be an important factor. In Re G, the parties' prior agreement on the issue was held not to carry much weight.

...

(citations and footnotes omitted)

1. I will now turn to the updated family report of 30 October 2025. Interviews were undertaken for the updated family report[5] in-person on 4 September 2025 and those interviews and the report were completed by the same report writer as the previous report. The report writer was cross-examined before me and her observations and recommendations were not shaken. I found the report writer to be a wise, considered and careful expert and witness. Her detailed reports were clearly carefully and accurately prepared. Her oral evidence was given in a careful and considered manner, paying attention to the matters raised and the seriousness of consequences for X of her recommendations. I accept the observations, opinions and recommendations of the report writer. I do not do so automatically. I do so after consideration of all of the evidence before me, including the submissions of the parties.
2. All of the observations of the updated family report are of assistance to me, but it is convenient to recite the following parts of the updated family report:
   1. [X] attends [N School] in [Suburb P], she is enrolled in year seven and is reportedly achieving well academically and socially.
   2. [X] appeared polite and amiable, she appeared to engage when talking about her father and to disengage when talking about her mother. [X] expressed she likes spending overnight time with her father.
   3. [X] spends five nights per fortnight with [Mr Lamont] as per the Order dated 15 April 2025.

...

1. [Mr Lamont] applied for a contravention of the Parenting Order in August 2022 after [Ms Borrell] unilaterally withheld [X] and ceased all communication and visits in March 2022. [Mr Lamont] deposed many instances of [Ms Borrell] enmeshing [X] into parenting disputes including having [X] delete messages from [Mr Lamont]'s mobile phone. [Ms Borrell] said she withheld [X] due to risks posed by [Mr Lamont] however said she has agreed multiple findings against her of contravening the Parenting Order.

2. In 2024, [X] lived primarily with [Ms Borrell] and spent unsupervised time for a few hours on Sundays with [Mr Lamont]. [X] presented with a strong alignment with [Ms Borrell] and with a strong resist refuse dynamic towards [Mr Lamont].

3. In May 2025, [X] commenced spending overnight time with [Mr Lamont] as week one, four consecutive nights over the weekend and week two, one night during the week.

PROPOSALS OF THE PARTIES

1. [Ms Borrell] stated during her interview that she is proposing the current arrangements continue with no increase in overnight time.[6]

2. [Mr Lamont] stated during his interview that he is proposing equal and shared living arrangements alternating week about.

...

Issues Identified During Assessment

• [Ms Borrell] said she may relocate to [City H] without [X]

• [X] has not commenced family therapy

...

1. [Ms Borrell] said she was essentially forced into agreeing the current Order, that she had to choose between [X] living with [Mr Lamont] with "no contact" with [X] for 12 months or the current Order. She said "every cent" she has is for [X] and school fees, that she cannot afford or prioritise paying for a lawyer. [Ms Borrell] said she has not had "proper legal advice" during these proceedings.

2. [Ms Borrell] said [X] manages changeover "ok" and "finds a way to live with" being Court ordered to spend time. She said she drives [X] to changeover at the paternal grandparent's home and [Mr Lamont] currently collects [X] from her home, which makes [Ms Borrell] uncomfortable and she is proposing a neutral changeover location.

3. [Ms Borrell] said she is proposing that the current arrangements for spending time continue and there is no increase in overnight time.[7] [Ms Borrell] said that after spending time with [Mr Lamont], [X] stays in the "sick bay" at school to "decompress", that she is "tired" and has "disrupted sleep" when she returns to [Ms Borrell].[8]

...

1. [Ms Borrell] said [X] will start Court ordered reportable family therapy "tomorrow", however [X] is already engaged with her school counsellor "[Ms T]" and they are working on "ways" for [X] and [Ms Borrell] "to stay connected" when [X] spends time with [Mr Lamont]. She said [Mr Lamont] will not allow [X] to call her and the Order has a no communication condition, she appeared upset saying she "would never say no" to [X] communicating with [Mr Lamont].

...

1. [Ms Borrell] said that [Mr Lamont] and [Ms Q] are "not married" as such [Ms Q] is not a "stepparent" and she disagrees with the writer referring to [Ms Q] as a stepparent.[9] She said [Ms Q]'s social media biography states [Ms Q] is a stepparent which is a contravention of the Order and [Mr Lamont] "says he cant control" [Ms Q] to have the biography changed.

...

1. [Mr Lamont] said when overnight time was Court ordered,[10] [X] started getting in his car with "no hesitation" and there was "no drama" with the significant increase in time. He said he talks with [X], as does the paternal grandmother and that [X] has not shared any concerns about spending time. [Mr Lamont] said "it's a weight off [X]'s shoulders", that he has observed a marked positive change in her demeanour, mood and behaviour since May 2025. He said the paternal grandmother at [X]'s request hosted an impromptu pizza sleepover might with school friends, that the paternal grandmother is friendly with parents she has met collecting [X] from school and the inclusion of extended paternal family has enriched [X]'s life.

2. [Mr Lamont] said [X] primarily living with him may be the best option for [X] however he believes this may be "too hard" for [X] to manage. He said he is proposing an equal and shared living arrangements alternating week about.[11] [Mr Lamont] said he is proposing the week about continues in the school holidays with no change to what would be established routines.

3. [Mr Lamont] said the delay to Court ordered reportable family therapy was due to [Ms Borrell] not cooperating with him to obtain a Mental Health Care Plan to assist with fees and he arranged the GP referrals.

...

1. [Mr Lamont] said since May 2025, there has been a "significant" change in [X], a "switch flicked", she is happier, having "fun" with sports and friends, she "eased" back into family life with him and the paternal family and appears to accept her parents have some different rules in their respective homes. He said the "car change is remarkable", [X] being driven in a car with him as enhanced activities during their time and helped them have usual family life routines. [Mr Lamont] described [X] as "not cold" towards him or the paternal family and she is positively emotionally engaging with him, [Ms Q] and the paternal family.

2. [Mr Lamont] indicated joint decision making remains difficult due to the parents acrimonious relationship.

Identification of risk

Risk of Family Violence

1. [Mr Lamont] said he spent many hours preparing material and himself for the hearing to extend the Intervention Order, that [Ms Borrell] had applied for the extension and did not attend the hearing. He said the application was dismissed around three months ago. [Mr Lamont] said [Ms Borrell]'s application to extend caused him substantial stress and is systems abuse.

Child Safety and Wellbeing

1. [Ms Borrell] said that "[X] listens" to [Mr Lamont] and [Ms Q] "have sex all night",[12] this is disruptive to [X] sleeping and "impacted" [X] giving a speech at school on a Monday. [Ms Borrell] said she has raised this with the school counsellor "[Ms T]" for advice. She said she does not "expose" [X] to sexual activity.

2. [Mr Lamont] said he has emailed the "ICL and Court" a few months ago after [Ms Borrell] said he was "grooming" [X] by exposing [X] to sexual activity. He denied he and [Ms Q] have sex when [X] is in their care, as [Ms Borrell] has made allegations they are sexually abusive in prior proceedings. [Mr Lamont] said he was at work on one night that [Ms Borrell] alleged [X] was exposed to sexual activity and he finds these allegations "disturbing and upsetting". He said [X] has not said this has happened and he believes [Ms Borrell] has "invented" allegations to "discredit" him as [X] is again spending overnight time.

3. [Ms Borrell] deposed in her affidavit that the approximately $12,000 per year that [Mr Lamont] was paying in child support was used to fund [X]'s 2025 private school fees. It seems, the child support payable at that time was based on [Ms Borrell] having 100% of the overnight care of [X] and no overnight time with [Mr Lamont]. [Ms Borrell] did not discuss education during her interview.

4. [Mr Lamont] explained [Ms Borrell] unilaterally enrolled [X] at a private school with fees in excess of $13,000 per year, with additional expenses of uniforms and activities. He said [Ms Borrell] did not discuss a private school for [X] nor how the school fees and expenses would be paid with him. [Mr Lamont] said he is unable to contribute to private school fees and is proposing that [X] is enrolled at a public school for year eight in 2026.

...

1. [X] aged 13, appeared of average height and build, she was well groomed and dressed in her school uniform. [X] smiled and maintained eye contact talking about her father and did not maintain eye contact appearing pensive talking about her mother.

2. [X] appeared to beam and smile saying, "I'm happy" as she is "back to dads". She said "it's not what I wanted" but "I like it and I'll do it" regarding spending time with her father and she has informed her ICL of this. [X] said when her father is at work her paternal grandmother and paternal aunt care for her and she enjoys time with all her paternal family. She expressed her only dislike is that her father is stricter than her mother such as he "says no" to getting "frozen yoghurt" and "going shopping with friends" with out an adult present. [X] said she was "so happy" when her paternal grandmother arranged a sleep over and movie night with [X]'s friends. This appears to have supported [X] strengthen emerging friendships in year seven and given a sense of belonging in her paternal family.

3. [X] said whilst is "fun" at her father's home, "what's the point if dads not there" and she should "go back to mums if dads at work". She indicated that her mother is supportive of [X] returning to her mother's care in such instances. [X] said that she "doesn't talk to [Ms Q] at all" and indicated that she and [Ms Q] had not spoken in any capacity since May 2025, despite [X] and [Ms Q] being in the same house, sharing meals and activities. She appeared to reiterate she has not rekindled any connection with [Ms Q].

4. [X] said travelling by car with her father, paternal grandfather and paternal aunt is "fine" and she has not yet travelled with her stepmother. [X] said there is "no hassle" travelling by car with her paternal family and she appeared unable or unwilling to explore her prior resistance.

5. [X] said she has "no worries" and nothing "upsets" her about her father's home or spending time. [X] said it took her some time to adjust to sleeping in a different bed and her "sleep was poor" as she adjusted to louder street noises and the unfamiliarity of her father's home. [X] indicated having the same bed linen and similar items such as cushions or toys in both her bedrooms would help her feel at ease.

6. [X] expressed her wish is for her current living arrangements to continue as nine nights with her mother and five nights with her father, she appeared unable or unwill to explore her views and said this arrangement would keep her parents and herself happy.

...

1. [X] said she speaks to her maternal grandfather, maternal grandmother and maternal step uncle by phone most weeks, she has not seen them in over two years and she is "not too sure when" she will see them again. [X] appeared reluctant to discuss her mother or their time together.

2. [X] said she has enjoyed the move to secondary college and that she has settled well into year seven, that she has made new friends at school and many of her primary school friends do not attend her school. [X] said she is worried that attending reportable family therapy for an hour every Friday will cause her to fall behind at school as she will miss maths class. [X] said she is a member of the Student Representative Council (SRC), she appeared proud that her teach encouraged her to nominate for membership and she liked being a member of her primary school SRC. [X] said she is campaigning for uniform changes on SRC. [X] said her wish is to have no reportable family therapy and she indicated a reluctance to again discuss her parents or these proceedings.

...

1. As the writer walked [X] to the waiting room where [Mr Lamont] was waiting, [X] paused looked at the writer and was smiling as she whispered, "thank you".

OBSERVATIONS OF INTERACTIONS

1. [X] arrived with [Ms Borrell], they sat huddled talking quietly in the waiting room.

2. [Ms Borrell] appeared hostile in her verbal tone and physical stance towards [Mr Lamont] asking if he had made arrangements for a suitable adult to care for [X] during his interview. [Mr Lamont] explained he and [Ms Borrell] shared caring for [X] during the prior family report and he anticipated they would do the same for the updated family report. [Ms Borrell] appeared to sneer saying she would care for [X] and [Mr Lamont] thanked her. [X] appeared to watch this interaction silently and impassively.

...

1. [X] aged 13, appeared polite and amiable, and her cognitive and emotional development appeared congruent to her age. She appeared to engage when talking about her father and to disengage when talking about her mother. [X] is reportedly achievably reasonably well at school and to be engaged in numerous recreational and developmental activities.

2. [X] expressed she likes spending overnight time with her father and that her wish is for this arrangement to continue unchanged. [X]'s reasoning for this view is unclear and she appeared to adopt a stance that indicated being fair to each parent.

3. [X]'s presentation was markedly different in comparison to her prior interview and observations. [X] smiled broadly when discussing her improved relationship with her father and she had positive animation in her affect with warm affection, this appeared genuine. [X]'s apparent alignment with [Ms Borrell] appeared less pronounced. There are many possible explanations, such as the substantial change to the time she spends with [Mr Lamont], changes to parent behaviour, restoration of paternal family relationships and increased emotional maturity for [X]. She expressed a lack of willingness to engage in a therapeutic intervention regarding a resist refuse dynamic, this appears motivated by a fear of having to speak about her parents. [X]'s apparent impassive stance watching her mother's seemingly hostile attitude and behaviour towards [Mr Lamont] is high concerning and the writer strongly suggests [X] is engaged in therapy.

4. [Ms Borrell] appeared hostile and to minimally engage in her interview, her stance is somewhat understandable in the circumstances however she continued to present as self-focused and to be raising concerns without evidence. She reports concerns of [X] being at risk of sexual harm by [Mrs Lamont] and [Ms Q] and she has shared these concerns that appear without evidence with [X]'s school counsellor. [Ms Borrell]'s seemingly hostile attitude and behaviour towards [Mr Lamont] in front of [X] is highly concerning, her behaviour could be viewed in the context of high conflict or family violence. If the Court finds concern with [Ms Borrell]'s behaviour, it may be beneficial for her to complete a program for women who use violence or abuse in relationships, [U Service] offer such programs.

...

1. [Ms Borrell] is proposing she has sole decision making responsibility and [Mr Lamont] is proposing joint decision making responsibility between the parents. In considering the evaluation and recommendations of the prior family report and the current circumstances it appears that it may be in [X]'s best interests for [Mr Lamont] to have sole decision making responsibility for major decision. It may be beneficial for the parents to be restrained from providing information and discussing major decisions with [X] and from including [X] into making parent decision.

2. [X]'s enrolment in a private school that appears beyond the means of both parents both in school fees and additional fees is a dilemma. [X] appears settled in her school and to enjoy having a private education, however she also presents with the emotional capacity to have a change in school if required. [Ms Borrell] unilaterally decided to enrol [X] at [N School] and it appears that she relied on child support payments to fund the fees. The change in [X]'s time with [Mr Lamont] has reduced the child support payments and he uses that money to provide for [X] when she is in his care. It is of concern that [Ms Borrell] has placed [X] in an insidious situation regarding [X]'s education and placed [Mr Lamont] is the position of being the parent potentially taking away [X]'s private school education. It may be beneficial for the Court to consider which school [X] should be enrolled to attend.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. [X] lives with [Mr Lamont].
2. [X] spends time with [Ms Borrell]:
   • Alternate weekends from Friday after school until Monday morning
   • Alternate Wednesday from after school until Thursday morning
   • Half of the school holidays
3. This report is shared with professionals working with the family.

1. Ms G is a therapist who provided family counselling sessions for the family and saw X and her parents from 2023 to 2024. She provided two reports in regard to that counselling. In her earlier report, dated 8 April 2023,[13] Ms G observed:

[X] has exhibited dysregulation and childhood trauma from the ongoing exposure the discord within the co-parenting relationship between [Ms Borrell] and [Mr Lamont]. [Mr Lamont] has had limited contact time with [X] within the current time arrangement, and [Ms Borrell]'s concerns of [X]'s safety has transferred to [X], and is exhibited by [X] as fear in not being able to cope without [Ms Borrell]'s presence nearby. Due to breaks in [Mr Lamont]'s time arrangement with [X] over the last two years, [X]'s trust and continuity of care by [Mr Lamont] has regressed, as well as [X]'s ability to self-regulate, navigate unresolved conflict, and feel safe within [Mr Lamont]'s charge.

However, [X] has also exhibited joy, laughter and fun in the counselling sessions, when game playing with [Mr Lamont] or discussion what activities they had to look forward to when heading to the paternal grandparents' house after leaving the clinic... [X]'s engagement in play therapy and game playing exemplified a more relaxed and trusting relationship with [Mr Lamont] which also carried over to the time they spent together after leaving the clinic. These interactions help support [X]'s trust to want further contact time with [Mr Lamont].

The following 'themes' are observations from the counselling sessions with [X] and [Mr Lamont]:

• [X] has maintained her fear and mistrust of getting in a car with [Mr Lamont]
• [X] is concerned she will not be returned to [Ms Borrell] or see [Ms Borrell] again if she sleeps over or gets in a car with [Mr Lamont]
• [X] stated the Court system is "frightening"
• [X] experiences unresolved conflict from her parents' separation
• [X]'s experience of her parents' separation impedes her self-agency, emotional and psychological well-being, and she blames her parents' separation for barriers in her life
• [X] is co-dependent on [Ms Borrell]'s presence- [X] won't get in car unless [Ms Borrell] is present, [X] does not feel safe unless [Ms Borrell] is present, or if [X] feels dysregulated, [X] immediately wants [Ms Borrell] near
• [X] experiences low self-esteem at school
• [X] cannot cope with her parents' divorce
• [X] struggles to trust [Mr Lamont] and his care for [X]
• [X] struggles making sense of childhood memories
• [X] wants more time and contact with [Mr Lamont]
• [X] wants [Mr Lamont] present at events at school and other functions

1. In her report dated 21 November 2024, Ms G observed:

Lastly, [X]'s insistence to keep things the way they are would be [X]'s preference... When [X]'s trust has been challenged, it is the writer's observation that [X] does not forget how the trust is broken, or forgive, despite the intent of the person trying to rebuild [X]'s trust; this particularly happened with [Mr Lamont] in their counselling sessions.

1. That report and statement was made at a time when X was spending a very limited time with her father.
2. I am satisfied that Ms G's observations, though not charged with, or intending to, deal with allegations of enmeshment, are not inconsistent with the family report writer's observations referred to earlier.

1. I now turn to the issues in dispute. Given that final orders were made in this matter in 2020, as recited earlier and described as 'the 2020 Final Orders', it is necessary to consider whether the factual issues alive before those orders were made should be, or need to be, determined in these proceedings when the parents continue, in these proceedings, to agitate factual controversies from before those orders.
2. One of the primary functions of a Court is to quell the controversy that is before it.[14] In layman's terms, that can simply be described as once a Court of competent jurisdiction dealing with the same parties and the same issue has made a decision, that issue is done, the parties and society are expected to move on. The consequences of indecision about past determinations need only to be imagined to comprehend the extent of how that can be not only troublesome but catastrophic for parties and indeed society. In parenting issues, the issue of revisiting parenting orders is governed by the Act, not the law of estoppel, and section 65DAAA of the Act that commences, "if a final parenting order is in force in relation to a child, a court must not reconsider the final parenting order unless: ...". In this case, neither parent sought to prevent the reconsideration of the 2020 final orders, and section 65DAAA(3) permits reconsideration of previous final orders with the agreement or consent of the parties.
3. In this case, I am satisfied that, whether or not the parties had consented to the reconsideration of those final orders, by the time the matter came on before me for final hearing in April, continuing through to December, there had been a sufficient change of circumstances and events of such significance that the requirements of section 65DAAA were satisfied in regard to a reconsideration of the final orders that had been effectively discharged or varied by the interim orders along the way. But that does not mean that the fact of the 2020 Final Orders, and what those orders provided for, is swept away.
4. Further, in this case, what was agreed and ordered in the 2020 Final Orders, and how each parent supported or undermined those orders, is relevant to determining X's best interests. I am satisfied that, in this case, it is only necessary to deal with factual issues between the parents alive before the 2020 Final Orders to the extent that those facts and orders inform the orders to be made in X's best interests. Hence, it is unnecessary to determine every factual dispute in this case.

1. The Father moved from initially seeking to have regular alternate weekend and overnight time, what could be called a "shared arrangement" but with the predominance or most time of the child living with the Mother. He moved then, at the time and in the context of the first family report, to seeking an equal time arrangement. After the release of the second family report, with the recommendation in it as recited above, the Father moved, late in the piece, to change his case to have one where the child would live with him and spend time in an alternate weekend with another night in the other week, or what could be called a shared care arrangement, with the Mother. That is, with the child living with him more than with the Mother.
2. The Father sought sole parental responsibility.
3. The main contentions of the Father were that, for no good or proper reason, the Mother had unilaterally ceased time back on 27 March 2022, and, by doing so, had prevented X pursuing and enjoying a relationship with her father and her father's extended family. His case was that the relationship of father and daughter between himself and X was important and significant to X at all material times.
4. His case was that up until the interference with time on 27 March 2022, X had enjoyed a happy and close and supportive relationship with himself and with his extended family, as well as his partner, Ms Q.
5. The Father's case was that the Mother had manipulated proceedings in this Court by making false allegations of abuse and risk of abuse for the purpose and to the end of limiting his time with X.
6. His case was that the Mother has manipulated the ability to apply ex parte and/or at short notice for intervention orders and extension of intervention orders to unnecessarily involve X's parents in parallel litigation in the Magistrates' Court, where intervention orders were unnecessarily sought by her. The Father's case is that it was necessary for him, at times in the past, to apply for an intervention order against the Mother. It is important to note, and is be recited earlier, the circumstance of the last intervention order proceedings, where the Mother ultimately did not attend the final hearing, and her application was dismissed.
7. The Father fears that the ongoing involvement of police and the Magistrates' Courts activated by the Mother will unnecessarily interfere in X's harmony and living arrangements in a manner that will be significantly detrimental to her welfare.
8. There is an element of reluctance in the Father's case, as he has moved from seeking regular time with X while she lived with her mother in a shared care arrangement, to moving to seeking an equal time arrangement, to moving to seeking a time arrangement whereby X lives mostly with him but spends significant time with her mother over four nights in each fortnight during school term, and for half of the school term holidays, as well as long summer vacation or Christmas holidays. I suspect because of the concentration by the Child Support Agency of assessing child support in accordance with the number of nights that a child spends with each parent, that there can be undue focus merely on nights, but of course a Friday after school to Monday before school arrangement means that the parent with whom that child is not living interacts with that child over four days. Then, the one night in the other week, though only one night, means that that parent interacts with the child on two days, hence interacts with the child a total of six days over the fortnight.
9. The Father asserts that it is necessary that he have sole parental responsibility in the circumstances where the Mother, he says, has attempted to distance him from X's life. He points to the undisputed or common ground enrolments by the Mother of X in educational facilities without reference to him as her father or an emergency contract, and placing her father, the maternal grandfather, who lives in another State, as the emergency contact. He points to what he sees as the attempts by the Mother to surreptitiously change X's name as an attempt to distance him from X's life and vice versa. He points to what he says are false or exaggerated or catastrophised allegations in regard to activities in his house.
10. It is with great sadness that I am compelled to find on the evidence that there is substance to the Father's concerns and allegations.
11. It is important to note that, at the outset, the Father's case abandoned what was put in his further, further, further amended response to final orders as an alternative proposal. The alternative proposal would have had not only X living with him, but there being a hiatus period of X not seeing her mother for three months. Such a hiatus arrangement is sometimes seen, from time to time, in the most extreme cases of dysfunctional parenting, where there is a risk to the child's welfare in the immediate term.
12. In this case, the Father has withdrawn and does not press such an arrangement. Instead, he seeks that the existing arrangement of the alternate weeks, Thursday to Monday, with the Thursday overnight in the other week, continue until 22 January, when X would move to live with him, and he seeks that the alternate weekend and other night in the other week commence on 30 January 2026, that is the first weekend after school returns, and the Wednesday to commence on 4 February.
13. The Father also seeks sole parental responsibility in regard to education. I will make that order, and that will permit and authorise the Father to enrol X at J School as he seeks. That is, to change her place of education from the very fine school of N School to, I am satisfied, another very fine school, but being one publicly funded, that is, the school the Father seeks.
14. The Father's case in regard to the change of school is that the expense of N School is beyond the reasonable capacity of the parents to pay. His case is that that serious change should be made sooner rather than later, and that to take advantage of the very recently announced bursary or scholarship, where N School has generously waived any fees for 2026, would mean that the crisis of the parents being able to afford, with some reasonable ease, or at least without hardship, the fees thereafter would merely be a can kicked down the road.
15. The Father's case is that neither he nor his partner, Ms Q, or his mother, Mrs Lamont, have abused or acted inappropriately with X.
16. As recited later in these reasons, the Father does concede on one occasion following the 2020 orders, in circumstances as described by him that I accept that would try the patience of Job. The Father, entirely inappropriately, muttered in frustration under his breath something to the effect, "gonna kill her," referring to the Mother. This was overheard by X and ultimately reported to the Mother. The Mother has relied upon that assertion, or that event that happened back in 2021, as part of her justification for, about a year later, unilaterally suspending the Father's time with X.
17. She further relies on that event as justifying or explaining what she asserts was previously, but is not now, X's fear of the father. The Father was frank in regard to what he had said and attended himself at a police station to recount what had occurred and what he had said. No charges were ever pressed against him, notwithstanding his self-report. As will be clear, I do not accept that that was actually a threat to kill as alleged by the Mother. It was unwise, foolish, and a foolish statement in a moment of disinhibition in very trying circumstances.
18. The Father was cross-examined, and presented as a frank, open, and honest witness. Apart from his honesty, I am satisfied his evidence is reliable. He did not purport to have a recollection of an event or date where that was not clear to him at that moment in the witness box. In the witness box, his evidence was measured. In his affidavit evidence, his evidence was significantly, at points, corroborated by the incontrovertible evidence of text messages and emails.
19. Because of the extent to which the Father's affidavit evidence is corroborated by incontrovertible contemporaneous records, such as text messages and emails, the extent to which his version of events was challenged in cross-examination, his demeanour as a witness, and his attempts to assist the Court and the questioner by frank and responsive answers to questions asked, I am satisfied that the Father's evidence can be regarded as reliable, and I do so.
20. The Father's witness is his long-term partner of many, many years, Ms Q. Ms Q had filed an affidavit and was a witness in the proceedings and was cross-examined. I found Ms Q to be a careful, open, frank, and honest witness. I found her evidence to be reliable. I found her prepared to, and indeed eager, to engage with the questioner and address the matter raised with her. She was not evasive. There was no reason not to accept her evidence.
21. The Father also relied on the evidence of his mother, Mrs Lamont. I found Mrs Lamont to be an honest, open, and frank witness. I reject and take no notice of Mrs Lamont's opinion about the capacity of a male or any male to engage in sexual activity with a woman with whom he cohabited after a shift work. I accept that is Mrs Lamont's opinion, however I place no weight on it. Save for that opinion, I am satisfied and accept Mrs Lamont's evidence.
22. When cross-examined, her demeanour was open and frank. Further, she evinced a considerable care not to unnecessarily aggravate the Mother with the nature of her evidence. She impressed as a witness alert to the significant potential trouble and conflict for X in the future as a result of the formalised conflict inherent in litigation. I accept her evidence.

1. The formal orders that the Mother sought were of daytime time only for the Father. The Mother's case very much rests upon the circumstance that the Father works shift work, and hence would not be available to personally care for X at times on any fixed arrangement. Her case follows the understandable and common or ordinary expectation that if X was not able to be cared for by her father, she should be cared for by her mother. That was the scheme and attempt by the Court and the parties to arrange the Father's time back in the 2020 final orders. That scheme did not work in practice or on the ground. It did not work partly because, of the undermining of those orders by the Mother. I do not disregard the significance of the fact that the Father works shift work.
2. The Mother's case required some care to discern its central import. Her affidavit evidence is a catalogue of complaints about the Father's care of X, X's interaction with his partner, Ms Q, and X's interaction with the Father's extended family. I am not satisfied any of those complaints have substance. But the fact they are made is troubling.
3. The formal orders she sought in opening address and maintained in cross-examination were that the existing orders, whereby X has moved the care of her father on an alternate week basis from after school each Thursday until following Monday morning to school, or back to the Mother during school holidays, and the other Thursday night overnight, should not continue but should be reduced to daytime only of a Sunday. This position was despite telling the report writer, in the updated family report, that she wished to keep the current arrangements the same.
4. With some skill, her counsel was able to introduce an alternative case for the Mother, though never formally sought or pressed. In final address, her counsel raised the issue of an alternative arrangement of things, whereby the arrangements should simply stay as they are. Her counsel put, with some skill and powerful persuasion, the proposition to the effect that there needs to be evidence of a very clear benefit to X that would outweigh the disruption to her of a change of residence or a change of school, and, in this case, it was put with some force that there was no such evidence. It was put in final address that the evidence is that the relationship between X and the Father is improving, and that X was happy to see her father. It was put that it was not unusual where one parent does not like the other, that there is a problem, and that that may be part of the dynamic described by the report writer as "enmeshment".
5. The Mother's case, or at least her evidence, also included an implied criticism of the Father that he had not cooperated with her unilateral choice of the private secondary school by assisting her with private school fees when, as a full-time professional community worker, he should do so. The Mother's evidence showed her opinion, but ultimately not her case in closing, was that the Father and Ms Q had engaged in the behaviour as alleged, at least in part, in the new Notice of Risk.[15]
6. Further, it was alleged that since the April 2025 orders, X had been troubled, if not traumatised, by overhearing sexual activity between the Father and Ms Q when X had stayed overnight at their home. I am not satisfied that X did overhear any sexual activity, or that if she did hear anything at all, that it might be sexual activity was a matter discussed between X and her mother. However, such a matter was one of the many criticisms put by the Mother.
7. It also needs to be noted that there is some discordance between the allegations in the notice of risk and in the Mother's affidavit and oral evidence.
8. The Mother's case was that because of the difficult communication between her and the Father, she should have sole parental responsibility for long-term decisions relating to X, and effectively that X should remain at N School.
9. Further, the Mother pointed to and relied upon the bursary (announced on the first day of the final hearing) that meant that N School waived all fees for the 2026 year. Hence, said the Mother, the issue of the payment of the school fees was not really a problem because she would take care of it, firstly, in 2026 by bursary, and thereafter, from her own income after she had returned to employment. And of course, if X remains living mostly with her, and the Father being in regular employment as a community worker, significant child support would be paid.
10. The Mother was cross-examined and presented as a rigid and evasive witness. Her oral evidence was shifting and had an inconsistent quality to it. The Mother's demeanour in oral evidence was of much antipathy to the Father and to his household, including Ms Q. Her demeanour included that, when challenged, she was only prepared to give such information as she perceived would assist her case and/or as would demean the Father and his partner.
11. Partly as a result of the extent to which the Mother's allegations are not supported by contemporaneous records and some of her allegations are contradicted by contemporaneous records, being the text messages and emails, as well as because of her demeanour in the witness box, I did not find the Mother's evidence to be reliable. I found her affidavit evidence and her oral evidence to be unreliable.
12. To the extent that there are conflicts in evidence of relevant matters between the Father and the Mother, in this case, I accept the Father's evidence.
13. There is one exception to the general unreliability of the Mother. That is, to the extent the Mother's case is that she has much antipathy to the Father, his partner and his family, that aspect of her case and evidence is reliable. However, the Mother's assertions of apparent justification for that antipathy were not reliable.

1. In outline of case and in oral submissions before me, the ICL and his counsel retained for the trial pressed that orders should be made consistent with the recommendations of the second family report. That is, that X should live with the Father. The ICL supported this drastic change of the residence of a 14-year-old, notwithstanding her expressed wishes for the current arrangements to stay the same.
2. The ICL's case and advocacy brought into focus significant aspects of the Mother acting to distance the Father from X's life, such as the unilateral enrolments at the secondary school, and the omission of reference to the Father as a parent or an emergency contract in enrolment forms.
3. The ICL was not critical of the Father's parenting and the ICL did not oppose the Father's proposal that X's school be changed by the Father from N School to J School.

1. I now turn to some significant events and controversies.

1. The central factual dispute that overshadows these proceedings is whether the Father or the Mother acted inappropriately or appropriately over the period from about 4 January 2022 up to 27 March 2022 and thereafter.
2. The Father's account of the events of that period were detailed in his 4 April 2025 affidavit as follows:
   1. On 4 January 2022, [Ms Borrell] advised me she could not afford to pay for childcare during the Christmas holidays and that she was "forfeiting" her time with [X]. [Ms Borrell] was speaking to [X] over the telephone. I heard [X] screaming at [Ms Borrell] to "STOP", so I ended the call. [Ms Q], who was working in the adjacent room at the time, had overheard [Ms Borrell] denigrating me to [X]. [Ms Q] told me she had overheard [Ms Borrell] blaming her inability to pay for childcare on me. She asked [X], "Is your dad ready to step up?!" which was upsetting for [X]. Over the next two days there were repeated calls from [Ms Borrell] where she was arguing with [X]. When I conveyed to [Ms Borrell] that she needed to give [X] space, she questioned why [X] was acting that way and accused me of making [X] hate her, which I deny.
   2. [In]2022, [X] expressed her wish not to return to [Ms Borrell] for her birthday. [Ms Q] was very anxious about [Ms Borrell]'s behaviour and about [X] going back to [Ms Borrell] that day. I encouraged [X] to go back to [Ms Borrell] as it was the right thing to do. The following day, on 6 January 2022, [Ms Borrell] continued to upset [X] with further inappropriate calls. I intervened and informed [Ms Borrell] that she could speak with [X] again in two days as per the 2020 May Orders. [Ms Borrell] then accused me of alienating her from [X].
   3. On the weekend of [...] March 2022, upon [X]'s request, I arranged a sleepover for [X] whilst she was in my care. [Ms V] ('[Ms V]'), the mother of [X]'s friend [W], invited [X] to a sleepover because the girls were excited about it. At 9:55pm that evening, [Ms Borrell] informed me via a text message that she had removed [X] from the sleepover, and [X] was home with her, claiming that '[X] must always be with you whilst in your care.' I reminded [Ms Borrell] that it was my designated care time and that she was in breach of the May 2020 Orders. I also provided her with a screenshot of paragraph 3 of the Orders for reference. [Ms Borrell] replied that it was not up for discussion. I then requested that [Ms Borrell] bring [X] back to me, but she refused. Annexed hereto and marked with the letters "[MRL] - 2" is a true copy of text messages between myself and [Ms Borrell] [in] March 2022. I was taken aback by [Ms Borrell]'s actions. [Ms Borrell] knew [Ms V], [Ms Borrell] had previously allowed [X] to sleep over [Ms V]'s home only four days prior and [Ms Borrell] asked me to drop [X] off there for a sleepover party. Annexed hereto and marked with the letters "[MRL]-3" is a true copy of text messages between [Ms Borrell] and [Ms V] on 14 March 2022.
   4. The incident of [...] March 2022 occurred alongside [Ms Borrell]'s ongoing demands for additional financial assistance to cover her debts related to cheerleading and flights. I declined these requests as I was unable to sustain ongoing demands for financial support above and beyond what I was legally required to pay. These debts were for extracurricular activities and flights that [Ms Borrell] had arranged without my knowledge or consent.
   5. On 23 March 2022 [Ms Borrell] sent a text advising that [X] was expressing not wanting to spend time with me. However, on 24 March 2022, [X] sent me a beautiful text, saying "I love you goodnight see you tomorrow after school (followed by flower/heart/smiley face emojis)".
   6. On 25 March 2022, my mother and I collected [X] from [Y School] [Y School] for our weekend time spend. [X] excitedly ran out towards us. I confirm that during this time spend, contrary to [Ms Borrell]'s allegation at paragraph 75 to 77 of the 15 March Affidavit, I facilitated [X]'s call with [Ms Borrell] on 26 March 2022, which was for a duration of 20min17secs at 7.30pm. Annexed hereto and marked with the letters "[MRL]-4" is a true copy of my call log that day. At the conclusion of time spend that weekend, [X] expressed how happy she was to be coming again to spend time with myself and the paternal grandparents for the weekend of 2 April 2022. [X] also expressed to my mother how much she was looking forward to our annual Easter Egg hunt with her grandparents, uncle [Z] and aunt [AA].
   7. After 27 March 2022, [Ms Borrell] started to make allegations that [X] was "terrified" and begging not to return to my care since the sleepover. I denied this although I did notice that [Ms Borrell]'s actions that weekend had precipitated some distress for [X]. My partner [Ms Q] and myself also felt unsettled following the incident.
3. The Mother has a different explanation for those common ground events. That is, it is common ground that the Mother did cease the Father's time between 27 March 2022 and much later on after the Father was able to obtain some orders for a limited reinstatement of some time. But, the Mother says she had reason to do so, and described the events leading to that decision in her 15 March 2025 affidavit as follows:
   1. On or around 27 March 2022, I started withholding [X] from her father for fear of her safety in [Mr Lamont]'s care. She had disclosed to me that she did not wish to spend time with her father because she was fearful. I attempted discussions with [Mr Lamont] about what [X] had disclosed to me, however he denied that anything inappropriate had occurred and asserted that [X] was lying. It was around this time that [Mr Lamont] started getting more aggressive towards me.

...

1. I say that [X]'s health and safety were at risk if she were to continue to spend time wither father following 27 March 2022.

2. On the weekend commencing on Saturday, [...] March 2022, [X] asked me beforehand whether she could go to her friend [W]'s house, and I said no because it is not a good environment. At the time, there were two undiagnosed ADHD children in the home and the daughter had pulled a knife on the other child when the children were unsupervised by their mother ([Ms V]). [Ms V], at the time, also had alcohol problems where she would drink excessively, and I did not want [X] in a potentially dangerous situation. I know that [Ms V] was working hard to sort her life out, and I do appreciate the hard times she was going through.

3. [Ms V] has since dealt with those issues. [Mr Lamont] knows I am friends with [Ms V] and reported what I had deposed to about those issues in my affidavit filed on 21 September 2022 in an attempt to break down my relationship with [Ms V]. [Ms V] and I both work in the [property] industry, whereby we attend networking events. This has the potential to sabotage my future employment opportunities.

4. I submitted that [Mr Lamont]'s behaviour was also in breach of section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) as Her Honour Judge Parker advised it was not because [Mr Lamont] said he was attempting to have [Ms V] provide evidence on this matter for him. It was clear that [Mr Lamont] wished to undermine my relationship with [Ms V] and cause me emotional harm.

5. On 19 March 2022, [Mr Lamont] took [X] to [W]'s house anyway, without my knowledge or consent. I found out she was there from a public TikTok video [X] was in. I went to collect [X] from [Mr Lamont]'s care. At 9.00[p]m, I went to collect [X] as [Mr Lamont] was not responding to any of my phone calls, and so I was concerned. When I collected her, [X] still had not had dinner. I fed her when we got home.

6. [X] told me she went to [W]'s house because the AFL was on and Daddy was drinking and watching football. I verily believe that [Mr Lamont] wanted [X] to be at [W]'s house so that she was preoccupied which meant that he would watch the football in peace.

7. Later on in the evening, [Mr Lamont] sent me a plethora[16] of abusive text messages over a number of hours telling me I was not allowed to do that and other matters. [Mr Lamont] had asked me to bring [X] to his house at 10:10pm that night and I did not think that was appropriate. I organised with [Mr Lamont] to meet him at 11.00am the following day at [M Shopping Centre] for changeover. This was after [Mr Lamont] had berated me and asked me to bring [X] to his residence. I did not feel comfortable going to his residence. He threatened to call Victoria Police for alleged breaches.

8. When [X] returned to my care later that day, she told me [Mr Lamont] was screaming at her about what had happened and that he was driving fast. She said she was scared. [X] said that Daddy drives like that a lot.

...

1. On Father's Day evening in 2022, [X] was whimpering in her sleep and shaking. She woke up at 5.00am, crying. After crying, she told me she dreamt that we were in our old place and she was in her room and [Mr Lamont] wouldn't let me in with his [work] mates and I was trying to get in. She said it was a horrible dream.

2. On the weekend ending 27 March 2022, I could not contact [X]. No one would answer my calls. I tried Friday, Saturday and Sunday. [Mr Lamont] dropped her off at school on Monday. I do not know why [Mr Lamont] blocked me from contacting [X].

...

1. [X] was really affected by this time in her father's care. It has been since this time that she voiced that she was scared of going into her father's care.

1. In regard to the conflict of evidence or opinion about what happened in the Father's household, I do not accept the Mother's evidence of what she says is her legitimate concerns for X's welfare. I am not satisfied X was scared of her father at any relevant time. But the force of the Mother's personality and antipathy to the Father's household meant X began to take her Mother's concerns as her own reality.
2. In regard to the 19 March 2022 overnight stay, the Father frankly conceded in oral evidence that he knew that the Mother had not consented to that overnight stay. Nonetheless, the actual circumstance that he deposes to, that is, that X had previously spent time at the same parent's household arranged by the Mother, was not disputed. I accept the Father's evidence of these events. It was perhaps unwise, given the difficulties that the Father had experienced with the Mother previously, to proceed with that particular overnight stay at that particular time in all the circumstances.
3. However, the Father was entitled to make those arrangements, and, though perhaps unwise, it was not inappropriate that he did so. This was normal everyday parenting. I am not satisfied on the evidence that there was any risk of harm to X at the home of her friend where the Mother had arranged previously for her to stay. Hence, as to that central dispute as to whether the Mother was justified, because of the Father's behaviour, in unilaterally ceasing the Father's time on 27 March 2022, and maintaining a position of severely limiting X's time with the Father thereafter for some years (in this Court including by her applications), I am not satisfied that was appropriate. This was not in X's interests and I am not satisfied that the Father behaved in a manner that would justify such an interference.
4. I am satisfied that the Mother's manner of dealing with the important aspect of X's relationship with her other parent from 27 March 2022 and thereafter, until the consent orders of April 2025, displayed an entitled and high-handed and, at times, aggressive and troublemaking approach. Moreover, the Mother maintains her strong but erroneous opinion that she did the right thing, and that all of the trouble for X following that event and thereafter was due to the behaviour of the Father and Ms Q.

Was X ever scared to spend time with her father?

1. The next significant overriding fact in dispute is whether X was:

(a) concerned or scared at spending time with her father, and/or

(b) has, or had reason to be concerned or scared in the company of Ms Q and/or the Father.

1. I am not satisfied that, absent the influence of the Mother, that X was scared or had any reason to be scared of the Father's household or anyone in it. In particular, I refer to the observations of the family report writer as to enmeshment. X had begun to take on her Mothers erroneous view of the Father and his household.

1. It is also important that I note that the ICL relied upon the child impact report, being an interim report of 20 March 2023. That report was undertaken at a time when there were pending interim disputes about whether the existing 2020 final orders should continue. I note that the ICL relied upon that report, and the Mother was cross-examined about it. I do not find, as a fact, that the opinion of the report writer of the child impact report was correct. That is because the report writer was, as far as I know, not available for cross-examination, and I am not aware of any attempt of any party to have the report writer of the child impact report made available for cross-examination. That the report writer was not available for cross-examination means that there was no opportunity of the Mother to test or contradict the opinions of that report writer.
2. But that that report process occurred and the actual advice received within the report is significant, including:
   1. [X] also appears to be emotionally worrying about her mother and has a strong loyalty to her within the dispute. It is likely she has absorbed her mother's views regarding the argument that occurred which preceded spend time with [Mr Lamont] ceasing. It also appeared that [X] was reflecting [Ms Borrell]'s anxiety and seemingly inflated safety concerns regarding [X] having spend time at [Mr Lamont]'s home. Within [X]'s strong alignment with her mother, it is imperative that [Ms Borrell] allows her the space to form her own perceptions of events and not place her in the middle of the dispute. Doing so will likely impede on [X]'s ability to repair her relationship with her father and create added stress and anxiety at a transitional stage of development.
3. That is an independent professional insight into the dynamics of this family that the parties, including the Mother, received back in March 2023. Nonetheless, the dynamic of X's relationship with the Father not being supported and the dynamic described there has, I am satisfied, continued. I am so satisfied because of the evidence of events since then and the expert reports and evidence of the family report writer.
4. That dynamic that the parties were put on notice of back in March 2023 is the dynamic that coincides with or is consistent with the observations of the family report writer that I have recited above and that she has described as enmeshment between the Mother and X.

1. The next major factual dispute is the impact of the Father's shift work on his ability to care for X appropriately in the context either of the existing orders or of his proposed orders. I note the oral evidence given by the family report writer in regard to the impact, if any, on X of the Father's work schedule:[17]

MS ALBORE: Now, [Ms F], are you aware of the father's work schedule ..... [community worker]?

[MS F]: Yes, I'm aware he has a fixed work schedule.

MS ALBORE: Are you aware that his work schedule can present some instability and inconsistency in his hours?

[MS F]: In what way?

MS ALBORE: Well, as a [community worker] - and I don't have his work schedule in front of me, but sometimes it means that he's unable to care for [X] when she's in his care because he needs to attend to his work commitments?

[MS F]: Absolutely. Parents who are working often make arrangements for child care and other family members to assist them.

MS ALBORE: And do you think that it's in [X]'s best interest for her to be, I suppose, given to someone else to care for her when her father is not [available].....?

[MS F]: I wouldn't characterise being cared for by a grandparent or a family member as being given to someone else.

MS ALBORE: What about if that happens on a regular basis? Do you think that's good for [X]?

[MS F]: I think parents who are employed and children seeing parents who are employed are a usual part of life.

1. In substance, the report writer's position was that the ordinary everyday event of a parent going to and back from work was a normal part of life. And I am satisfied it is healthy for a child to observe and, if it is safe to do so, healthy for the child to be cared for by other family members, including, if necessary, a parent's partner.
2. Were the relationship between the parents better or consistent with how many families would arrange such things, X might have been able to spend time with the Father on his days off, but not on the days of shift work. In this case, it is overwhelming that there needs to be fixed, immutable, clear arrangements for when X will be in the Mother's care and when X will be in the Father's care. "In the Father's care" includes X being cared for by such of the Father's family and/or partner as he sees as appropriate at the time.
3. I am confident that the Father, and indeed his family, have a deep sensitivity to the predicament that X has been placed in of being triangulated with a conflict of loyalty between the parents. I am satisfied that the Father and his household have a deep sensitivity to the predicament that X has been placed in by the parenting dynamic described by the report writer as "enmeshment."
4. In this case, I am satisfied that there should not be an alternative arrangement or different arrangement depending on the Father's shift work. No one sought that. The Father undertakes important and professional work, and it is appropriate that X is able to observe him coming and going and attending to his work life. That is a good example for her for the rest of her life. X will, sooner or later, need to financially support herself independent of her parents, and the example of, and being able to observe, her father coming and going and then her being cared for by either the Father's partner or the Father's parents would be entirely appropriate, and not only appropriate, but healthy and in X's best interests and vice versa.

The Mother's attempt to displace the Father from X's life

1. Another primary dispute between the parties is whether there has been a real attempt by the mother to displace the Father from X's life. For the reasons set out above, where I have addressed the different versions of the events leading up to and following 27 March 2022, I accept that there has been, either intentionally or unintentionally, a real attempt by the Mother to displace the Father from X's life.

1. The next issue or factual dispute is whether the Mother has an unreasonable or irrational preoccupation with the Father's partner, Ms Q. In her affidavit, the Mother deposes that the Father commenced his relationship with Ms Q before he had separated from the Mother.
2. The Father and Ms Q gave detailed evidence of how that did not occur. The Father's affidavit evidence, and his oral evidence when cross-examined, was of being concerned at commencing an intimate relationship with another person after separation was compelling. His demeanour in the witness box when recounting this was not merely plausible but compelling. The actual dynamic is that, shortly after separation, the Mother commenced a new relationship, and when that was known to the Father, he thereafter felt less restricted in pursuing a personal relationship. I am not satisfied that there was any overlapping of relationships as alleged by the Mother. Whether or not there was that overlapping, if it occurred, it occurred back in 2016.
3. The Mother has had significant psychological support and therapy from her psychologist, Dr S. Dr S's evidence was criticised by counsel for the Father, but I do not accept that criticism. Dr S's evidence was that of a supportive therapist attempting to assist her patient with the matters that presented themselves as between therapist and patient. Further, the therapist does not have a magic wand. The therapist must take the patient as the patient presents, and thereafter, within the learning of the discipline of psychology, attempt to assist the patient. Nonetheless, the extent of Dr S's therapy over many years is striking.
4. I explored with Dr S whether or not there was any substance to a concern that the Mother was preoccupied with the Father's relationship with Ms Q and with Ms Q. I had raised with the family report writer the circumstance that the notice of risk filed by the Mother[18] had referred to Ms Q not as "Ms Q" but as "Moron" in two places. The family report writer was of the opinion that that was not an accident, but that demonstrated the Mother's intended slight, and antipathy, to Ms Q and to the Father's household.
5. In oral evidence, Dr S confirmed the Mother's regard for the Father's partner as "very raw:"[19]

HIS HONOUR: ... And what is it that has been said that makes you think that [Ms Borrell] has some antipathy to the partner, the father's partner?

[DR S]: My understanding is that there was a relationship that commenced between [Mr Lamont] and [Ms Q] before he separated from [Ms Borrell], and so that is, I would say, the source of the antipathy. I have not been told of attempts to resolve any issues between them given that [Ms Q] takes the role of a parental figure. And I have read in [Ms F]'s report that [Ms Q] and [X] don't speak to each other, so yes.

...

HIS HONOUR: [...] it has been put to [the Mother] that she's in fact jealous of [Ms Q]?

[DR S]: Oh, okay.

HIS HONOUR: Have you seen anything that would, or observed anything that would be consistent with that?

[DR S]: No. My understanding would be that any woman with a young baby whose partner has started a relationship with someone else in a different town and then moved her to that town and then left her, that there would be a lot of anger.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. You would be pretty cross for a while?

[DR S]: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: And there's no normal way of how people get over things. But is it fair to say that [Ms Borrell] hasn't got over that? It's still very raw for her?

[DR S]: Oh, yes, yes. And understandably, I would say.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. And from your perspective, is it going to be that raw at [X]'s university graduation, wedding, baptism of first child, etcetera. I'm concerned that there might be a fixation on - fixation is my word, it's a lawyer's word, it's amateur psychology?

[DR S]: Sure, yes.

HIS HONOUR: But given that you've dealt with [Ms Borrell] for so long- - -

...

- - - and it's still raw, is it fair to say that you haven't seen anything that indicates she's going to get over it?

[DR S]: There's - well, because there hasn't been any move for her to resolve that.

...

There needs to be steps, yes, taken. Yes, I think I would have to say that.

HIS HONOUR: By [Ms Borrell]?

[DR S]: Oh, by many parties, not just her. She can't resolve it by herself.

HIS HONOUR: Okay?

[DR S]: She could - yes, people - people can reach a certain position on their own, but that doesn't mean that they've actually resolved the issue as such.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. But with your assistance, this hasn't been part of the therapy at all?

[DR S]: That has not been a focus. There are many other things to focus on.

1. I am satisfied that the Mother has a continuing problem with the Father being in a relationship with Ms Q. I am not satisfied there is a sound or rational basis for that antipathy. I am satisfied that that antipathy has flowed over into the mother and daughter relationship, or, to adopt the family report writer's nomenclature and concepts, is part of what she describes as the enmeshment process between mother and daughter.

1. As to the threat to kill allegation, the Father deposes as follows:
   1. The key issues that arose following the conclusion of the FCFCOA proceedings are as follows:

(a) [Ms Borrell] would call repeatedly, harass me and intrude into [X]'s time with me. The time, frequency and duration of [Ms Borrell]'s calls with [X] often contravened orders 10a, 11a and 11b of the 2020 May Orders. I have retained call log evidence and can produce same if required. [Ms Borrell] expected to speak with [X] every day when she was in my care and [X] would display deep feelings of guilt if she did not call [Ms Borrell] so I would facilitate. [Ms Borrell] maintained a powerful control over [X]; due to [Ms Borrell]'s unpredictable behaviour [X] became used to appeasing [Ms Borrell] and taking care of her.

(b) [Ms Borrell] would draw [X] into her hostile behaviours towards me:-

(i) On 25 January 2021, [Ms Borrell] made a scene at changeover when I forgot to bring [X]'s scooter. I started my car to leave to de-escalate the situation. [Ms Borrell] made [X] stand with her behind my car to block me from leaving until I agreed to take [X] back home with me to retrieve the scooter. It was very disturbing to see [Ms Borrell] forcing [X] to stand behind my car, so I complied with her demands to prevent further distress to [X]. I arrived back at the handover location with [X] and the scooter and [Ms Borrell] was not there. We waited whilst I tried to contact [Ms Borrell]. [Ms Borrell] informed me that she had gone home and requested I bring [X] and the scooter to her residence in [Suburb BB]. Once I reached her residence, [Ms Borrell] did not answer the door. After knocking for some time, we could hear the shower running. After waiting outside [Ms Borrell]'s residence with [X] for a further 20 minutes, I muttered under my breath in frustration "gonna kill her."

(ii) I did not intend for [X] to hear this; I was muttering to myself whilst [X] was knocking on the door. [X] did hear me however and whilst I sincerely regret my choice of words, it was clear by [X]'s behaviour that she was aware it was not a threat, but an expression for 'I am so annoyed with her.' [X] would use this expression herself, when she was playing at being angry. When I heard [Ms Borrell] unlocking the door, I quickly said goodbye to [X]. By the time [Ms Borrell] opened the door, I was already at the lift down the hallway. [X] cheerily said goodbye and did not appear distressed in any way when she entered [Ms Borrell]'s apartment.

(iii) I did not receive any contact from police concerning this matter and only discovered that [Ms Borrell] had attempted to make an embellished police report after [X] told me she had. [X] told me she did not think I would hurt [Ms Borrell], but that after [Ms Borrell] told police, she felt confused. I immediately left [X] with my parents and went to [Suburb R] police station. After speaking with an officer and requesting they view CCTV footage of the changeover location and [Ms Borrell]'s hallway, I was informed that if I was not contacted, then I should not be concerned. I was never contacted by police and [X] continued to spend 41% of the time pursuant to Court Orders. I have never harmed [Ms Borrell], nor sought to threaten her and have no intent to do so.

(c) Despite repeated requests, [Ms Borrell] would not provide me with a copy of [X]'s birth certificate and Medicare details as per the 2020 May Orders. [Ms Borrell] expressed concern that either myself or my mother, [Mrs Lamont], might use [X]'s Medicare details to access her health records. I found this claim perplexing, as neither my mother nor I have ever attempted to access [Ms Borrell]'s medical information. We have had no interest in [Ms Borrell]'s health records and my mother would never compromise her professional career as a Clinical Psychologist by inappropriately accessing Medicare details. Even as of the date of affirming this Affidavit, [Ms Borrell] has refused to provide [X]'s Medicare details to facilitate [X]'s medical and counselling appointments.

(d) [Ms Borrell] would often become upset with me regarding her finances and accuse me of being abusive and lacking in my commitments if I did not provide her with more money, above and beyond that which I was legally required to pay.

1. Most of the above-mentioned issues were resolved amicably but between January 2022 and March 2022 [Ms Borrell] became increasingly antagonistic and eventually prevented [X] from having any contact with me or her paternal family for a prolonged period without reasonable excuse.

1. I am satisfied of those events as described by the Father. The Mother was, and is, entitled to be critical of the Father for muttering or saying in X's presence what he did, But the inappropriate comment was not a threat to kill. The Mother's attempt to leverage this comment thereafter are disproportionate to the events.

SECTION 60CC FACTORS

1. I now turn to the application of the law to those facts recited earlier. I must determine the orders to make in this matter on the basis that the best interests of X are the paramount consideration. The following headings are a paraphrase of the provisions of section 60CC of the Act but the whole of the provision is had regard to.

What arrangements would promote the safety of the child...

1. I now turn to what arrangements would promote the safety of the child. Based upon the family report writer's observations, and also the observations of Ms G, I am satisfied, very sadly, that there is a risk of emotional harm to X if she remains to live predominantly in the Mother's care. I am satisfied that there is a risk of emotional harm to X of continuing to be enmeshed with her Mother's personalities, views of the world, and factual matrix.
2. I am satisfied there is also a risk of harm to X of a change of residence and a change of school. This decision requires a balancing between the risk of emotional harm to X of simply letting the parenting arrangements either continue as they are, which no party seeks, or of moving to daytime only care as the Mother seeks, with the drastic change and short-term trouble and turmoil likely for X of a change of living predominantly with her father and of a change of school. In that sense, the observation of the Mother's counsel, that there needs to be evidence of a very clear benefit to outweigh the disruption to X in this case is apposite and appropriate.
3. However, in this case, there is such evidence, that is, the overall evidence and the inferences to be drawn from it, that the continuation of things as they are, or the limitation of the Father's time, will significantly impact upon X, and continue to impact upon her. Because I accept the evidence of the family report writer, I am very troubled about the emotional safety of X living predominantly in her mother's household. I infer and am satisfied the Mother's fundamental view of, and attributed to, the Father and his household, has not changed and is unlikely to.
4. I was concerned during the hearing at the issue of how X would transition from one household to the other. Ultimately, what the Father pressed was that the existing arrangement of X moving between the two households in accordance with the April 2025 orders should continue through the bulk of the current long summer vacation until shortly before school. I note that he did not press the previously floated possibility of a hiatus or no time at all with the Mother.
5. I have concerns at the Mother's ability to protect X from her distress at learning of my decision and reasons. On the other hand, I am satisfied that the Mother is an intelligent and otherwise capable person and parent, and that she loves X deeply. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the Father's proposal of transition, with the starting dates as recited in the orders, is in X's best interest. I make that finding on the basis and understanding that, as the Mother supported in practice, whether or not emotionally in substance, the orders of April 2025, she will support and ensure that X moves between the two households in accordance with these orders. And further, that she will support and ensure that X attends the school that the Father has now chosen, notwithstanding that is contrary to her views and opinions.

1. I now turn to any views expressed by X. The views that X has expressed are a wish to continue in the existing arrangements. That was the same view that X had when in therapy with Ms G in 2023 at a time when she was not seeing her Father at all.
2. The issue of views expressed by a child are difficult to consider when there is the issue of influence or the more pernicious circumstance described by the family report writer as enmeshment with one parent. The dynamic described by the family report writer is troubling and inevitably influences the weight that I can place upon X's expressed view. Nonetheless, the reality is that, as X is at the moment, she does not wish to live with her father, and I take that into account and place great weight upon it. Nonetheless, in this case, it is not appropriate to make orders that would reflect what X has said she wants at the moment, and I note that neither parent seeks the continuation of such arrangement.

The developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child

1. The overwhelming psychological, emotional and developmental need of X is to live in households where there is peace and harmony, where she is free to have her own personality, free from the dynamic of influence, or what the family report writer describes as enmeshment, with a well-meaning but dominating personality, and where that dominating personality has an active and persistent antipathy to very important people in X's life. The long and the short of it is the pressing crucial psychological need of X is to be able to live in some harmony without the conflict between her households, and to be able to move between the two most important people in her life, her mother and her father.
2. Her other important developmental, psychological and emotional need is the continuation of the existing therapy. The Father pressed for the continuation of that therapy. By the orders previously made, that was meant to be at the expense of 80 per cent paid by the Father and 20 per cent by the Mother. I am not satisfied that the Mother has supported that therapy in substance. All the evidence indicates a very troubling, go slow, pedantic approach to making that therapy happen.
3. At the time of the second report interviews being undertaken, the therapy had not actually commenced. I am satisfied that the Father had done most of the things he could and should have done to promote that therapy. Maybe it would have been wise to be less pernickety about exposure of his medical insurance details to the Mother. That may have contributed to the difficulties. But the long and the short of it is that I am not satisfied that, in any real and substantive way, the Mother promptly supported that much needed therapy that was ordered.
4. The expense being shared 80/20 was of more trouble than it was worth. On the information I had at the time of the interim hearing, and now, I am not satisfied that the Mother has the financial capacity to meet half of the expense of that therapy. She is unemployed. She has social security income and child support income. There may be other income, and I do note the question mark over her actual income and how she paid the school fees for the 2025 year.
5. I accept that it was important for the Mother to pay part of the therapy expenses so that she was invested in the process as was the Father. In the end, having looked at the emails backwards and forwards tendered in evidence and the cross-examination of the parties, I am satisfied that that well-meaning intention of an 80/20 expense caused more trouble than it was worth. The Father has the substantial income - relative to the Mother on what she has disclosed - of a professional community worker. On the one hand, the Mother cannot afford to contribute half or any part of the much-needed therapy for X, but on the other hand, she says that she somehow could afford the private school fees during the 2025 year and will be able to in the future once the bursary expires.
6. The financial circumstances of the Mother have a unique twist in this case. Given the circumspection and downright denial by the Father that the Mother had the capacity to pay or contribute to private school fees, it was not unreasonable, and indeed inevitable, that when the Mother purported to explain how she did pay for those school fees, the Father's counsel questioned that in cross-examination. Part of that questioning was to request the Mother to, there and then, access her bank statements to demonstrate income and expenses and available funds to pay the school fees. Such a request was not unreasonable. The Mother said she did not have those bank statements readily available to her electronically in the witness box or at the Court. Courteously, the Father's counsel asked the Mother whether she would agree to access those bank statements overnight and bring them to Court the following day. The Mother readily agreed, or so it appeared.
7. The following morning, when the Mother's cross-examination continued, she was asked about producing the bank statements, and the Mother blandly and flatly replied that she had not brought the bank statements. When asked why not, in the context of her agreement the previous day to bring them, or apparent agreement, the Mother asserted she did not bring them because it was not Court ordered. The inference I draw from the Mother's determination not to put before the Court her bank statements that would demonstrate her capacity to have paid the school fees during 2025 and perhaps the sources of those funds, and hence her ability to fund school fees in the future, is that there is something about the Mother's financial circumstances and bank statements that she does not wish the Father or the Court to know.
8. Privacy in regard to a person's financial arrangements is an important everyday matter. However, this inquiry into X's welfare necessarily delves into all sorts of matters that are otherwise kept entirely private by many people. It is the Mother's case that the Father and his partner should have been, and were, called upon to explain their sexual activities overnight when X stays in their household. In that circumstance, for the Mother to refuse to produce bank statements that would corroborate an important part of her case is significant.
9. Counsel for the Father pressed that there be further subpoenas or orders to obtain those bank statements. I was not satisfied that that was appropriate in all of the circumstances and raised during the hearing that inferences may be drawn. The requested bank statements were never produced. I am satisfied that the inference can safely be drawn that there is something about the Mother's financial circumstances, as would be disclosed in her bank statements, that would not assist her case that she was able to pay the school fees from employment in 2025 or would be able to do so in the future.
10. Similarly, the Mother's explanation as to the word "moron" appearing as Ms Q's in the notice of risk being an accidental error made by her then solicitor cannot be accepted. That matter was not raised directly with the Mother in cross-examination. I had not then noticed it. The Mother had left the witness box by the time I had noticed that. I raised it with the family report writer as described above. I was prepared to permit the Mother to be recalled to give oral evidence in regard to that matter if she chose to and announced that position in Court. I was provided with the explanation on instructions, from the bar table, that this was an error made by the Mother's prior solicitor, that the document was in that form when it was emailed to the Mother, and in effect, that she had merely, in error, adopted a document prepared by her solicitor in good faith. It was said that the emails would be produced. They were not.
11. In the circumstances, I draw the inference that the emails between the Mother and her solicitor relating to the Notice of Risk would not support the contention from the bar table that this was an inadvertent error. In any event, I note that the Mother did not make application, which would have been granted, to give oral evidence in response to the matter after I raised that with the family report writer. The inference I draw from that is that the Mother herself had chosen to draft the document in the manner that it was, including the misdescription of Ms Q as "Ms Moron."

Capacity to provide for developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs

1. I now turn to the issue of capacity to provide for developmental, psychological, emotional, and cultural needs. As to this aspect, I rely heavily upon the observations of the family report writer. The report writer is very troubled as to the Mother's emotional capacity to appropriately provide for X's independent emotional development. The circumstance the report writer describes as "enmeshment" is to the contrary of a capacity to provide for X developing her own independent sense of person and her own psychological and emotional welfare. I am satisfied that the Father has an appropriate capacity to provide for X's developmental, psychological, and emotional needs in the difficult circumstances of the transition to his care required by these orders.

Benefit of a relationship with the child's parents & other (significant) people...

1. It was common ground that there was benefit of X having a relationship with both of her parents. I am satisfied that there is. The extent to which that was common ground was seriously qualified by the Mother's position that the Father's time should be limited to daytime only and/or limited to when he was actually available and not working on shift work and the history of non-compliance with the 2020 Final Orders as well as the compliance of the Father's household in the Mother's Notice of Risk and affidavits. I am satisfied that there is a real benefit to X of a continuing relationship with both of her parents and with other significant people, including the Father's partner and the Father's parents and siblings.

Anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child

1. The long drawn out and protracted struggle of the Father to recommence spend time with X since 27 March 2022, in accordance with the orders, is significant. The manner in which the Mother has been able to use and activate Magistrates' Court family violence proceedings to interfere with X's relationship with her father is significant. Part of that responsibility is not the Mother's but is the Father's naivety or difficulty in dealing with parallel legal systems. On the one hand, the Commonwealth law of the land of the Family Law Act and the orders of this Court permitting him to see the child, and on the other hand, the family violence stream of the Magistrates' Court. Negotiating those two parallel streams can be difficult.
2. It is clear that, at one point, the Father erroneously accepted or did not question or challenge the letter from the Mother's previous solicitors asserting that were he to attend X's school, he would be in breach of an intervention order. I am not satisfied that he would have been. I am satisfied of the Father's account of the Mother's behaviour on X's first day at school. Nonetheless, juggling two streams of intense and protracted litigation is difficult. It was difficult for the Father. It must have also been very stressful for the Mother.

1. The Father concedes that during the relationship, when exasperated, he punched a hole a wall. And he asserts that it was on one occasion. That level of violence is troubling and concerning. However, the Father has been frank about that circumstance, has not denied it, and, I am satisfied, genuinely regrets it. The Father has been frank about the muttering under his breath that has been mischaracterised as an actual threat to kill the Mother. I take into account those two significant events. However, I am not satisfied that there is a risk of the Father perpetrating family violence on either the Mother or X in the future. I am troubled at the capacity of the Mother to activate family violence proceedings in State Courts for the purpose of interfering with his relationship with X.

1. I now turn to the issue of parental responsibility. Each party asserts that shared or joint parental responsibility for long-term decisions is no longer practical or sensible or in X's best interests. That was the position that the parties took in requesting the Court to make the 2020 final orders. In this case, it is overwhelmingly apparent that one or other parent should have the sole parental responsibility for health, education and change of name.

1. In this case, when X will be living mostly with the Father, and in the circumstances where I am satisfied that the Mother has acted to attempt to distance X from her father, I am satisfied that the Father should have sole responsibility as he seeks. Further, I am satisfied that his proposed qualifications on that responsibility to consult the Mother and take into account her opinion beforehand are appropriate. That was not an approach exercised by the Mother when she unilaterally changed X's daycare or enrolled X in her chosen secondary school in 2024. It should have been.
2. All of those matters and the above evidence compel the conclusion that it is the Father that should have the sole parental responsibility for major long-term decisions regarding health, education and change of name. I am satisfied that he will consult the Mother as the orders provide.
3. I now turn to my conclusion as to parenting matters.
4. I accept the observations and recommendations of the family report writer recited earlier. I accept, broadly, the Father's case.
5. Some of the orders that I have made are slightly different in form to that pressed by the Father. It is otiose to make an order as to X's schooling when the Father has made it clear which school X will attend if X lives with him and he has authority by the sole parentally responsibility order to do so. I am satisfied that he has appropriate arrangements in train to ensure that X attends that school. I am satisfied that it is an appropriate school. I am satisfied that it is appropriate that X change schools at this point rather than the uncertainty of the future. I note that to the effect of these orders permit the father to enrol X at J School as he seeks.
6. I am not satisfied it is necessary to burden the therapist with the long list of documents pressed by the Father when the April 2025 orders already provided for the provision of those same documents. I am satisfied that the obligation to ensure that the child is enrolled by her what was described as "legal name" of Lamont is appropriate.
7. I am satisfied, sadly, that there needs to be a change of X's living arrangement, notwithstanding the disruption to X and the potential for emotional trouble in that transition. The extent of that trouble will be largely, but not entirely, governed by the manner in which each of the parents cooperate with and promote these orders.
8. Those are my reasons.

1. In settling the transcript of my oral reasons as described above, I have observed an unintentional slip or misstatement that I have made. The form of the orders proposed by the Father that I adopted at the heading to paragraph 17 misdescribed X's trauma therapy, being the therapy recommended by the family report writer and undertaken for the purpose of assisting X deal with the trauma of her childhood to this date, as "Family Therapy." That heading should have been "[X]'s Trauma Therapy." I am satisfied that was a slip or error in the drafting of the Father's proposed orders and whether or not it was on my part I inadvertently adopted that misdescription. It will be corrected under the slip rule.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and fifty-eight (158) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge O'Shannessy.

• Outline of case filed 13 December 2025;
• Affidavit of the Mother filed 2 December 2025;
• Affidavit of Ms S filed 17 November 2025;
• Updated Family Report by Ms F filed 5 November 2025;
• Family Report by Ms F filed 18 November 2024;
• Affidavit of Ms G filed 28 November 2024;
• Affidavit of Ms G filed 12 April 2024; and
• Subpoena to N School filed 5 November 2025.

• Outline of case filed 12 December 2025;
• Updated trial affidavit of the Father filed 7 December 2025;
• Trial affidavit of the Father filed 4 April 2025;
• Updated affidavit of Mrs Lamont filed 3 December 2025;
• Affidavit of Mrs Lamont filed 9 April 2025;
• Updated affidavit of Ms Q filed 7 December 2025;
• Affidavit of Ms Q filed 9 April 2025;
• Further amended response filed 9 April 2025;
• Further further amended response filed 14 April 2025;
• Further further further amended response filed 12 December 2025;
• Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk filed by the Father 2 November 2022;
• Updated Family Report by Ms F filed 5 November 2025;
• Family Report by Ms F filed 18 November 2024;
• Family Therapy Report by Ms G filed 28 November 2024;
• Family Therapy Report by Ms G filed 12 April 2024;
• Child Impact Report by Ms D filed 20 March 2023; and

Department of Families, Fairness and Housing s 67ZW response filed 17 February 2023.

• Updated Family Report by Ms F filed 5 November 2025;
• Family Report by Ms F filed 18 November 2024;
• Affidavit of Ms G filed 28 November 2024;
• Affidavit of Ms G filed 12 April 2024; and
• Child Impact Report prepared by Ms D dated 20 March 2023.

1 May 2025 '... not available and [school] recommended' emails

17 November 2024 'confirm which secondary school' email

[1] The Father issued Contravention proceedings and the Mother then issued proceedings seeking to change the 2020 Final Orders.

[3] This incident occurred in March 2022 shortly before the cessation of time by Ms Borrell on 27 March 2022.

[4] In her "Notice of Risk" the Mother refers to Ms Q as "Ms Moron" twice.

[5] Ordered as agreed by the parties in the April 2025 orders.

[6] Although the Mother denied making this statement in evidence before me, I accept this statement was made. But before me and in written documents filed shortly before the resumed hearing, the Mother sought orders for a reduction in the Father's time with X to daytime only on one day each weekend.

[9] The Mother had referred to Ms Q in the "Notice of Risk" as a "step parent."

[11] Shortly before the resumed final hearing, the Father changed his position to seek that X live mostly with him.

[12] In her evidence before me qualified to have occurred once.

[13] This is about a year after the Mother ceased all time on 27 March 2022.

[14] See for example D'orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12.

[16] The "abusive" text message are in evidence as MRL-2 of the Father's affidavit. They are not abusive. In the circumstances they are restrained.