Briginshaw v Briginshaw

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

1. By no later than 4.00pm on 3 September 2025, the Independent Children's Lawyer shall provide a copy of a proposed Final Order (reflecting the Reasons for Judgment) to the Court (at ...@...) and to the parties.
2. The matter shall be listed for Mention at 10.00am on 12 September 2025 for the hearing of submissions in relation to the wording of the Final 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. The applicant mother is Ms Kosar ("the mother"). The mother was born in 1985.
2. The respondent father is Mr Kosar ("the father"). The father was born in 1973.
3. The parties met online in 2009. At that point in time they were living in different States of Australia. The parties commenced living together in about December 2010 in Queensland. In 2011 the parties were married. The parties separated under one roof in or about May 2018. At that point in time the parties were living at a house in Suburb J, Queensland. The father moved out of the family home in late June 2018. The parties were divorced in 2020.
4. The parties have one child, X (born 2012) - referred to as "[X]" or "the child".
5. The mother (with the benefit of an inheritance) purchased a house in Suburb H in 2021. The mother lives at that residence with the child. The father lives in a residence in Suburb K, Brisbane.
6. The parties cannot agree on final parenting orders in relation to the child.
7. The mother states in paragraph 20 of her affidavit filed 20 December 2024 ("the mother's trial affidavit") that when the parents separated "...it was very difficult, trying to figure out how to support [X]'s time with her Father, and also keep her safe. I would take [X] to our church at [L Church], so she could spend time with the father there, while I was around and people were around to keep it safer for us, but after a few months the emotional and mental strain of keeping an eye on her at all times lest her Father try to take her, became too much for me." It is not apparent to the Court why the mother thought that the child was in danger from the father and nor is it apparent to the Court why the mother took the view that there was some chance (or, I apprehend from the mother's perspective, some danger) that the father would try to take the child.
8. In May 2019 the parents consented to interim orders. Those orders were made by His Honour Judge Lapthorn on 7 May 2019. By those Orders, the child was to have unsupervised day time visits with the father each week from 8.00am until 1.00pm on a Saturday - at either the M Shopping Centre or the O Library or at a park or children's activity centre. The public place was to be agreed by the parents. In addition to that time - the child was to spend time with the father from 9.00am until 1.00pm with the father on the first Sunday of each month at the L Church. The changeover locations were stipulated. The mother maintains that during that period of time the father would demand changes to the changeover locations. The mother says she rigidly followed the Orders and this resulted in the father not collecting the child some weeks. The mother says that on other occasions the father would refuse to bring the child back at the nominated time and location.
9. One unfortunate issue about the consent Orders of May 2019 is that there was some scope within the Orders requiring the parents to reach an agreement concerning certain matters - including the precise "public place" for the Saturday time between the father and the child. It will become apparent from these Reasons for Judgment that these parents are unable to agree on any issue.
10. For present purposes it is important to note that in May 2019 the mother consented to unsupervised time between the child and the father. It is unclear why the mother agreed to such an order - especially in light of her concerns highlighted in paragraph 20 of her trial affidavit. There is no convincing explanation provided by the mother as to why, in view of her concerns raised in paragraph 20 of her trial affidavit, she would agree (by way of a consent order) to the child spending unsupervised time with the father in accordance with the May 2019 Order.
11. The mother maintains that April to November 2019 - was a stressful period of time. The mother says that there were a lot of changes to the arrangements in that period of time and there were constant negotiations regarding time - as well as the location of changeovers. The mother said that there were miscommunications between what the father believed was occurring and what she believed was occurring. The evidence throughout this case is littered with miscommunications between the parents.
12. Notwithstanding the mother's complaints about stress and the like in her trial affidavit the mother nonetheless consented to a further parenting Order on 21 July 2020 - whereby the child would spend unsupervised time with the father during the day for 8 hours each week on a Saturday. The first Sunday of the month at the L Church also remained as part of the parenting regime.
13. Notwithstanding her many complaints relating to the father (apparent from the mother's trial affidavit) the mother agreed to extend the time that the child spent with the father each Saturday from 5 hours (as per the Order of 7 May 2019) to 8 hours - as per the 21 July 2020 Orders made with the consent of the parties by Her Honour Judge Spelleken.
14. The mother has provided no reasonable explanation as to why it was that she agreed to an increase of time. I do not accept it was merely because of her lawyer's advice. The mother alluded to this at one stage during her evidence.
15. There is an internal inconsistency in the mother's case. It is apparent when one has regard to her trial affidavit (especially in relation to this period of time between May 2019 and July 2020). The internal inconsistency is between the mother's assertions of her concerns relating to the safety of the child in the care of the father - and the mother's actions in consenting to orders for the child to spend time on an unsupervised basis with the father.
16. The family saw Mr F for two Family Reports. The first interviews took place in July 2019. Mr F recommended that the child live with the mother and that the child spend unsupervised time with the father on no less than one occasion each week for a period of no less than 5 hours. It is apparent that the first consent order (May 2019) was in place prior to the first report of Mr F.
17. The family saw Mr F for a second Family Report on 15 December 2020. Mr F stated (in paragraph 14) of his second report - "I note that, at the time of the initial Family Report, [Ms Kosar] expressed concern in regard to the potential risk of [X] being sexually abused by her father. She did not raise such a concern on the occasion of interviews for the purposes of this report".
18. On the second occasion Mr F recommended that the child live with the mother and spend unsupervised time with the father from Saturday morning to Sunday afternoon. The mother says in paragraph 28 of her trial affidavit that in December 2020 she was considering overnight time with X. Again, the mother has not adequately explained the inconsistency between her stated views concerning risk issues relating to the father and her thought processes that led her to consider overnight time between X and the father at that stage.
19. In the mother's Initiating Application (filed 23 November 2018) the mother sought an order that "the child spend time with the father at all times as agreed between the parties and failing agreement supervised at [P Family Services]..." This proposed order clearly contemplates unsupervised time between the child and the father - as agreed between the parents.[1] At the first interview with Mr F the mother stated that - until recently she had been generally satisfied with the unsupervised visits but (by the time of the interview) her preference was for the child's time with the father to be supervised. From paragraph 11 and 12 of his first report Mr F continues:

"11. On interview, [Ms Kosar] indicated that, until recently, she was generally satisfied with the unsupervised visits but it is now her preference for [X]'s time with her father to be supervised. In that regard, she explains that, on the conclusion of a recent visit, [Mr Kosar] tried to solicit a hug from their child and [X] resisted. She claims that the father chased their daughter, caught her and forced a hug on her. She describes his behaviour in that regard as inappropriate and alleges that he simply doesn't respect the child's limits. However, she also acknowledged that [X] is consistently happy to see [Mr Kosar].

1. [Ms Kosar] later argued that supervised visits are appropriate[2] because of her concern that [Mr Kosar] might sexually assault the child, "Like he did with his sisters". I note that the father categorically refutes ever dealing inappropriately with his siblings."

1. At the time that the father caught the child and gave her a hug, the child was only 6 years old. It hardly seems a matter of concern.
2. I will address the issue relating to the father's former criminal charges (in respect of which he was acquitted) later in these Reasons for Judgment.
3. At paragraphs 119 and 120 of Mr F's first report he states:

"119. At this point, the mother explains that she would prefer that [X]' s time with her father be supervised at a contact centre. I accept that this would be somewhat restrictive in terms of the development of [Mr Kosar]'s parenting relationship with his child. Although it seems likely that the father has no parental role models on which to rely, and there is no evidence that he has any pre-existing parenting experience, there appears to be little reliable evidence to support a belief that he presents such a risk to his child that their time together should be significantly restricted in that manner.

1. However, I acknowledge that [Mr Kosar] might struggle in his parenting from time to time and may not be consistently able to understand and focus on his child's developmental needs. It may be that parenting programs could be of some assistance in that regard."

(emphasis added)

1. I accept this evidence from Mr F. It accords with my own observations in relation to the father. It also accords with the evidence of Dr N and Dr Q.
2. By the time of the second interview with Mr F the mother was expressing positive views in relation to the then existing parenting arrangements - including the unsupervised time between the child and the father. In paragraph 11 of Mr F's second report, Mr F states (in relation to comments by the mother):

"11. In regard to the parenting dispute, [Ms Kosar] indicated, on interview, that she is generally happy with the existing parenting arrangements. She explained that her legal representative has suggested that she should anticipate eventual progress to overnight weekend visits. She suggests that she is generally accepting of that and also notes that [X] has been, "Persuasive", in regard to such a development. However, the mother explains that she would want assurances that the child has her own bedroom before the commencement of any overnight visits. She also notes that she can envisage becoming comfortable with fortnightly visits from Saturday morning until Sunday afternoon but would have some difficulty supporting longer visits, even during school holiday periods. She largely associates that position with her general concerns about [Mr Kosar]'s capacity to adequately care for their child for any long periods of time."

1. It is apparent from this evidence that the mother was "generally happy" with the child spending the unsupervised time with the father (including 8 hours of unsupervised time with the father each week). The mother also states that she is "generally accepting" of the anticipated potential move to overnight time - with her primary concern relating to the availability of the child's own bedroom and general concerns about the father's capacity to adequately care for the child for a longer period of time. The mother did not raise any concern with Mr F on this occasion about the risk of sexual abuse of the child in the care of the father. I have already noted the contents of paragraph 14 of that report from Mr F.
2. In paragraph 84 of Mr F's second report, he summarises the mother's position:

"84. However, [Ms Kosar] no longer argues that the father's time with their child requires supervision. She also suggests that she will support progress to overnight visitation and, in that regard, explains that she would be comfortable with visits from Saturday morning until Sunday afternoon."

1. This matter came on for trial (initially) on Monday 1 July 2024. On that occasion Mr Cahill of Counsel appeared for the mother; Mr Hanlon of Counsel appeared for the father and Ms Lyons of Counsel appeared for the Independent Children's Lawyer. At the commencement of the trial the Court asked Counsel for the mother to state the mother's position in relation to time between the child and the father. At page 5 of the transcript on 1 July 2024 (at lines 4 and 5) Mr Cahill confirmed that the mother's position in relation to time between the child and the father "...remains unsupervised, but remains purely during the day".
2. From about the time of separation on a final basis (in 2018) the child spent unsupervised time with the father. The mother agreed to unsupervised time and this was included in consent Orders dated 7 May 2019 and 21 July 2020. Further, at the commencement of the trial on 1 July 2024 the mother continued to hold the position that the child's time with the father should remain unsupervised.
3. It was not until the third day of the final hearing (30 January 2025)[3] that the mother filed an Amended Initiating Application seeking an order that the child spend no time with the father. All that the mother was willing to concede was an order that permitted the father to send the child a card or a gift on two occasions each calendar year.
4. Between the first day of the trial (1 July 2024) and the recommencement of the hearing on 29 January 2025 - the Independent Children's Lawyer had obtained a further Family Report - this time from Ms G. Ms G recommended that there be no time between the child and the father. It is apparent, therefore, that Ms G's opinion is directly contrary to the opinion of Mr F. Ms G's opinion is also not supported by Dr N (psychiatrist) and nor is Ms G's "no time" position supported by the father's general practitioner, Dr Q. I will return to the evidence of the experts later in these Reasons for Judgment.
5. The father's proposal contained in his response document was for an equal time order. Such an order is not supported by the evidence. After the conclusion of the hearing the father changed his position. In written submissions provided to the Court (along with a proposed minute of orders sought by the father) the father sought an order that the child live with the mother and, after a 6 month period of unsupervised daytime contact - the father seeks that the Court order that the child spend alternate weekends with the father from 9.00am Saturday until 3.00pm Sunday. The father seeks various other orders and I have considered his proposal.

Part VII Of The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

1. The objects of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") are stated in section 60B as follows:

"60B Objects of Part

The objects of this Part are:

(a) to ensure that the best interests of children are met, including by ensuring their safety; and

(b) to give effect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child done at New York on 20 November 1989..."

1. The best interests of the child remain the paramount consideration when the Court is making a parenting order. Section 60CA states:

"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."

1. In section 60CC the Parliament has set out how a Court is to determine what is in a child's best interests. Some of the relevant subsections within section 60CC are as follows:

**"**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).

General considerations

(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."

1. Section 60CC(3) is not relevant in the proceedings currently before the Court.
2. As to how a child is to express their views is set out in section 60CD and a related section (placing a requirement upon the Independent Children's Lawyer) in section 68LA(5A).
3. By section 60CG the Court is to consider the risk of family violence. Even before the inclusion of that section in the Act, the Court was required to consider the risk of family violence.[4] It is convenient at this juncture to refer to certain aspects of the evidence relating to family violence. It is important to note that I have considered all of the evidence relating to family violence and to the risk of harm and all of the evidence relating to the domestic violence orders made in other Courts.

1. A changeover was scheduled to take place on 23 December 2023. The parents have provided different versions of the events of that day. From paragraph 362 of the mother's trial affidavit the mother states:

"362. 10th Breach: On 23rd December, 2023 the father texted to me at 8:41am, just 19 mins before our Scheduled changeover at 9am at [Town B] Train Station, "I've just woken up ... About to shower and head off .. will pick [X] up from house".

1. I replied shortly afterwards, telling him, "No, you will not" "You aren't to come to my house." "I can leave it till 9:45am to collect from the station, after that, visit is not happening." "You are not to come to my house uninvited".

364. At 10:53am I received another text from [Mr Kosar], "Where are you?"

1. I replied, "At the Station waiting" then, at about 10am I also texted "Ok, I am supposed to be starting work now", "I will have to miss my first appointment and anyone who was coming then." "$45 will be owed for time and a half first appointment of the day" "By You".

366. [Mr Kosar] replied, "I don't think so".

1. I had, had a call from my friend [Ms E] just as we were leaving, and we were chatting via Blue tooth through the car's hands free system while I waited for the father to arrive. I was very annoyed about being late to open my business and missing anyone trying to pick up their items at opening time. I was also very scared about the father coming to my house, I was afraid he would start just inviting himself around to my house again, making me feel unsafe in my home, and harassing, threatening, and intimidating me again.

2. The father arrived at [Town B] Station shortly after 10am and approached my car which I had parked in the quick pick-up area near the centre walkway. [X] had been talking on her watch phone with her Dad and he had told her he had come to our house in his car.

3. [X] and I got out of the car, [X] got her bag out, and we walked towards the father's car, I went to say goodbye. I wanted to know what car he was driving as he had said something during the phone call with [X] that he got a car, however it wasn't registered in his name yet. I wanted to know this information just in case he didn't bring [X] back at the conclusion of time, and the cops needed a description and registration to help locate them.

4. As I came near the back of the father's car, I said something like, "I am just taking a photo of the car for safety reasons", which I proceeded to do. He immediately swore at me I think and yelled "No!" then he came at me, yelling and gesticulating at me, I remember him yelling, "Grow the fuck up!" I was still on my phone call to [Ms E] at the time, with the phone I was using to photograph I think, I cannot remember if it was still attached to the cars blue tooth system or not.

5. I backed up to keep out of arms reach and [Mr Kosar] moved so fast I didn't have a chance to get to my car door, I kept backing towards the centre walkway intending to go to the station if he continued. I said to him I was going to video record, and turned it on, I was very afraid he was about to hit me and thought I must video so there's evidence and to protect myself. As soon as I got the camera up recording, he turned and stomped off. [X] was in his car at the time, I did ring the police afterwards to ask them to do a welfare check as I was concerned about him driving safely with her when he was so angry. I was very shaken and scared after this incident, and me and [Ms E] went down to [Town B] Police Station that evening after picking up [X] to make our statements. I do not believe any action was taken by Police in regard to this. Annexed and marked "[MS KOSAR]-57" is a true and correct copy of this statement and a copy of messages. I have the video I took if required to produce it to Court.

Annexed and marked "[MS KOSAR]- 58" is a true and correct copy of my friend [Ms E's] statement."

1. The father provided a version of events from paragraph 100 of his trial affidavit filed 28 January 2025 ("the father's trial affidavit"). The father relevantly stated that:

"100. On 23 December 2023, I was driving my new car. When I arrived at [Town B] station, [Ms Kosar] was taking photos, not only the vehicle, but of the contents inside. On about eight occasions I told [Ms Kosar] that she didn't have my permission to take photos and to delete them immediately.

1. I put my hand out to take the phone and delete the photos, but [Ms Kosar] stepped further backwards

2. [Ms Kosar] then said to me point blank, "I need the photos for when you'll rape your daughter". I became angry at these words, and I said to [Ms Kosar] to "Grow the Fuck Up". I then returned to my car and drove off with [X].

3. [X] was inside the car the majority of the time. The distance between [Ms Kosar] and I would have been about a car length apart.

104. Claims were made by [Ms Kosar] that she was on the phone to [Ms E] at the time.

105. I ask for call logs to be produced

106. I ask for the recording [Ms E] claimed to have made"

1. The Court has Exhibits 25 and 26. These two Exhibits contain footage from the video surveillance cameras situated at the Town B Railway Station. It is quite difficult to see precisely what occurred. It is apparent that the mother walked towards the father's car and took a photograph of the father's car. The mother's evidence (in paragraph 370) is that she said to the father "I am just taking a photo of the car for safety reasons". That, in itself, was a provocative statement and completely unnecessary. By this stage the child had been spending unsupervised time with the father for 5 years. At no stage had the father failed to return the child. It is the case that, on occasions, the father has returned the child late - but he has never held the child overnight from the mother. Furthermore, at no stage (whether before or after separation) has the child come to any harm in the care of the father.
2. I do not accept the mother's evidence in relation to the content of the conversation. I accept the father's version which is contained in paragraph 102 of his trial affidavit. The father states that the mother said - "I need the photos for when you'll rape your daughter". I accept that the father became angry at those words and he said to the mother "grow the fuck up". I have no doubt that the mother said the words attributed to her by the father. In her version of events the mother sought to give the impression that she was scared or frightened of the father. I reject the mother's assertions in this regard. In her statement to the police (Annexure Ms Kosar-57 to the mother's trial affidavit) the mother stated in paragraph 13, inter alia:

"13. [Mr Kosar] came at me and raised his hand up as if he was going to hit me, me, or grab at me. I backed up as he was moving towards me, I had backed past my own car and was started to back towards the centre walkway that leads into the train station.

1. I thought I must video this in case he attacks me. I started to get the video going and I think I even said something to him about it, and as soon as I got the camera up he turned and walked back to his car. He got in and drove away. I was concerned for [X] because he was so angry when he left."

1. In her trial affidavit the mother does not mention the assertion that the father had raised his hand up as if he was going to hit her or grab at her. She did say that she was very afraid that he was about to hit her. The problem with the mother's assertions that she was afraid of the father is the evidence as to what happened next. From Exhibit 25 and 26 it can be seen that after the father turned his back and was walking away from the mother, the mother followed him with her phone - filming the father. The conclusion I have reached is that this is not the conduct of someone who is afraid. The mother is not afraid of the father. The mother thinks that the father is an idiot. The mother thinks that the father is obnoxious. The mother does not like the father. But the mother is not afraid of the father.
2. In my view the evidence contained in Exhibits 25 and 26 does not support a conclusion that the father had raised his hand as if he was going to hit the mother. The father says that he put his hand out and asked the mother for the phone so that he could delete the photographs. This was not realistic on his part. His conduct at that point was ill advised. To put it another way - so what if the mother took a photograph of his car?
3. If the mother was afraid of the father she would not have photographed his car and she certainly would not have photographed his car while he was present. Further, if the mother was afraid of the father she would not have said the words to him "I need the photos for when you'll rape your daughter". If the mother was truly afraid of the father she could have got into her car and locked the doors. The mother did not do that. The mother followed the father and filmed him as he walked back towards his car. The mother has dramatically embellished her version of events. By stating to the father "I need the photos for when you'll rape your daughter" - the mother significantly inflamed the situation at this changeover. The child has never come to harm in the care of the father. It is not surprising that the father was very upset at those words.
4. The mother's friend, Ms E, also provided a statement to the police. It is contained at Annexure Ms Kosar-58 of the mother's trial affidavit. There is nothing contained in that statement that assists the Court in ascertaining the precise events of 23 December 2023. Ms E also provided an affidavit and gave evidence at the final hearing on behalf of the mother. Ms E was not an impressive witness.
5. The problem for the mother is that the video surveillance film showing the mother walking behind the father as he walked away and filming him indicates to the Court that the mother is not frightened of the father. I had a chance to carefully consider the evidence of both of the parents in the witness box in relation to this issue. Where there is any inconsistency between the versions provided - I prefer the version of the father. I find that the mother was not frightened of the father on the day in question. This has significant implications for the mother because much of her evidence is framed around a narrative to the effect that she is fearful of the father. No person who is fearful of another would say the words that the mother said to the father on that day in question. No person who is fearful of another would follow that other person and film them as they walked away as the mother did on that day in question.
6. The strong impression that I have been left with is that the mother has been greatly encouraged by her friend Ms E in constructing this narrative of fear.
7. The father is not blameless. He ought not to have walked towards the mother at all on 23 December 2023. I accept that he was not going to hit the mother and I accept that he had no intention of hitting the mother. However, he is a large man and he is a loud man and he was angry at the time.
8. In relation to the events of 23 December 2023 - both parents were at fault - but the mother's inflammatory words and conduct were reprehensible. Nevertheless - the father should not have approached the mother for any reason whatsoever.

1. The mother's trial affidavit in relation to 16 November 2024 states as follows:

"380. The 13th Breach on 16 November 2024: On 16 November 2024, [X] was to spend Court ordered time with the father, however, I did not feel safe facilitating contact that day.

1. On the Friday prior around 12 noon, I had caused my lawyer to send correspondence to the father's lawyer seeking that he provide his new residential address, that he confirm he would be spending time in a public place with [X], and that he intended to return [X] at the nominated time as he had written in an email at 1:35pm [...] on the 10th of November stating that he intended to do make up time and I had not agreed to it. Annexed and marked "[MS KOSAR]-61" is a true and correct copy of the email correspondence.
2. After receiving no reply from him or my lawyer by 5pm, I then sent the father a text message about this. Annexed and marked "[MS KOSAR]-62" is a true and correct copy of the text messages between the father and me.
3. The father had not confirmed his new address or that he would comply with orders and remain in a public place. I had told him that I would not facilitate the time without this information.
4. The father attended my home about 12:00pm on Saturday 16 November 2024, while I was downstairs working in my [...] business attending to client appointments.
5. My friend [Ms E] was upstairs with [X] and her daughter who is [X]'s best friend. [Ms E] was looking after the kids while I worked.
6. I saw the father arrive at the downstairs doorway to my business premises, while I was providing service to a customer. He stood in the doorway as the customer left, I used my phone to call [Ms E] and loudly asked her to call police because the father was there.
7. He heard me and then walked away from the doorway and went upstairs calling out for [X], and then waited on the landing at the top of the stairs at the locked security gate there for some 10 mins or so, before coming down to have words with me through the then closed and locked glass door to my business. Annexed and marked "[MS KOSAR]-63" is a true and correct copy of the CCTV footage that will be tendered before the Court.
8. He walked back and forth and up and down the front stairs of my home and business premises for quite some time, and eventually my friend [Ms E] went outside on the veranda to have a word with him after hearing him yelling at me through the business door.
9. I had been mostly doing business paperwork in between serving a couple of clients I had that day and moving furniture and things to clear the area ready for the plumber who was replacing the waterpipes later that weekend, keeping busy to try and stay calm. I felt much safer having [Ms E] looking after the girls upstairs, and because I had made sure the gates on our property were secure.
10. I told [Mr Kosar] loudly to leave my property and that he was trespassing, when he started yelling at me through my business door, and I filmed this interaction. Annexed and marked "[MS KOSAR]-64" is a true and correct copy of the video recording.
11. When I started to tell him to leave, he walked away up towards the stairs, [Ms E] called out to him when she heard him yelling at me.
12. The father and [Ms E] then had a discussion which I have now heard a recording of, he was being insistent on [X] coming outside to explain to him why she would not come with him, but she was hiding in my bedroom with her friend, with the door locked as an extra safety precaution, and didn't feel safe to come out and talk with her father.
13. He also got quite heated mentioning [Ms E]'s affidavit she has filed in these proceedings on my behalf, and threatening to complain to her work and get her fired.
14. [X] told me that she did eventually text her father, with a little support from [Ms E], as she is not confident with texting on her Nokia phone. Annexed and marked "[MS KOSAR]-65" is a true and correct copy of the text message exchange.
15. I also texted the father "[Mr Kosar], you need to leave, you are trespassing, and harassing me, at work. This is a breach to our DVO." This was to repeat my verbal instructions to him earlier to leave my premises as he had repeatedly called out I had not told him he had to leave.
16. I had previously told the father on the 23rd of December 2023, that he was not allowed at my house. And he had clearly heard me tell [Ms E] to call the police as soon as I was able to after he arrived.
17. Shortly after his argument with [Ms E], and after several text messages and attempts to call [X] in which he threatened to return all her [...] presents from Temu, and delete the cart, if she didn't come with him, he also offered her a big mac, to which she had replied she was too scared to go with him when he was 'like that'.
18. He then walked across to the McDonalds close to my home for a short period of time, to get lunch. He then returned to his car which was parked near my property a couple of houses down the road, and remained hanging around his car, and sitting in his car, and he was still there at 3:00pm when I left to go to a counselling appointment, I felt really scared going out to my car with him there I was worried he might physically try to harass me and prevent me from leaving as he had in the past. But I just hurried out to my car got in and drove away and he thankfully stayed in his car.
19. At about 3:50pm I got a call from [Ms E] whilst in my counselling session to say that the police were there, and that the father had driven away as they arrived. That pair of police constables left, shortly after that, as I was not present for a statement.
20. I returned at about 5pm and by that time a second pair of police had attended, and we gave them our statements, and they then proceeded to lodge an application to vary to prohibit the father from entering, attempting to enter, or approaching within I 00 metres of my premises. This was made into a temporary order on the [...] November, 2024 And the next hearing is on the [...] January, 2025.
21. The fathers ongoing presence at the home and his refusal to leave left me and [X] feeling very unsafe. Annexed and marked "[MS KOSAR]-66" is a true and correct copy of the Police Application to Vary the Domestic Violence Order on [...] November 2024, and a copy of the subsequent Temporary Protection Order."

1. At paragraph 380 of the mother's trial affidavit the mother commences by stating that she did not feel "safe" facilitating contact that day. The mother seeks to provide some explanation for this in paragraph 381 of her trial affidavit. I did not find the mother's explanation convincing. By that stage the child had been spending unsupervised time with the father for 5 years and 6 months. The interim parenting order that was operative at the time had been made as long ago as 21 July 2020 - and it was made with the consent of the parties. By that Order the child was to spend time with the father "...from 8.00am until 4.00pm on Saturdays each week at a public place agreed between the parties being either [M Shopping Centre], [O Library], a park or a children's activity centre."[5]
2. It is worth noting that the consent Order dated 21 July 2020 was made when both parents were represented by Counsel. Mr Todman of Counsel appeared on that day for the mother and Mr Hanlon of Counsel appeared on that day for the father. Mr Carlton of Counsel appeared for the Independent Children's Lawyer.
3. The mother did not have any entitlement whatsoever to unilaterally withhold the child on 16 November 2024. That is what the mother did.
4. On Friday 15 November 2024 the mother had instructed her lawyer to send correspondence to the father's lawyer seeking confirmation of the father's new residential address. Later that afternoon and evening there was an exchange of text messages between the parents, and they are contained in Annexure Ms Kosar-62 of the mother's trial affidavit. I have had regard to that exchange of text messages. There is nothing contained in that exchange of text messages that would justify the mother unilaterally withholding the child. A changeover should have taken place at 8.00am on Saturday 16 November 2024. The changeover did not take place.
5. The father, frustrated, decided to attend at the mother's residential address. The mother also conducts her business from that same address. The mother was working downstairs (as part of her business). The child (X) was upstairs and playing with another child - the daughter of the mother's friend Ms E. Ms E was also upstairs at the mother's residence.
6. I would say, at the outset, the father should not have attended at the mother's property. The mother had, prima facie, contravened the Court Order. The father should have come back to the Court to seek a different order and bring a contravention application. However, the father did attend at the mother's residence on the day in question. There is more than one recording that was taken on the day. The mother took a video recording from her position downstairs at her residence. The mother was inside the house and the father was outside the house. The mother's recording was a video recording.
7. In addition to the mother's video recording Ms E took an audio recording. That audio recording is Annexure E-05 to Ms E's affidavit.[6] I do not accept the mother's assertion that she was fearful of the father on that occasion. I do not accept Ms E's assertions that she was fearful of the father on 16 November 2024. I most definitely do not accept the mother's assertion that the child was scared of the father on that day. When one listens to the recording which is "[Ms E]-05" it is possible to hear the young children (X and her friend) giggling during the recording. There is no indication that either the child (X) or her friend, were scared. The father, quite rightly said to Ms E "It's got nothing to do with you [Ms E]".
8. The tone of Ms E's voice and the words she stated to the children leads me to conclude that she was not scared of the father. I have formed the view that the father was "set up" by the mother and Ms E on this occasion. Ms E stated to the children words to effect, that, inter alia:

"Now girls, I will keep you safe. Your mother will keep you safe"

1. But there was no justifiable reason to state such things to the child. There is no evidence that the child was, or ever has been, unsafe in the father's care. It is apparent that the children were treating it as a game. I refer to the giggling and the carrying on that can be heard from the children on the audio recording. At one stage the children even stated words to the effect

"we have got the cat up here just in case..."

1. The only time one of the children sounded upset was when one of them stubbed their toe.
2. The conclusion I have reached is that the child X was not scared of the father on 16 November 2024. I am not satisfied that the child has ever been scared of the father. This would explain why the child has repeatedly stated that she wishes to spend time with the father. The child is at an age where her wishes must be given significant weight. I will return to this issue later in these Reasons for Judgment.
3. It would have been better if the father had not attended at the mother's residence on 16 November 2024. These parents cannot agree on anything. I will be issuing an injunction under Section 68B of the Act to prevent the father from attending again at the mother's residence or her place of work. This will ensure that there is no repeat of the verbal conflict which occurred on 16 November 2024.
4. I infer from the available evidence (including the text messages) that both parties had contacted the police on the day in question.
5. The events of 16 November 2024 would not have occurred at all if the mother had complied with the parenting order by which she was then bound.
6. The mother seems to know just what buttons to push to provoke the father and, without fail, the father reacts poorly. The father blusters and speaks loudly when he is not happy with what the mother has done or said.
7. The mother was not an impressive witness. The Court has expressed concerns about her credibility. She was not a credible witness. Her long list of complaints about the father - including her alleged risk concerns - are not reflected by her conduct. A lot of her evidence focuses on events prior to 2019 - and yet she consented to two unsupervised time orders in 2019 and 2020 respectively. The child has never come to harm in the father's care.
8. As I have stated earlier in these reasons - I have carefully considered all of the evidence of family violence in this case. The Court is not required to make mention of every allegation of family violence. I have already made particular mention of two instances which arose in the evidence (23 December 2023 and 16 November 2024). It is convenient at this point to make mention of some of the other allegations of family violence contained in the evidence.
9. When considering the allegations of family violence I have also kept in mind the fact that the father was told, after a serious car accident in December 1992 that he sustained a head injury and had an acquired brain injury. There was no evidence in the case to confirm the existence of an acquired brain injury. I do not consider that the father invented this. It is much more likely than not that the father was told that he did have such an injury.
10. Further, and in any event, I have kept in mind the diagnosis of the psychiatrist, Dr N, in relation to the father - when I have had regard to the allegations of family violence in this case. Between paragraphs 58 and 63 of Dr N's report filed on 30 April 2025, Dr N stated:

"Personality Disorder

1. The essential features of a personality disorder are impairments in self and interpersonal functioning with the presence of pathological personality traits. To diagnose a personality disorder there must be impairments in self (identity or self-direction) and interpersonal (empathy or intimacy) functioning with pathological personality trait expressions (negative affectivity, antagonism, detachment, disinhibition, or psychoticism) that are relatively stable across time and consistent across situations.
2. Personality traits represent patterns of thinking, perceiving, reacting, and relating that are relatively stable over time. Personality disorders exist when these traits become so pronounced, rigid, and maladaptive that they impair work and interpersonal functioning. These social maladaptation's can cause significant distress in people with personality disorders and for those around them.
3. People with personality disorders lack insight and do not usually experience discomfort with their own thoughts and feelings. However, distress is caused by the consequences of their socially maladaptive behaviours.
4. The impairments in personality functioning and personality trait expression cannot be better understood as a normative developmental stage or socio-cultural environment and are not solely due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, medication) or a general medical condition (e.g., severe head trauma).
5. [Mr Kosar] was assessed as having an impairment in personality function that manifest in his impairment in self-functioning, both identity and self-direction and interpersonal functioning (empathy and intimacy) with the presence of pathological personality traits in the domains of negative affectivity, disinhibition, and antagonism.
6. I am of the opinion that his presentation would fulfil the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th Edition) DSM-5 criteria for a personality disorder, specifically narcissistic personality disorder."

1. I accept this evidence from Dr N. Dr N helpfully went on to consider the father's narcissistic personality disorder and stated at paragraphs 64 to 69 that:

"Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)

1. In keeping with a diagnosis of NPD, [Mr Kosar] exhibited the following symptoms:
2. There was evidence of pervasive envy. He perceived that his brother was the golden child of his mother, and his sister was the golden child of his mother.
3. There was evidence of preoccupation with ideas of ideal love manifesting in superficiality. There was a pattern evident in [Mr Kosar]'s relationship history whereby he had likely entered into unhealthy, fragile relationships from the outset with several ending in the other party being unfaithful to him or in one instance using him for money by his account. There was also evidence of difficulties in family relationships with [Mr Kosar] not being on speaking terms with his father or siblings.
4. There was evidence of arrogant / haughty behaviour and attitudes / beliefs in both his demeanour in the interview and the Brief. For instance, he was evasive and made no attempt to remember certain things such as when he took anti-depressants (even roughly when) and would answer a question he wanted to rather than the one asked repeating "my GP has said I don't need to be on antidepressants" several times rather than answering a question about his history of antidepressant medication. He had a tendency to talk over the top of the interviewer and was resistant to being redirected. In the brief of information provided, there was evidence of arrogance in his interactions with [Dr R] during the diagnosis of [X] (paragraphs 149 - 153 of [Mr Kosar]'s Affidavit). After receiving a second opinion from [Dr R] (that he sought) that was not to his liking, he proceeded to assume the process was "tainted and flawed" and attempted to lecture the doctor and that it "fell on deaf ears". Later in paragraph 206 of [Mr Kosar]'s Affidavit, he stated as a matter of fact that his appeal against a protection order was unsuccessful due to [Ms Kosar] feigning an anxiety attack and swaying the emotions of the judge. These instances also served as evidence of entitlement.
5. He appeared to find it difficult to accept responsibility for his actions. In defending his actions for texting the individual as a [transport worker], he mentioned that the person was related to [Ms Kosar] and that it was "a set up".
6. There was evidence of entitlement in [Mr Kosar]'s expectation of automatic compliance with his expectations in his account of his visitations with [X]. He reported being frequently frustrated about only having 12 hours' notice of what activities [X] may have organised on the Saturday. The inconvenience or potential clash with his own ideas and plans appeared to be of greater concern than what [X] might want to do or have had organised."

1. Once again, I accept this evidence from Dr N. I will refer later in these reasons to Dr R's involvement with the family - and the diagnosis in relation to X. Having regard to the stated opinions of Dr N (which are unchallenged) it is not surprising that the relationship between the parents broke down. It would be extremely difficult for any person to co-parent with the father. Notwithstanding that, my view remains that the mother's poor credibility as a witness has to be given significant weight by the Court.
2. I do not accept that the father threatened to kill the mother and I do not accept the mother's testimony about the "arsenic in the tea".
3. The mother alleges that in June 2019 the father approached her in the O Library - shortly after the mother had collected X from the father at the entrance for changeover. Apparently, the father had demanded that the mother delete a photo that she had taken of his car earlier that day. This appears to have been a recurring theme between these parents. The mother (in paragraph 310 of her trial affidavit) states that she "had taken the photo as it would assist [her] in providing his car and rego number to the police should [the father] take [X] and go missing"
4. In June 2019 there had been no history of the father taking the child and going missing. Four years later in December 2023 the mother was again (at the Town B railway station) photographing the father's motor vehicle and giving the same excuse (and making certain other egregious comments as noted above). The mother's conduct was unacceptable. The mother's conduct was provocative. The mother turned on her audio recorder as the parents began to discuss the matter in the library. It is not clear from the mother's evidence whether she did this with the father's knowledge. In any event, it very much sounds like an earlier version of the December 2023 incident at the Town B railway station.
5. I want to make it abundantly clear that - even if the mother had photographed the father's motor vehicle - that is not a justification for the father to approach the mother. The father's conduct was equally unacceptable. The father will be ordered to attend an anger management program - hopefully one which can be presented in a specialised way to deal with the father's personality disorder.
6. Practically all of the allegations of family violence made by the mother relate to the parents exceedingly poor communication. The allegations relate to misunderstandings and miscommunications which occurred between the parents when they were trying to organise changeovers in respect of the child. As I have said earlier in these reasons, it is a very great pity that one of the lawyers for these parents did not bring this issue to the attention of the Court at an interlocutory stage. The consent orders - which required the parents to agree in relation to certain matters - were a recipe for conflict. That is exactly what occurred - ongoing conflict.
7. I note paragraph 373 of the mother's trial affidavit where she states that:

"373. The fathers email style and approach makes me dread every time I need to ask him to change something, and I have taken up just telling him sometimes, instead, and giving him two options to choose from."

1. This pretty much sums up the exceedingly poor communication between these parents. It will not be in the best interests of the child if the parents are required to communicate by text message or email.
2. The email correspondence between the parents leaves much to be desired. The father's habit of using bold text and capital letters is obnoxious. The emails indicate that, with some frequency, both parents would seek to change the arrangements in relation to the child spending time with the father. The emails do indicate that the father would fly off the handle. There will need to be an order that the parents do not communicate by email. Further, there will need to be an order that the parents do not communicate by text message - except in the case of an emergency.

1. In late 2021 the mother and the father both attended at the District Court of Queensland for an appeal hearing. The father appealed against the making of a Protection Order or an earlier finding that he had breached a Protection Order. So far as the Court can ascertain - this relates to the Protection Order that was made in early 2021.
2. At the Queensland Supreme and District Court building in Brisbane - after the appeal hearing in late 2021, the father walked into a conference room where the mother was situated with a police representative. The father swore at the mother and gesticulated and then left the building. As he left the building the father continued to use words such as "psycho bitch". The father admits that he punched the wall of the elevator after the dismissal of his appeal. This kind of conduct by the father is completely unacceptable. This conduct amounts to family violence perpetrated by the father against the mother. The father's lack of self-control is of concern to the Court. To behave in such a manner towards the mother in a Court building and in the presence of a police representative confirms the mother's assertions that the father is unable to regulate his emotional and violent outbursts.
3. The email correspondence forwarded by the father after his outburst at the Queensland Supreme and District Court building on in late 2021 was also abusive and completely unnecessary.

The diagnosis of ADHD in respect of the child: the definition of family violence: parental responsibility and other associated matters for consideration

1. In January 2021 Dr S diagnosed X and assessed her as having attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ("ADHD"). The child was briefly started on Ritalin. But the father contested the diagnosis and the paediatrician (Dr S) had no choice but to stop the Ritalin. In April 2021 the father again rejected the ADHD diagnosis of Dr S.
2. In December 2022 a second paediatrician, Dr R, came to the conclusion that the testing revealed that it was more likely than not that the child did have ADHD. The letter of Dr R signed on 21 December 2022 is Exhibit 24 in these proceedings. Dr R stated in the last paragraph on the first page of Exhibit 24:

"Unfortunately this is the most independent an opinion can get and I am unable to assist this family any further. I tried to engage [Mr Kosar] on the phone today as he did not present in person. He became quite aggressive on the phone and he absolutely disagreed with the assessment. He went on to say that the assessment was flawed and that it was influenced by the previous paediatrician's assessment So far a multitude of therapists have been involved to assess [X] and it is really sad to see that the parent disagreement is affecting [X]'s health and well being. Her mother is appearing quite caring and willing and able to look after the child and she will pursue the Court Orders to get [X] the help she needs."

1. There was absolutely no need for the father to become "quite aggressive" on the telephone call he had with Dr R. Dr R was the second paediatrician to examine the child. One would have to ask the following question - why would a person (the father) with no medical degree consider that he knows more than the two paediatricians who examined the child? There is no reasonable answer to this question from the father's perspective.
2. During the course of the final hearing the Court made an interim order (dated 19 February 2025) granting to the mother sole decision making responsibility for all major long term issues in respect of the child. I understand, from the evidence, that the child commenced taking Ritalin at that point in time. On 19 February 2025 the Court also issued an injunction restraining the father from discussing the child's ADHD diagnosis with the child.
3. The father's refusal (over many years) to accept the diagnosis of ADHD was unreasonable conduct by the father. Indeed, it was more than that. There were two paediatricians who had made a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in respect of X. Notwithstanding the opinions of those two medical specialists - the father continued to keep his head firmly buried in the sand.
4. Even at the interim stage (February 2025) it was apparent to the Court that the father cannot be involved in any major long term decision making in respect of the child. It is in the best interests of the child that a final order be made granting to the mother sole responsibility in respect of decision making for the child for all major long term issues.
5. Even in the absence of the dispute concerning the diagnosis of ADHD I would have been persuaded to order that the mother be responsible for sole decision making for the major long term issues for the child in any event. The long history of exceedingly poor communication between these parents is sufficient in itself to justify such an order. I do note that the father's personality disorder (as explained by Dr N) is likely to be one of the reasons (or play some part in) the father's inability to accept the opinions of the medical expert's relating to the child's diagnosis of ADHD.
6. The definition of family violence appears at section 4AB of the Act. The relevant subsections provide:

(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) economic or financial abuse; 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."

1. The father has engaged in violent and threatening behaviour in the form of verbal and written abuse. Further, the father has directed repeated derogatory comments to the mother both in person (verbally) and in writing (by means of email and text message).
2. In the recent Full Court decision of Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249; (2024) 70 Fam LR 85 ("Pickford") Justice Aldridge and Justice Carew (with whom Deputy Chief Justice McClelland agreed) stated, in relation to the definition of family violence, and in particular, that aspect of family violence relating to conduct which is said to relate to coercive control:

"[44] The definition identifies certain behaviour that may fall within the definition, namely, violent, threatening or other behaviour that coerces or controls a member of the person's family or causes the family member to be fearful. Violent behaviour or threatening behaviour are stand-alone behaviours that fall within the definition of family violence. Such behaviours may coerce or control or cause fear, but it is not essential. It might be, for instance, that a female punches her male partner but the punch neither coerces nor controls nor causes the male to be fearful. The behaviour may nevertheless be an act of family violence.

[45] In their submissions on the appeal, the parties spent a great deal of time dealing with the question of intention and the role it plays, if any, in the determination of whether there is behaviour "that coerces or controls". However, this argument is ultimately about a straw man because intention is not an element of coercive or controlling behaviour and a focus on it is apt to divert a court from focusing on the real issue.

[46] In fulfilling the onus of proving an allegation of family violence that involves behaviour that coerces or controls, it is not necessary to prove the alleged perpetrator intended the behaviour to be so. That does not mean that intention is irrelevant, but it is not dispositive. A person who engages in such behaviour may be completely oblivious to the impact of their behaviour or they may believe that they are acting in such a way to protect the other family member. Notwithstanding that subjective belief, the behaviour may nevertheless coerce or control the other family member and fall within the definition of family violence.

[47] The focus of the fact finding process is on the behaviour and the impact of the behaviour. It is the behaviour that coerces or controls. It requires action and reaction. A single act is unlikely to be coercive or controlling but it may be. Behaviour that coerces or controls may be innocuous, subtle, capable of different interpretations, complex, undermining, etc Such behaviour may create impossible expectations for the other family member. It may be transactional and involve punishments for perceived failures. The impact of the behaviour can be insidious. A confident and happy family member may lose their confidence, their self-esteem, question their sanity, shun their family and friends, become depressed, irritable, inefficient, and unhappy. There may be times when they strike out either verbally or physically.

[48] When determining an allegation that a person has engaged in behaviour that coerces or controls a family member, a trial judge will undertake a forensic examination of all relevant evidence to:

(a) identify the behaviour about which complaint is made;

(b) identify the full context of the behaviour including any explanation that may be given by the alleged perpetrator;

(c) identify the impact of the behaviour on the alleged victim (mere assertion by the alleged victim that they feel coerced or controlled is insufficient);

(d) make all relevant factual findings; and

(e) explain why the behaviour in question is or is not family violence that coerces or controls the family member and if the alleged behaviour does not entail a course or pattern of conduct, explain how the behaviour can nevertheless be characterised as behaviour that coerces or controls, if so found.

[49] Once such behaviour has been identified it is then a question of what weight is to be given to it and any impact on the orders under consideration.

[50] The definition of family violence is necessarily broad and any interpretation that may be perceived to, or actually, create unnecessary hurdles to an alleged victim proving an allegation of family violence should be avoided.

[51] Whilst the key feature of coercion or control is that a person is induced (many other words are also apt here) to do as the other wishes, the statutory focus is simply on behaviour that coerces or controls and not the intention of the perpetrator.

[52] So understood, the finding that there is coercive or controlling behaviour is an evaluative one, having regard to all of the circumstances and all of the evidence before the court. Whilst patterns of behaviour may be particularly illuminative, they are not essential. Importantly, for present purposes, the trial judge does not need to spend time and trouble searching for an inference that there is an intention to coerce or control. It is sufficient simply to apply the words of the statute without embellishment and assess whether there is behaviour that coerces or controls.

[53] It must be recognised that, particularly in parenting matters, parents will often disagree. Matters may be seen as proper or as coercive or controlling depending on the circumstances. For example, a proposal that a child be seen by a particular doctor, that changeovers take place in a particular manner or that a certain person not be alone with the children are all capable of being seen as both reasonable and proper parenting proposals or may also be examples of coercive or controlling behaviour."

1. In the written submissions prepared on behalf of the mother, there is a heading (at page 11) "Finding of Coercive Control". Under that heading all that is included is a replication of certain paragraphs from the decision of the Full Court in Pickford. There is no cogent argument or submission (or indeed any argument or submission) contained under that heading in relation to why it is asserted (on behalf of the mother) that the father's conduct amounted to coercive and controlling conduct.
2. As the Full Court stated (in paragraph 51 of Pickford) "...the key feature of coercion or control is that a person is induced (many other words are also apt here) to do as the other wishes...". It is true that on many occasions the father attempted to get the mother to do as the father wished - but almost without exception he was unsuccessful in getting the mother to do as he wished. In the particular circumstances of this case I do not consider that the constant disagreements between the parents in relation to arrangements for the child to spend time with the father amounts to coercion or control by either parent. I do consider that the father behaved very poorly in not ensuring the child was returned to the mother on time - in accordance with Court Orders. It probably can be said that the father was getting his own way by retaining the child longer than allowed by the Court Orders. In any event, it is not conduct that will materially impact the orders to be made - except to the extent that it will be reiterated very clearly in the orders that the time stipulations must be followed by the father.
3. In relation to the child's party and the evidence relating to it - the father wanted to hold a party for the child. The mother also wanted to hold a party for the child. The mother won the argument and the father was very upset about the outcome. It was yet another example of the father not being able to induce the mother to agree with him and act as he wished.
4. In relation to the father's refusal to accept the diagnosis of ADHD my conclusion is that his conduct was unreasonable. However, it was only once the second opinion had been obtained (from Dr R) - that the father's conduct became unreasonable. The doctors would not prescribe Ritalin unless both parents agreed to the prescription of the drug. The father's conduct had the effect of preventing the child from starting to receive the medication. In this respect, it could be said, that the father's opposition to the diagnosis of ADHD had the effect of coercing or controlling the mother (and the child) because the father's opposition to the diagnosis effectively meant that he achieved the outcome that he was looking for - namely that, the child did not commence to take the drug Ritalin. As noted by the majority in Pickford,[7] once a Court has identified behaviour that can be characterised as coercive or controlling conduct - the Court must then consider what weight should be given to the finding and, furthermore, the Court must consider what impact such finding will have on the orders under consideration. In the present case - the finding will confirm the Court's conclusion that the mother will have sole responsibility for long term decision making in respect of the child. In the particular circumstances of this case the finding that the father did engage in coercive or controlling conduct is not a finding that would lead the Court to conclude that there should be a "no time" order (between the child and the father). The risk to the child (in the future) that would flow from the Court's finding that the father engaged in coercive or controlling conduct (in relation to the ADHD/Ritalin issue) will be eliminated by the making of the sole parental responsibility order in favour of the mother.
5. It is the case that, on occasion, the child has witnessed the verbal abuse directed by the father towards the mother. This, again, shows a lack of insight on the part of the father.
6. The separation and the ongoing conflict between the parents over the past seven years has taken an emotional toll on the parents. Thankfully, the child seems relatively unscathed[8] - especially compared to many other family law parenting cases.
7. In this case there is, despite the father's verbal and written abuse, no evidence that the mother's health has been compromised to any significant degree.
8. For instance, there was no affidavit from an expert called on behalf of the mother to show that the mother had suffered any or any significant psychological harm as a result of the father's verbal and written abuse and/or as a result of the father's conduct.
9. To the extent that there is annexed to the mother's trial affidavit certain documents prepared by psychologists - that documentation confirms that the mother has suffered from mental health issues (including generalised anxiety and depression) "for at least 20 years and probably longer". That is contained at Annexure Ms Kosar-38A (a letter from Dr T Psychologist) dated 1 June 2025. The mother has reported that she suffers from PTSD. There is a letter (at Ms Kosar-41) where Dr T refers to PTSD - but there is no confirmation as to the cause of the PTSD. None of the psychologists referred to in the mother's affidavit were made available for cross examination.
10. I do note that Dr T, on the second page of his letter (dated 12 November 2024, Annexure Ms Kosar-41) does confirm that he has never had any concerns at all about the mother's capacity or ability parent the child X.

1. One of the matters that the Court is required to consider (section 60CC(2)(b) of the Act) are any views expressed by the child. The first Family Report was prepared by Mr F. It is annexed to an affidavit filed on 8 August 2019. The interviews with the family took place on 29 July 2019. At that point in time the child, X, was aged 6 years. The relevant parts of Mr F's first report (relating to the views of the child) are as follows:

"100. [X] was cooperative with the interview process. She was initially somewhat shy, but was easily engaged.

1. [X] reports that she likes school. She suggests that the best thing about school is, "Swimming", while the most challenging thing about school is, "The school work".
2. When asked if her mother and father are friends, [X] replied in the negative. She points out that, "They fight", although she doesn't know what they fight about. She clarified that those fights generally involve yelling, and her mother and father will do that equally. She adds that the conflict causes her to feel sad.
3. [X] was asked who, in the family, is the best cook. She replied, "I don't know". When asked who gives the best hugs she gave the same response.
4. The child commented that she enjoys spending time with both of her parents although, in her view, [Ms Kosar] is more fun to play with than her father.
5. [X] was asked to think about the amount of time she spends with her mother and the amount of time she spends with [Mr Kosar], and to indicate if she would like more time with [Ms Kosar], or more time with her father, or if she is generally happy with the current arrangements. [X] replied that, "It's good the way it is".
6. [X] was asked to envisage that she had a personal problem which she needed to discuss with an adult and then to nominate who she would first approach. She replied that she would first approach her mother. If [Ms Kosar] was not available she would talk to her aunt [...].
7. [X] was asked if she ever feels frightened of anyone in this family. She nominated her father. When this was explored she made reference to a recent occasion when he was chasing her for a hug. She insists that there have not been any other occasions when she felt scared of [Mr Kosar].
8. In regard to the wishes question, [X] made no reference to the circumstances of her family.
9. I note that, on the day of interviews for the purposes of this report, when [X] first of [Mr Kosar] she greeted him with a hug. However, she subsequently declined to engage with him. The child was not pressed in that regard."

1. Mr F prepared a second Family Report. It is annexed to an affidavit filed 27 January 2021. The interviews for that report were conducted on 15 December 2020. At the time of those interviews X was aged 8 years. The relevant parts of the second Mr F report (relating to X's views) are as follows:
   1. [X] was cooperative with the interview process. She seemed somewhat more confident than when interviewed at the time of the initial report, and she was easily engaged.

65. The child presented as well groomed and appropriately attired.

1. [X] reports that she likes school. She described her teacher as, "Nice". She states that the best thing about school is , "Swimming", while the most challenging thing about school is, "Math".
2. The youngster was asked if she has friends at school. She replied that she has one. She was asked if she and her friend ever spend time together away from the school, she stated that they do not.
3. [X] was asked if she ever gets in trouble at school. She replied that she does and that usually involves teaching staff responding to her, "Being silly".
4. [X] reports that her mother and father, "Don't really get on". However, she states that she invited her father to her recent [...] party at the [U Sporting Facility] and he came along. Her mother was also present. She seemed to be pleased with this development.
5. The youngster confirmed the existing visitation arrangements. She volunteered that she sometimes gets bored when talking to her father on the telephone and would prefer if they could communicate via video calls. However, she adds that [Mr Kosar] doesn't have the correct 'app'. When asked if she ever gets bored when she is spending time with her father, [X] considered that for a few seconds before confirming that such is the case. She then added that she sometimes gets bored when she is with her mother as well. The child indicated that she can easily become bored if she has nothing to do.
6. [X] reports that she has been to [Mr Kosar]'s home and comments that she has her own bedroom there. Although the room has a bed for her, she adds that her father is yet to secure a mattress for that bed. She notes that she would like to be able to stay overnight at the father's home.
7. The youngster also comments that she has met [Mr Kosar]'s housemates although she hasn't talked to them very much.
8. [X] explains that her preference, in regard to future parenting arrangements, is to spend a week with her father and then a week with her mother. She confirmed that this is [Mr Kosar]'s idea, but also suggests that she is generally happy with it.
9. The youngster was asked if she ever feels frightened of anyone in the family. She replied in the negative.
10. [X] recalled that her mother was spending time with a man named [...] for a while. She volunteered that, "They were boyfriend and girlfriend". However, she added that, "We don't see him anymore".
11. I note that, immediately after her interview, [X] went to her mother and father in turn, and gave them each a warm hug
12. Casual observations of the family while in the waiting room revealed that the youngster often stayed in close physical proximity to her father and, on a couple of occasions, was observed perched on his knee.
13. I note that [X]'s language skills and her comprehension seem generally to be within anticipated developmental parameters. Her motor skills impressed as unremarkable. The child appeared relaxed and although she was initially attentive, that was not maintained. She soon became restless and struggled to attend. At the commencement of the interview she was sitting in a chair but was soon sprawling on the floor. She sometimes needed to be redirected in order to respond to questions. However, her mood was stable and she generally impressed as a contented child."

1. On 25 June 2024 at 9.00am the Independent Children's Lawyer held a meeting via Microsoft Teams with X. The Independent Children's Lawyer is Ms Berck. By section 68LA(5A) of the Act, there is a mandatory obligation placed upon an Independent Children's Lawyer to meet with the child. There is contained in Exhibit 2 the notes of the meeting which did take place by video link on 25 June 2024. By the time of this interview (with the Independent Children's Lawyer) X was aged 11 years. X's views, as she matured, became more clearly stated and specific. Her maturity can be seen in her answer (to the Independent Children's Lawyer) of one of the questions relating to her earlier comments to Mr F that she wanted to go "one week with mum and one week with dad". In answer to that question X stated (inter alia) - "No that doesn't sound like something I would say but something Dad would say....".
2. At the age of 11 years significant weight must be given to the views expressed by X. I will include here the entirety of the questions and answers between the Independent Children's Lawyer and X. This evidence is contained in Exhibit 2. It reads as follows:

"

• You are currently spending time with your Father. How are you enjoying that? Enjoy going? Yes. Sometimes I play on his computer. What games do you like? Roadblocks. We sometimes go out, sometimes stay at his place.
• What do you do together? I can't remember.
• Do you go to the movies? The park? Sometimes we go shopping.
• How is school going? I have been sick the last 2 days.
• What do you like best? Playtime.
• Do you have friends there at school? Yes. [V], [W], [Y], [Z].
• Do you play a musical instrument? Used to [musical instrument]. I played for 2 years.
• Do you want to change the time you spend with your father? I don't want ever second Sunday - he won't let me sleep in. I have to get up really early to be there on time. I told [Ms E] and Mum every second Saturday and no Sundays.
• You told [Mr F] you wanted to go one week with Mum and one week with Dad. Is that what you want? No that doesn't sound like something I would say but something Dad would say. I want every 2nd Saturday and no Sundays.
• Do you want to stay overnight? No I don't.
• Anything you want to tell me? I want to be able to take my ADHD medication and he won't let me. We are not allowed to be prescribed it as he does not accept the diagnosis. I have trouble concentrating-have you noticed I keep looking around, there is a lot of interesting stuff on my desk. Can I have phone time when I want not like now. I don't want it ordered by the court."

1. X told the Independent Children's Lawyer that she enjoyed spending time with her father. Further, X told the Independent Children's Lawyer that she wanted to spend time every second Saturday but not overnight.
2. It is also clear from one of the answers given by X (I infer) that Ms E is very involved in this family - and in particular in the conflict that exists between the mother and the father. Why would the child be expressing her views to "[Ms E]"?[9] In any event, the Court has already expressed its views in relation to the evidence of Ms E. Those views are not favourable. Of particular note to the Court is the fact that at the time of the interview with the Independent Children's Lawyer the child expressed her view that she wanted to be able to take her ADHD medication and she knew that the father did not accept the diagnosis. This shows to the Court just how mature the child was as at June 2024. This reinforces my own conclusion that the views of the child, in the particular circumstances of this case, must be given significant weight by the Court.
3. A further Family Report was prepared in respect of the Kosar family. The report was prepared by Ms G. From the Court record is appears that, through inadvertence, the Family Report was not tendered into evidence - although the parties and the Independent Children's Lawyer cross examined Ms G at the final hearing. In order to correct the record the Family Report of Ms G (dated 23 January 2025) will be accepted into evidence and designated as Exhibit 28. The interviews took place in late 2024. That is when X turned 12 years old.
4. It is apparent from Ms G's Family Report (and in particular her interview with X) that, to some extent, both of the parents in this case have been involving the child in the parental dispute. In paragraph 23 of Ms G's report it is stated:[10]

"23. With regard to how her mum and dad get along [X] said, "not good... this is the reason that they haven't made the decision". She confirmed that she is aware that they argue sometimes and advised that this is usually via email and text and her mum shows her the messages sometimes. The writer attempted to explore how the weekly visits were working and [X] said they were "good" and confirmed that if she had [D Organisation] or a social commitment, she thought her dad would take her. She said, "I just really don't want Sundays, because it's two days in a row". [X] said that she thought every Saturday and no Sundays would be better."

1. Why is the mother showing the child emails and text messages the mother received from the father? There is no other answer except that the mother is involving the child in the dispute between the parents. Interestingly, even the child is aware that the arguing that does take place between the parents is usually via email or text.
2. It is also apparent from paragraph 23 that the child had expressed her view that she wanted to see her father every Saturday and on no Sundays. The child was also uncertain as to whether or not she wanted to have a sleep over at her father's residence.
3. Paragraph 24[11] of Ms G's report also makes it clear to the Court that the father involves the child in the conflict. The conduct of both of these parents in involving the child in the parental dispute is reprehensible.
4. The family report interview with Ms G occurred after the child's party.[12] That had been a source of conflict between the parents. I note in paragraph 40[13] of Ms G's Report it is stated that:

"40. [Mr Kosar] said that the weekend prior to his initial interview had been [X's party]. He spoke at length about how he had advised [Ms Kosar] that he wanted to arrange [X]'s [...] party as this was not something [Ms Kosar] had given him the opportunity to do in the past. [Mr Kosar] said that two weeks before the party [Ms Kosar] unilaterally decided to arrange it herself. He said that he was frustrated by this as he had been trying to discuss who would be invited with [X] and had every intention of following through with making the arrangements and indicated that [Ms Kosar] had "made demands" and this is an illustration of how she takes steps to exclude him and limit his involvement with [X]. [Mr Kosar] said that [Ms Kosar] emailed him the night before the party criticising him for a range of things relating to his visits with [X] and said in the email "you need to mend things with her and give her more consideration now that she is older". [Mr Kosar] said that he felt very upset as a result of [Ms Kosar] belittling him and threatening to stop him from seeing [X] permanently in the email."

1. I also note that the child herself had said that, when her father did not attend the party arranged by the mother, that the child felt sad.
2. During her oral testimony Ms G expressed her opinion that, even though the child had stated that she wanted to spend time with the father, Ms G did not consider that it was the child's true wishes. I am not persuaded by that evidence of Ms G. The child had consistently stated the view that she wanted to spend time with the father - including stating so to the Independent Children's Lawyer.[14]

Further matters in relation to the evidence of Ms G

1. Ms G raised a particular concern in her evidence. During a follow up telephone interview between Ms G and the father - the father stated words to Ms G which led Ms G to include the following opinion at page 20 of her report:

"7. [Mr Kosar] made a number of alarming comments at the conclusion of his second interview which amounted to threats in relation to how he will respond if he does not achieve his desired outcome in these proceedings. [Mr Kosar]'s comments seemed to allude to possible acts of retribution or violence."

1. I have paid very close attention to the evidence of Ms G in relation to this issue. I will include some of the paragraphs from this section of the Family Report - the paragraphs that I consider contain the words upon which the Family Report Writer has based her opinion that the father's comments "seemed to allude to possible acts of retribution or violence."
2. The paragraphs (on pages 18 and 19 of Ms G's Report) with the relevant words are as follows:

"52. [Mr Kosar] said, "I can't take much more of this alienation, can't take much more of this abuse, if I am continually treated like this animal, it's not going to be good". When asked by the writer to clarify what he meant he said, "if you have a problem and you constantly ignore [the] problem, the problem is going to either disappear, which is rare, or going to manifest into much more...if it manifests into much more, then going to turn into much more". He said that he made a vow a long time ago that he would never commit suicide and "if I take my life [Ms Kosar] wins, I would much rather fight the evil of [Ms Kosar] than give her the satisfaction of winning this... you have to understand that if I am standing and hitting you on regular basis, first 30 times you might take it, but what happens on 31st time, do you snap, do you start hitting back; something breaks, I'm scared that that's going to happen with me, that the lies, pushing away, isolation that's been occurring for a long time".

1. The writer asked what [Mr Kosar] meant and whether he was alluding to harming [Ms Kosar]. He said "[Ms Kosar] is doing things to hurt me because she wants to keep [X]... it doesn't do much for the mental health... I am just scared of what will happen if that keeps happening. I know now that I am in control, but I fear for that day that I am going to be that person with incontinence who can't control everything". He said "you have my word that [X] would always be safe, I want her to be the best that she can be... the bottom line is I hope the Courts start hearing my voice, because if they don't, I am worried about the world [X] will grow up in... I want it seen that what [Ms Kosar] has done is wrong"."

1. I had a very good opportunity to carefully consider the evidence of the father. The father was cross examined about the statements that he made to Ms G - those contained in paragraphs 52 and 53 of Ms G's Family Report. The father has a very direct manner about him. He is a loud talker. The impression that I have formed is that the father is full of bluster. The father thinks that his view (on any given topic) is the correct view. The father is obstinate. The father lacks insight. It may be that his presentation is a product of the personality disorder. I suspect that this is the case. Dr Q is the father's General Practitioner. The father has been attending upon Dr Q for many years. When this evidence was put to Dr Q - he did not consider that it amounted to a threat to cause harm. Dr Q stated his opinion (during oral testimony) that he did not consider there was any reason why the father should not be permitted to spend time with the child on an unsupervised basis. Dr Q stated his opinion at page 88 to 91 of the transcript on 7 May 2025. Dr Q's evidence in relation to the father is important and it should be given weight. Dr Q has seen the father on many occasions over a long period of time. Dr Q is well aware of the father's opinionated attitude; loud voice and bluster. Nonetheless Dr Q stated that, in his opinion, there was no reason why the child could not spend unsupervised time with the father.
2. Mr F was also asked about the comments made by the father (referred to by Ms G) and he did not consider that those words amounted to a threat and, certainly at the time he saw the father (and the family generally), he was of the view that the child should have unsupervised time with the father - including overnight time.[15]
3. Ms G is the only person who heard the father say the words that he did. I do not doubt the accuracy of her reporting in that regard. But in the paragraph numbered 7 on page 20 of her report, Ms G does use very guarded language. She stated that the father's comments "seemed to allude to possible acts of retribution or violence."[16] This Court is required to conduct an assessment of risk. The comments made by the father to the Family Report Writer (Ms G) will be one of the factors that this Court will take into account in assessing the future risks of harm.
4. It is important to note that, apart from the occasion when the father punched a wall at the State Court (either in a meeting room or in the lift) my attention has not been drawn to any other evidence that would lead me to conclude that the father had engaged in physical violence. A very large proportion of the father's correspondence with the mother is abusive and completely inappropriate. There is no doubt that he has very often tried to dictate certain things to the mother. I have already canvassed this evidence previously in these Reasons for Judgment. Much of the father's written correspondence is abusive and contains derogatory comments. The father has a lot to say and he says it loudly. Unfortunately, the father lacks insight and in relation to many aspects of the parenting of the child - he is simply wrong. This is most obviously demonstrated in respect of the diagnosis of ADHD.
5. Ms G's clear opinion is that there should be no direct contact in the foreseeable future between the child and the father. Ms G states at paragraph 43 (on page 29 of her report):

"43. [Mr Kosar] said, "[Ms Kosar] will say [X] has ADHD, I have never been part of this discussion that has happened". He said that after [Ms Kosar] stopped [X] from seeing him for a period of months "suddenly she was acting up" and [Ms Kosar] is convinced as a result that the reason is ADHD. [Mr Kosar] said, "I do not agree, with my medical training and experience believe if change environment behaviour will change". He clarified that by medical training he was referring to volunteer work he undertook with [AA Health Service] in South Australia, noting that he had been on a pathway to study to be a paramedic before he suffered a [...] injury. [Mr Kosar] said that when [X] is given the opportunity to spend significant time in his care there will be a change in her behaviour. [Mr Kosar] spoke about his grievances relating to the process where [X] was medically assessed and initially diagnosed with ADHD. He said that he was not consulted or included in the assessment when [X] saw Paeds in a Pod, and as such he said he wanted to arrange a second opinion, so he obtained a referral to paediatrics at [BB Hospital]."

1. I have given very close consideration to the evidence of Ms G - including both her written report (Exhibit 28) and her oral testimony.
2. During her oral testimony given on 9 May 2025 Ms G stated (in answer to a question from Mr Christie, Counsel on behalf of the Independent Children's Lawyer) - "in my opinion, [X]'s own experiences when spending time with her father and what has occurred in that relationship has made a significant contribution to her resistance to or rejection of her father - resistance to spending time with him.".[17]
3. These comments by Ms G in some very important respects are not accurate. The child has not rejected her father. It is the case that the child wants to reduce the amount of time that she spends with her father. That is very different to the child rejecting her father. Wanting a reduction in the time that she spends with her father also does not amount to "resistance" to spending time with him. This Court sees many cases where children are "resisting" spending time with a parent or "rejecting" a parent. X is not "resisting" spending time with her father and nor is she "resisting" having a relationship with her father. X wants the time reduced. X told Ms G that she wanted to spend time with her father every Saturday and on no Sundays. Previously X had told the Independent Children's Lawyer (in June 2024) that she wanted to spend time with her father every second Saturday. X does not want to spend overnight time with the father.
4. Further, I do not accept that the evidence shows that "[X]'s own experiences when spending time with her father" have been negative. Nor do I consider the evidence shows that the child's own experiences when spending time with the father have made a "significant contribution" to the child's "resistance or rejection of her father". The child told the Independent Children's Lawyer that she was enjoying spending time with her father and that she enjoyed going to spend time with her father (Exhibit 2).
5. In paragraph 22[18] of Ms G's written report there is an account of a conversation between X and the Family Report Writer. It is apparent that the child did not want to go to spend time with the father - because she had seen him the day before. This confirms my view that the child is not rejecting the father - but just wants to reduce the amount of time. This is understandable. The child is almost a teenager. It is the case that the child does seem to think that spending time with her father can be boring. This is not unusual for a child of her age.
6. In paragraph 23[19] of the Family Report, Ms G states that she attempted to explore how the weekly visits were working and X said they were "good".
7. Looking at paragraph 24[20] of the Family Report I must say - I am very concerned at the nature of the questioning. The writer directed leading questions to the child. The writer asked the child - "whether her dad ever does anything that makes her feel worried or uncomfortable". This is a leading question which was designed by the Family Report Writer to illicit some unfavourable response. My view in that regard is confirmed by the balance of the paragraph. The paragraph continues - "[X] said "uhhuh" but did not elaborate.". In fact the child did elaborate. The very next sentence states that the worry or uncomfortableness "relates to her dad talking to her about conflict with her mum."
8. The Family Report Writer did not stop there with her questioning. The next question was, to my mind, unwarranted and inexcusable. The Family Report Writer states - "[X] said no when asked whether her dad has ever touched her in a way she did not like.".
9. This is a leading question. It is an incendiary question in the context of family law litigation where the level of conflict between the parents is extremely high. This has never been a case about sexual abuse. I acknowledge that the mother has, on occasions, provoked the father with comments indicating the possibility that there may be sexual abuse. Both parties were represented by Counsel at the trial. The predominant issue which emerged during the trial related to the conflict between the parents - not any suggestion of sexual abuse and certainly not any suggestion of sexual abuse of the child X. The child, at the time that the Family Report Writer interviewed her, was 12 years old. The child has never made any sort of disclosure of a concerning nature, let alone a sexual nature, in relation to her father. Indeed the child's answer to the question posed by the Family Report Writer was revealing. All she said was, essentially, she does not want to hug her father. Again, this is not unusual for a child of her age. I am concerned that this kind of questioning by the Family Report Writer indicates an underlying lack of objectivity in relation to the preparation of this Family Report.
10. All that is apparent from the available evidence is that X's own experiences when spending time with her father are "good" (to use X's word) but "boring" (again, to use X's word).
11. I am well aware of the evidence that the father was charged, tried and acquitted of sexual assault allegations relating to members of his family in South Australia. I am also well aware of the mother's allegation that the father touched the child's leg during a doctor's appointment. I do not accept the mother's evidence in relation to this matter. The doctor, who was in the room, saw nothing untoward. It is a very serious allegation. I prefer the evidence of the father in relation to that matter. I have had regard to section 140(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ("the Evidence Act") and the well known judgment of Dixon J in Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 ("Briginshaw v Briginshaw"). The allegation is that the father touched the child inappropriately in a doctor's consultation in the presence of the doctor and the mother. Such an occurrence is inherently unlikely.
12. I am also well aware of the evidence relating to the father sending a text message to a teenage girl who he met at work. I accept the father's evidence in relation to that issue. It was ill advised and he should not have done it. Having considered the father's evidence in the witness box - I do not make any adverse finding against him concerning that particular incident.
13. On the whole, therefore, I do not consider that it was necessary or appropriate for the Family Report Writer to ask the child whether her father had ever touched her in a way that the child did not like. My view is that X is old enough and intelligent enough to report to her mother if there had ever been any inappropriate touching by the father.
14. From line 40 onwards at page 272 of the transcript of 9 May 2025, Ms G gives evidence about the question of risk. She states that she identifies significant risks associated with "...potential for an ongoing pattern of family violence of a - of a very high risk nature."
15. The evidence discloses that the conflict between the parents and the verbal abuse (and written abuse) and derogatory taunts perpetrated by the father come about through the exchange of written correspondence. On occasions it has come about when the parent's paths have crossed in person. Removing the ability of the parents to communicate (by instituting an injunction) whether in writing or otherwise - (except in the case of an emergency) will, to my mind, eliminate or in any event significantly ameliorate the risk of family violence in the form of written or verbal abuse. The risk will also be ameliorated by an order that the parents do not come into contact with each other. In any event, the assessment of risk is fairly and squarely in the domain of the Court (Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97; (2022) 65 Fam LR 288 ("Isles & Nelissen")). The Court is best placed to weigh all of the evidence. The Family Report Writer has not had the same opportunity as I have had to observe the witnesses in the witness box and to take note of their demeanour. Nor is Ms G aware of the findings of fact based on the evidence that I have made. This is no criticism of Ms G. It will be apparent from these Reasons for Judgment that I was not impressed with the mother as a witness. Her conduct has been less than satisfactory. By the same token, the father's conduct has been less than satisfactory also - that will be very apparent from these Reasons for Judgment.
16. Ms G did not seem to think that the child was freely expressing her own opinion in relation to spending time with the father. [21] As I noted earlier, I do not find that opinion of Ms G persuasive. The child has told Mr F; the Independent Children's Lawyer and Ms G that she wants to spend time with her father. The child has been forthright in telling both the Independent Children's Lawyer and Ms G that she wants to spend time with her father. Further, the child has been forthright in telling both the Independent Children's Lawyer and Ms G that she (X) does not want to spend overnight time with the father and, further, X has made it clear that she does not want to have a 50-50 time arrangement with the father. So, in fact, X is not backward in coming forward. She has no problem expressing her views. At the time of the interview between Ms G and the child, the father was still seeking a 50-50 arrangement. Perhaps that is why X may have been, or appeared to have been, guarded in the way that she answered the questions. I have full confidence that the child's wishes have been stated truthfully by her to two Family Report Writers and the Independent Children's Lawyer. As I noted earlier - given this child's age, this Court should give significant weight to those wishes.
17. Mr Cahill, Counsel on behalf of the mother asked Ms G about the impact on X if the child does not have contact with her father. To begin with, the Family Report Writer got side tracked - essentially advocating on behalf of the mother that what had happened to date was not an "...ongoing conflict but, rather, a pattern of coercive control and significant emotional, psychological abuse, family violence." As to whether coercive control is present - that is a matter for the Court and I have already made reference to it earlier in these reasons. I have also made findings in relation to family violence generally. When the Family Report Writer did eventually commence to answer the question that she had been asked she stated:[22]

"The impact on [X] if she does not continue to see her father will certainly - certainly, [X] may miss him and the positive aspects of that relationship. There's no doubt that the father loves her very much and that, you know, feeling the love of - and experiencing the love of both of your parents is something that children benefit from. In terms of identity development, as I said, as an adolescent, [X] is at a point in time in her life where she is developing her individual identity, world view, way of understanding the world and things around her. And having both parents contribute to that can be enriching for a child, so having those different perspectives and different things that individual people will know a lot about or have experience with. Also, in terms of, you know, her heritage, so, like, genetic heritage, health, characteristics, all of those things that can manifest as we grow older and then can be explained by links within our families and things like that. Something that can happen for young people is that even when it's initiated by them or by a court order, they not see a parent. With time, they can start to wonder if that parent has rejected or given up on them and they can internalise that as being a rejection, even though the way that it has come about is not as a result of that. So, certainly, those are some of the potential impacts on her from not having that ongoing relationship with her dad."

1. I accept this evidence as stated by the Family Report Writer. These stated opinions are well within the Family Report Writer's area of expertise.
2. I agree with Ms G that it is important for the Court not to put in place a set of orders which operate in such a way that it gives the child a sense that those visits are a chore.
3. Ms G stated further:[23]

"But I think that, in my view, any form of ongoing contact in the - in the situation where there has been an - an established pattern of coercive and - control and emotional abuse towards a child, which, I would say, is what has likely been occurring within that relationship, that ongoing contact, even under supervision, it is - it still provides an opportunity for those exchanges, for that type of - those feelings of guilt, shame, distress - all of those things to happen. So, I would say there's still potential for harm through the interactions that occur in that context. And that would be, in - that was why I did not make any recommendation in respect of ongoing contact."

1. I accept that the father has spoken to the child about his wishes - namely for a 50-50 outcome. I also accept that the father, because of his own inadequacies, has made the child, on occasion, feel guilty if the child has not wanted to attend every single period of ordered contact with the father. But I do not see evidence that would persuade the Court that there is "an established pattern of coercive control and emotional abuse towards (the) child". Having regard to the totality of the evidence (and noting the findings that I have made in relation to both the mother and father) the conclusion that I have reached is that, to the extent that any emotional harm has been caused to the child, it has been caused by reason of the ongoing conflict between the mother and the father. This is confirmed by the evidence of the psychologist, Dr T.[24]
2. I specifically asked the Family Report Writer (Ms G) during her oral testimony what evidence she relied upon to conclude that there had been a pattern of coercive control of the child by the father. Ms G made reference to conversations such as - "Well, I guess you don't want your [... presents, then" and "You need to come out here and speak to me. You need to be the person who comes out and does that."
3. The Family Report Writer also referred to comments by the father in respect of the mother - if the child has been exposed to that the Family Report Writer said that would be "emotionally abusive" and would be "part of an overall pattern of coercion and control".
4. The text message from the father, "Well, I guess you don't want your [...] presents, then" was not child focused. That is true. In fact, it is somewhat childish in itself. But I do not see any problem with the father (or any parent) asking a child to come out and explain something to them. The child is 12 years old. A 12 year old child ought not be permitted to bury their head in the sand. Children have to learn to explain why they do or do not want to do something. This is not evidence of coercive control of the child. It may be evidence of some poor parenting - but not necessarily so. I specifically checked with Ms G and she confirmed that she is a social worker. I confirmed that there is no psychologist or psychiatrist (of the child) who says the child has suffered emotional or psychological abuse. This was confirmed to be the case by Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer (Mr Christie) and Counsel for the mother (Mr Cahill). I made the point that the Family Report Writer had said that the "child has suffered emotional or psychological abuse over a period of years". Reference was then made by Mr Cahill to Dr T, psychologist. Dr T does not say that the child has suffered emotional and psychological abuse over a period of years at the hands of the father.
5. It is this kind of evidence from Ms G that has caused me concern in the context of this case.
6. It is also important to note that Ms G (at page 276 of the transcript on 9 May 2025 between lines 1 and 15) makes the point that she has been relying more on what the mother told her through her interview and through her affidavits. I have already made adverse comments about the mother's credibility as a witness.
7. Ms G does make an interesting observation at page 289 of the transcript[25] from line 3 - where she states that she was not aware of there being any significant events during the relationship that were a great deal of concern in relation to raised voices, physical violence or verbal abuse. She did say there may have been some degree of verbal abuse - but she did not identify that as having been a period of "significant harm". Ms G sated that it "was really in the context of separation that the dynamic started and then began to escalate".
8. In observing the totality of the evidence, the view that I have formed is that the conflict began to escalate when the parents could not agree on the parenting arrangements for the child. The conflict escalated further when the mother withheld the child.
9. In terms of physical violence - Ms G did note the evidence of the father (and which I accept) that the mother had assaulted the father in the past.
10. In the oral testimony of Ms G she repeatedly raised the concern that she has in relation to the emails sent by the father to the mother. As I have stated earlier in these Reasons for Judgment - the language used by the father in his emails is completely inappropriate. It does amount to family violence. It is a serious matter. But any risk that flows from the use of such language by way of email or text can be eliminated or ameliorated. This can be done by means of an injunction preventing the father from communicating with the mother by email and another injunction preventing the father from communicating with the mother by text message. I note Ms G's evidence on pages 290 and 291 highlights her concern about the emails sent by the father and the content of those emails. It is also the case that I have formed the view that the mother is more intelligent than the father. The mother's conduct leaves much to be desired. The mother is smart enough not to include obnoxious or abusive comments in email or text form. The mother's conduct does not excuse the father's conduct. However, I am required to consider the entirety of the evidence. The view that I have formed is that the mother provokes the father - generally this is done during verbal interactions between the parents. The father does not react well.
11. Not only will it be possible to put injunctions in place concerning email and text correspondence between the parents - there can also be injunctions put in place to prevent the parents coming into personal contact. There will also, in addition, be injunctions preventing the father from attending at the residence or the workplace of the mother or the child. I am well aware of the events of November 2024 when the father did attend at the mother's residence. I have already made reference to the events of that day and I have made findings in relation to what occurred. It is apparent to the Court that the father should not have attended at that residence. Furthermore, having attended at the residence, he should not have waited around like he did.
12. At page 293 of the transcript.[26] Ms G was basing her recommendation (certainly in part) on acceptance of the mother's evidence about what occurred at the doctor's office and about behaviour at changeovers. Ms G did not have the benefit of the Court's findings concerning those issues.
13. Interestingly, at page 294 of the transcript on 9 May 2025 at line 14 Ms G confirms, in relation to X, "I certainly haven't said that I think she doesn't want to see her father.". In fact, after Ms G's oral testimony, that is the distinct impression I was left with. So I am not certain precisely what Ms G's opinion is in relation to that issue. The conclusion I have drawn, from the comments made by X to Mr F; to the Independent Children's Lawyer; and to Ms G - is that X does indeed want to see her father.

Other matters relevant to a consideration of risk and a consideration of the child's best interests

1. In a letter dated 12 August 2024 Dr T (psychologist) provided his opinion in relation to X's psychological state. It is important to note that this evidence was included by the mother. The mother did not make Dr T available for cross examination, and as I have noted earlier - there is no affidavit by Dr T. Dr T did state, in relation to the psychological well-being of X, inter alia, as follows: "early and ongoing familial separation (i.e. the reasonable and expected trauma associated with general bilateral parental disharmony leading up to separation) and the general distress associated with the breakdown of the family unit. This is not necessarily related to the actions of a specific parent, but rather the overall context associated with the very significant contextual change itself. There also appears to be ongoing, entrenched interparental conflict and disharmony."[27]
2. As I noted earlier in these Reasons for Judgment - there is no evidence that this child has been suffering from any psychological abuse or emotional harm caused by her father - as asserted by Ms G. According to the evidence provided by the mother (from Dr T) the child's symptoms (such as they are) are not necessarily related to the actions of a specific parent - but rather, from the familial separation and the ongoing parental conflict.
3. It is good to see that Ms CC stated (Ms Kosar-40) that, as at 22 November 2024, the mother's anxiety levels were much reduced and that the mother had no depression. The mother's stress levels were still very elevated. That is understandable given the mother remained in family law litigation.[28] I have already made mention of the evidence of Dr T relating to the mother.
4. Dr N considered that there was no reason why (from a psychiatric perspective) the child could not spend unsupervised time with the father during the day.

The assessment of future risk and matters related thereto

1. There is a long line of authority requiring the Court to assess the risk of harm to children (and to parents). The assessment of future risk is one of the fundamental roles of a Court deciding parenting cases in this jurisdiction. In M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 ("M v M") the High Court stated at page 77, inter alia:

"In resolving the wider issue the court must determine whether on the evidence there is a risk of (sexual) abuse occurring if custody or access be granted and assess the magnitude of that risk. After all, in deciding what is in the best interests of a child, the Family Court is frequently called upon to assess and evaluate the likelihood or possibility of events or occurrences which, if they come about, will have a detrimental impact on the child's welfare. The existence and magnitude of the risk of (sexual) abuse, as with other risks of harm to the welfare of a child, is a fundamental matter to be taken into account in deciding issues of custody and access. In access cases, the magnitude of the risk may be less if the order in contemplation is supervised access..."

(Brackets added)

1. The Court's judgment in relation to what is in the best interests of the child - is the "wider issue" referred to by the High Court. M v M was a case involving the risk of sexual abuse. But the decision of the High Court and the principles laid down in that decision are applicable when the Court is considering the risk of any kind of harm to a child.
2. At page 78 in M & M the High Court went on to state that in order:

"To achieve a proper balance, the test is best expressed by saying that a court will not grant custody or access to a parent if that custody or access would expose the child to an unacceptable risk of (sexual) abuse."

(Brackets added)

1. As part of this Court's consideration of future risks to the child X I also have paid particular attention to the decision of the Full Court of this Court in Isles & Nelissen. The Full Court,[29] decided that, in considering whether or not a risk of future harm is acceptable or unacceptable, the Court is not required to apply the civil standard of proof in the same way that facts (in the sense of past events) are proven on the balance of probabilities with due regard to the gravity of the matters alleged (note especially section 140(2)(c) of the Evidence Act and Briginshaw v Briginshaw).[30] The question of the risk of harm in the future is a predictive exercise.[31]
2. There was no evidence called (by either party or the Independent Children's Lawyer) concerning the criminal trial in South Australia and the father's acquittal in respect of sexual assault charges. As I stated earlier in these reasons - this case was not run as a "risk of sexual abuse case". At page 297 of the transcript on 9 May 2025 Ms G stated inter alia:[32]

"So I'm not saying that there is - I'm not saying that I have assessed that there is a risk of sexual abuse. That's not what I'm saying."

1. Having regard to the totality of the evidence I have come to the same conclusion as Ms G. Notwithstanding the opinion of Ms G and the conclusion of the Court - the mother has continued to raise the issue that the father is a risk of sexual abuse to the child.[33]
2. I have had careful regard to the evidence relating to the transport company and the text message sent to the teenage girl by the father. I have considered the evidence (and made findings earlier) relating to the allegation that the father had inappropriately put his hand on X's leg during a doctor's appointment.
3. For clarity, I have taken all of these issues into account and any other evidence relating to allegations of risk of sexual abuse and I have come to the conclusion (as I have noted) that there is no unacceptable risk of sexual abuse of the child by the father.
4. The risk to the child relates to continuing to be exposed to the conflict between her parents. The risk to the child can be significantly ameliorated by putting in place injunctions preventing the parents from coming into physical contact and preventing the parents (in particular the father) from communicating via email or text message or any other written or verbal means. There can also be put in place injunctions preventing the father and the mother from discussing these family law proceedings with X.
5. In paragraph 7 of Isles & Nelissen, the Full Court referred to a decision of the High Court in CDJ v VAJ (No 2) (1998) 197 CLR 172. In paragraph 7 of Isles & Nelissen the Full Court stated, inter alia:

"...Risks of harm are not susceptible of scientific demonstration or proof... but are instead postulated from known historical facts and present circumstances."

(citations omitted)

1. Some of the known historical facts and present circumstances include:

(a) The overwhelming proportion of the conflict between the parents commenced after the time of separation;

(b) The father's written correspondence addressed to the mother and his verbal interactions with the mother have been completely unacceptable and include repeated derogatory taunts and denigration over an extended period of time;

(c) The mother has provoked the conflict between the parents by her conduct (including her conduct on 23 December 2023);

(d) Both parents have involved the child in the conflict. Both parents have undermined the other parent and denigrated the other parent. The mother has permitted her friend Ms E to denigrate the father to the child;

(e) The father has never kept the child overnight. The father has returned the child late on occasions to the mother;

(f) The child has never come to any harm in the father's care - certainly not in a physical sense although it can be reasonably inferred that if the father has denigrated the mother to the child this would cause her emotional harm;

(g) To the extent that the mother has also denigrated the father to the child (and to the extent that Ms E has done the same) this similarly indicates that the child may have come to emotional harm in the mother's care;

(h) The child has stated repeatedly that she wants to continue to spend time with the father;

(i) The child is aged over 12 years and her views must be given significant weight;

(j) The father's conduct in refusing to permit ADHD medication was unreasonable and delayed the proper medical treatment for the child;

(k) The father is loud, boisterous, opinionated and verbally abusive towards the mother;

(l) The father has a personality disorder as diagnosed by Dr N;

(m) Dr N's opinion is that the father does not pose a risk of harm to the child and the same can be inferred from the opinions of Dr Q and Mr F;

(n) Ms G has stated her opinion that the child is at risk of (I infer) at least emotional harm in the unsupervised care of the father and Ms G has also stated her concern that the mother is at physical risk of harm from the father;

(o) My attention has not been drawn to any evidence that the father has at any stage physically harmed either the mother or the child; and

(p) The child does not wish to spend overnight time with the father and the child wishes that her time with her father take place during the day either once a week or once a fortnight.

1. I have listed above some of the known historical facts and present circumstances. There had been in place an interim order for the child to spend time with the father more than once a week - unsupervised. The unsupervised time order remained in place until February 2025 when, on an interim basis, and upon receipt of the report of Ms G, the time was ordered to be supervised. Having regard to the known historical facts and present circumstances - I have come to the conclusion that orders can be put in place that ameliorate the risk of harm to the child (and the mother). I do not actually consider that there is any unacceptable risk of harm to the child (or the mother) - except if it were the case that there was to be further written or verbal interaction between the parents. There would be a risk of emotional harm to the mother and the child in the event that the father continued to correspond in writing in an abusive way or if the father were to continue to verbally abuse the mother. But those risks of harm can be, to all intents and purposes, eliminated[34] by the institution of injunctions preventing the father and the mother communicating in person or communicating in writing in the future. Other injunctions would also ameliorate the risk of harm and those injunctions would include preventing the father from attending the residence of the mother or the mother's work place. There will also be non-denigration orders - which would be applicable to both parents.
2. I do not consider that supervised time is necessary in this case. Unsupervised time for several hours once a fortnight will enable the child and the father to continue with what is obviously a close and loving relationship. In my view four hours of unsupervised time per fortnight (each alternate Saturday from 11am to 3pm) will enable the child to have lunch with the father and will enable time for the child and the father to have a good chat. This will, at least, limit the exposure of the child to the father's somewhat unusual personality. It will also enable the child time to sleep in on a Saturday and it will necessarily limit the chance the child will become "bored" as she has in the past. To the extent that the child may, on occasions, have expressed a view (to her mother) that she did not want to follow through with periods of contact with her father - my view is that the previous orders and the structure of those orders did not assist the situation. Requiring the child to spend unsupervised time with the father more than once on a weekend (i.e. on a Saturday and Sunday) may have been okay when the child was younger but as children grow older such orders become unworkable.
3. I am well aware that the father, in the past, has taken the child to his house and this was, essentially, accepted by the mother. There will be an injunction preventing the father from doing that. Changeovers will have to take place at a Contact Centre in Town B. As I have stated earlier, the child has never come to physical harm in the care of the father. I do not consider that supervision is necessary. To the extent that there would be a concern that the father may continue to verbally denigrate the mother - if that were to eventuate then I am confident that the matter would make its way back to the Court by way of a Contravention Application brought by the mother. Furthermore, the father will be well and truly on notice that this is really his last chance in terms of his behaviour and conduct. The emails and text messages that he has sent the mother will cease by reason of the injunction. The verbal denigration of the mother and so on will also cease. Similarly the mother's verbal taunting of the father and derogatory comments to him (as evidenced on 23 December 2023) will also cease. There is no evidence from a psychologist or a psychiatrist to state that the child has suffered emotional harm or psychological harm in the care of the father. Given the lack of (psychological or psychiatric) evidence in that regard - the risk of future emotional harm or psychological harm to the child from spending unsupervised time with the father is, in the opinion of the Court, a risk that is within acceptable boundaries. To the extent that the child does have symptoms of emotional or psychological harm - Dr T has pointed out that this is as a result of the early parental separation and the ongoing parental conflict and the harm (such as it is) has not necessarily been caused by the actions of a specific parent.[35]
4. I have carefully considered the evidence of Ms G where she has raised her concern that the mother herself may be at risk of physical violence from the father. I do not accept that opinion from Ms G. I have had an opportunity to consider the totality of the evidence and I have had an opportunity to consider the demeanour of the witnesses in the witness box - including both the mother and father. I have had careful regard to the words used by the father and I accept the submission made by Counsel on behalf of the father (Mr Formby) that the words used by the father indicate more the situation of a man who was feeling extremely frustrated and practically in despair. The father has limited interpersonal and social skills. This is no doubt a product of the personality disorder. It doesn't mean that he is a risk of harm to the child. This is especially so having regard to the framing of the proposed orders and injunctions. So far as the mother is concerned - I do not consider that the risk of harm to her, from the father, is outside an acceptable boundary. Having gone through the process of a trial, judgment and the institution of final parenting orders - it will be exceedingly apparent to the father that, under no circumstances, must he approach the mother - for any reason. Given that the father had never ever kept the child overnight - I do consider that he will comply with the orders and injunctions that the Court will issue. I note that the father did take the child to his house - but the mother did acquiesce in this. I note that the father did on one day (in November 2024) attend at the mother's residence. This was (as far as I am aware from the evidence) the one and only occasion that he did so - without the consent of the mother. My attention has not been drawn to any other such incident and in any event if there were it would be exceedingly rare. So far as the big ticket items are concerned - the father has consistently returned the child at the conclusion of day time contact - albeit late on occasions. His time now will be limited to only four hours every second weekend but this will enable the child and the father to have, for instance, have lunch together each alternate Saturday. They will be able to take a walk. They will be able to talk. They might be able to go to the shops for a time. But this will enable the child to maintain that important relationship in her life - the relationship with her father.
5. In order to further ameliorate the risk of any harm (to the child, the mother or any other person) the father will be required, by order, to complete an anger management program and the father will be required to engage with a psychologist on an ongoing basis for the purpose of assisting him in conducting himself in interpersonal relationships and, particular, in conducting himself when he interacts with the child with a particular reference to ensuring that he does not denigrate the mother.
6. There will be an injunction to prevent the mother from denigrating the father and there will be an injunction directed to the mother to take the steps that she needs to ensure that Ms E does not denigrate the father to the child

1. It will be apparent that I have not accepted the recommendations of the Family Report Writer Ms G. As the Full Court of this Court stated in Albert & Plowman [2020] FamCAFC 23 at paragraphs 20 to 22:

"[20] Additionally, expert witnesses are not witnesses of fact, except as to matters that they directly saw or heard, including for example, that which occurs during interviews they conduct. They express opinions by applying their qualifications and experience to certain factual assumptions. Their opinions can only ever be as reliable as the facts upon which they are premised. If, at trial, the facts assumed by the expert to be true are either not proven or are proven to be incorrect, then the opinion evidence will necessarily be compromised. Moreover, expert witnesses usually breach their remit if they are drawn into and express an opinion about the underlying factual conflict.

[21] As was observed in this jurisdiction long ago (see Hall and Hall [1979] FamCA 73; (1979) FLC 90-713 at 78,819):

... There is no magic in a [single expert report]. A Judge is not bound to accept it and there should never be any suggestion that the [expert] is usurping the role of the court or that the Judge is abdicating his responsibilities...

...

While the [single expert]'s views will normally have weight with the court because of his expertise and experience, the [expert] does not usually have the same opportunity as the trial Judge to weigh the evidence, observe the demeanour of the witnesses in court under examination and cross-examination, and make findings of fact based on evidence before the court which might not have been available to the [single expert]...

(References omitted)

[22] Those observations have been successively endorsed by the Full Court (see Carpenter & Lunn [2008] FamCAFC 128; (2008) FLC 93-377 at [226]-[227]; Friscioni & Friscioni [2010] FamCAFC 108 at [96]-[97]; Bostoi & Bostoi [2011] FamCAFC 132 at [40]-[44]; Whipp & Richards [2012] FamCAFC 11; (2012) 257 FLR 395 at [101]), but more importantly by the High Court of Australia, which confirmed a court hearing a dispute under Part VII of the Act is not bound to accept or reject the whole or any part of the evidence given by an expert witness (U v U [2002] HCA 36; (2002) 211 CLR 238 at 261)."

1. It will be apparent from these Reasons for Judgment that the opinion of Ms G is in large part reliant upon her acceptance of the mother's evidence in relation to contested facts. I also note that Ms G was concerned at the final discussions she had with the father. Apparently the first long "in person" interview went well and the father was sociable and calm. It was the telephone conversation that concerned Ms G (the follow up telephone conversation).
2. But it seems to me that the opinion of Ms G is necessarily compromised by her reliance on the mother's version of events - when the Court has indicated its preference for the father's version in relation to certain important facts.
3. It is also important to note that the Family Report Writer stated matters beyond her area of expertise. Ms G confirmed for the Court that she is a social worker.[36]
4. Ms G stated, incorrectly, an opinion that the child had been subjected to psychological abuse and emotional harm as a result of coercive and controlling conduct by the father. There was no expert evidence to support that conclusion stated by Ms G. The expert evidence such that it is (from Dr T) lays the blame for any symptoms of emotional or psychological upset suffered by the child - at the feet of both parents.
5. In any event, at the end of the day it is a matter for the Court to "weigh the evidence, observe the demeanour of the witnesses in Court under examination and cross examination and make findings of fact based on evidence before the Court which might not have been available to the (Family Report Writer)..." (As stated in Hall v Hall [1979] FamCA 73; (1979) 29 ALR 545).
6. It will be apparent that the final orders to be made by the Court are not in accordance with the Orders sought by the mother, the father or Independent Children's Lawyer. However, both parties and the Independent Children's Lawyer have had clear notice that the Court was contemplating making such an order. I made that apparent during the course of the trial. Each party has had an opportunity to be heard in relation to the proposal.
7. The Independent Children's Lawyer is to submit to the Court orders to reflect the Reasons for Judgment within seven days of the delivery of judgment. A copy of those proposed orders should also be sent to the parties within that time frame.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and eighty-six (186) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Howard.

[1] The mother's proposal for unsupervised time by agreement between the parents is also noted in paragraph 10 of Mr F's first report.

[2] This appears to be a typographical error in the report of Mr F. It seems that the words should be "inappropriate".

[3] The trial was adjourned on 1 July 2024 because of the withdrawal of the father's lawyers.

[4] This has been the case for at least 50 years in Australian Courts deciding parenting cases.

[5] Order of Her Honour Judge Spelleken made 21 July 2020 - with the consent of the parties.

[7] Note especially at paragraph 49 per Alridge and Carew JJ (with whom McClelland DCJ agreed).

[8] I will refer to this aspect again later in these Reasons for Judgment.

[9] In the absence of any other evidence I infer that this is a reference to "[Ms E]".

[10] Paragraph 23 contained on page 23 of 32 of the Report of Ms G.

[11] Paragraph 24 contained on page 23 of 32 of the Report of Ms G.

[12] I referred to this party earlier in these Reasons for Judgment.

[13] Paragraph 40 contained on page 14 of 32 of the Report of Ms G.

[15] Transcript of 31 January 2025 at pages 219 to 225.

[17] Evidence of Ms G on 9 May 2025, transcript page 272 between lines 25 and 30.

[18] On page 22 of 32 of Ms G's report.

[19] On pages 22 and 23 of Ms G's report.

[21] Transcript of 9 May 2025 at page 274 between lines 5 - 18.

[22] Transcript of 9 May 2025 at page 274 from line 28.

[23] Transcript of 9 May 2025 at page 275 at line 15.

[24] The evidence of Dr T is referred to on 9 May 2025 at pages 276 to 278 of the transcript. Also note Annexure Ms Kosar-17 to the mother's trial affidavit.

[26] Transcript of 9 May 2025 at page 293 lines 1-10.

[27] Annexure Ms Kosar-17 to the mother's trial affidavit. I would point out that during the course of the trial I made it clear to Counsel for the parties and the Independent Children's Lawyer that I would accept into evidence all of the Annexures contained in the affidavits - but only pay particular attention to the Annexures to which my attention is drawn as part of the written submissions - or otherwise as the Court sees fit.

[28] I have considered Annexures Ms Kosar-38; Ms Kosar-38A; Ms Kosar-39; and Ms Kosar-40.

[33] This is noted also at page 297 of the transcript of 9 May 2025 at lines 34 and 35 where Ms G confirms that the mother raised this issue with her.

[34] Or at the very least significantly ameliorated.

[35] Annexure Ms Kosar-17 of the mother's affidavit.

[36] Ms G appears to have a double major in psychology - but she is not a psychologist and I am certain that, if she were trained as a psychologist and was qualified as one, she would have told the Court when she was asked the question.