Broccan & Meira [2025] FedCFamC1F 901 (12 December 2025)

1. The allegations are made by each of the child's parents in circumstances where in May 2025, the mother without the father's knowledge or consent removed the child from the Commonwealth of Australia and travelled with him to City E in the United Arab Emirates. Since that time, the mother and the child have lived between the United Arab Emirates and the Country F. The mother seeks a final order that the child be permitted to remain living with her in the United Arab Emirates.
2. These reasons explain why I have determined that it is in the child's best interests to make orders, which:

(a) Require the mother to return the child's principal place of residence to the Commonwealth of Australia but, in particular, to the State of New South Wales by 23 January 2026; and

(b) Provide for the child to live with the mother and otherwise spend supervised time with the father at a children's contact service.

1. The applicant father is aged forty-seven (47) years.[1] The respondent mother is aged twenty-four (24) years.[2]
2. The parties commenced a relationship in early 2022 and separated on a final basis in late December 2024[3] or early 2025.[4] There is a male child of the relationship who is now aged two (2) years.[5]
3. Following separation, the father says that he would spend time with the child when he was not otherwise engaged in employment. He says that he would typically spend time with the child on one (1) occasion each week. On "a few occasions", the father says that the child spent an overnight period of time at the father's house.[6] At least initially, and in addition to face-to-face time, the father says that the mother would send him "regular photos and videos" of the child and facilitate communication between them on any day that the father was not able to see the child in person.[7] The father also says that the frequency of time spending increased after the maternal grandmother "evicted" the mother and the child from her home.[8] The mother concedes only that the child spent time with the father on "a handful of occasions" subsequent to the parties' separation.[9]
4. On the father's version of events, the relationship between the parties was so cordial that in the week prior to the mother's departure from Australia, the father offered to hire care for the mother in circumstances where the mother's vehicle had been sideswiped as a result of a collision.[10] The father now speculates that the mother must had been under the influence of illicit substances at the time. The mother did not respond to that allegation.
5. On 30 May 2025, the father was advised by the mother and by mutual friends that the mother had removed the child from the Commonwealth of Australia.[11] Particularly, the father was advised that the mother and the child had travelled to City E[12] although at the time of the hearing, the child and the mother were living in the Country F. The mother asserts that her relocation overseas was necessary to secure her safety and the safety of the child.
6. The father says that he never consented to a passport being issued for the child as he was concerned that the mother may remove him absent his consent or knowledge.[13] He says that enquiries are now being undertaken by the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade as to how a passport was issued in the child's name absent his consent.[14]
7. The father has not been charged with any offence against the mother or the child. Similarly, he is not the subject of an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order. Instead, he says that he is identified as a "protected person" in an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order, which otherwise identifies the mother as the defendant.[15]
8. As discussed earlier, the father by his affidavit material identifies serious concerns in relation to the mother's mental health and use of illicit substances. Although the mother also raises concern in relation to the father's use of illicit substances, her concerns relate primarily to the perpetration of family violence by the father and the exposure of the child to such violence.
9. On 3 November 2025, and in light of the concerns expressed by each parent, I made an order pursuant to s 91B of the Act inviting the Minister for Communities and Justice to intervene in the proceedings. The Minister declined to do so but did produce a report dated 25 November 2025. That report identifies that as at February 2025, the child was spending time with the father in each week from Wednesday evening to Friday morning. Otherwise, the Minister declined to intervene on the basis that the child's interests will be adequately protected by any orders, which I may make in this Court.

(a) An Amended Initiating Application filed on 28 July 2025;

(b) An affidavit in the father's name filed on 5 June 2025;

(c) An affidavit in the father's name filed on 28 July 2025 as to paragraphs 33 to 36 and 45 to 57 only; and

(d) Some tendered documents.[16]

(a) A Response to Initiating Application filed on 21 October 2025;

(b) Affidavits in the mother's name filed on 21 October 2025 and 2 November 2025; and

(c) Some tendered documents.[17]

1. Subsequent to the hearing on 12 November 2025, I also received a report from the Minister for Communities and Justice dated 25 November 2025. That report was prepared in response to my invitation to the Minister to intervene in the proceedings. I have had regard to that document as well as Written Submissions prepared by each party in relation to the content of that document.
2. The Court excluded all annexures to the affidavits having regard to r 8.15(3)(e) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

1. When making parenting orders, the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration. When considering the best interests of the child, I am required to have regard to the matters in s 60CC of the Act.
2. I am also required to apply s 60CG of the Act which provides:

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

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

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

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

1. Significant risk issues are raised on evidence before me. The approach to be taken to contentious issues of risk at an interim hearing is summarised in the following authoritative extracts, which make clear that serious allegations cannot be ignored at an interim hearing just because they are contested and untested, and that a cautious approach must be taken when considering issues of risk.
2. As the Full Court observed in Franklyn & Franklyn [2019] FamCAFC 256:

In interlocutory hearings, to the extent it is possible, judges are enjoined to make decisions about interim orders based on agreed facts, less contentious evidence, and inferences which fairly arise, but decisions must still be made despite contentious evidence. Judges are obliged to act on the strength of the evidence presented and, if it is relatively weak, are entitled to treat it so.[18]

(citations omitted)

1. Similarly, in SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13, it was observed that:

The intuition involved in decision-making concerning children is arguably of even greater importance when a judge is obliged to make interim decisions following a hearing at which time constraints prevent the evidence being tested. Apart from relying upon the uncontroversial or agreed facts, a judge will sometimes have little alternative than to weigh the probabilities of competing claims and the likely impact on children in the event that a controversial assertion is acted upon or rejected. It is not always feasible when dealing with the immediate welfare of children simply to ignore an assertion because its accuracy has been put in issue.[19]

1. Then in Deiter & Deiter [2011] FamCAFC 82, the Full Court said as follows:

The assessment of risk is one of the many burdens placed on family law decision makers. Risk assessment comprises two elements - the first requires prediction of the likelihood of the occurrence of harmful events, and the second requires consideration of the severity of the impact caused by those events. In our view, the assessment of risk in cases involving the welfare of children cannot be postponed until the last piece of evidence is given and tested, and the last submission is made. We accept, however, that it is always a question of degree depending on the evidence that is before the Court.[20]

1. Further, the Full Court in Marvel & Marvel (No 2) [2010] FamCAFC 101; (2010) 43 Fam LR 348 said as follows:

As has frequently been emphasised interim parenting proceedings, and orders made as a consequence, are a necessary but temporary measure until all the evidence can be tested, evaluated and weighed at a final hearing by the making of final parenting orders. Decisions judicial officers have to make in interim proceedings are difficult and, often for very good reason, a conservative approach, or one which is likely to avoid harm to a child is adopted. This is often to the understandable distress of a party who may not achieve the outcome he or she desires, or thinks to be in the best interests of their child or children.[21]

1. Having regard to the materials filed by each party, the exhibits tendered, and the submissions made by counsel for each party, I have determined that I am obliged to determine the following:

(a) Do I have jurisdiction to determine the competing applications?

(b) Is the child able to remain in the United Arab Emirates as sought by the mother?

(c) Does the mother present a risk to the child on account of her use of illicit substances and/or mental health condition(s)?

(d) Does the father present a risk to the mother and/or the child on account of the perpetration of family violence by him?

(e) Is it in the child's best interests to make an order on an interim basis to the effect that the mother be required to return the child's primary place of residence to New South Wales?

(f) If the answer to either question referred to above is in the affirmative, what parenting orders can be made so as to mitigate the risk presented by either parent to the child?

Do I have jurisdiction to determine the competing applications?

1. Each of the parties have invited me to make interim orders. Explicitly, and by their respective counsel, I have been advised that there is no dispute between them that I have jurisdiction to make a parenting order. However, I have regard to the decision of Justice Bennett in Bunyon & Lewis (No. 3) [2013] FamCA 888 wherein Her Honour said as follows:

This submission appears to be predicated on a misconception that jurisdiction can be conferred on the court by acquiescence or agreement of the parties. That is not the case. This Court either has jurisdiction or it does not have jurisdiction. Counsel's characterisation of the father in this case "submitting to the jurisdiction" would be appropriate in a case in which the court must decide...whether it is a clearly inappropriate forum for the determination of a dispute where this court and another court has concurrent jurisdiction but not, as here, when jurisdiction per se is being considered.[22]

1. For this reason, I must satisfy myself that I have jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute between the parties.
2. Section 111CD(1)(e) of the Act provides as follows:

(1) A court may exercise jurisdiction for a Commonwealth protection measure only in relation to:

...

(e) A child who is present in a non-Convention country, if:

(i) The child is habitually resident in Australia; and

(ii) Any of paragraphs 69E(1)(b) to (e) applies to the child; or

1. The child is an Australian Citizen.[23] Accordingly, s 69E(1)(b) is readily satisfied.
2. With respect to whether the child is habitually resident in Australia, the law in relation to habitual residence in Australia is well settled. The seminal authority is the High Court decision of LK v Director-General, Department of Community Services [2009] HCA 9; (2009) 237 CLR 582 ("LK") at [23] to [28], [35] and [36]. Justice Williams carefully analysed that decision in Secretary, Department of Families, Fairness and Housing & Whiting [2024] FedCFamC1F 479.
3. Although I did not receive any submissions on the topic given the parties' acquiescence to the exercise of jurisdiction, I am satisfied that the child is habitually resident in Australia for the following reasons:

(a) The child was born in Australia and was resident in New South Wales until his unilateral removal from Australia in May 2025;

(b) The child lived with his parents in an intact family unit in New South Wales until May 2025 and was cared for by both parents although it seems that the mother assumed the role of primary carer;

(c) The child was regularly cared for by members of the maternal family and was integrated into life in New South Wales to the extent possible for a child of his age;

(d) Despite his residence overseas, the child has continued to spend time with maternal family members but particularly the maternal grandmother; and

(e) There is no dispute that the father's intention as to the child's habitual residence was that the child would live in Australia.

1. The reality of the child's living arrangements is that the child has since May 2025 lived with the mother between the United Arab Emirates and Country F despite the mother seeking orders on a final basis that she be permitted to relocate the child's primary place of residence to the United Arab Emirates. I do not consider that the connections between the child and the two countries now described are sufficiently strong to cause the loss of habitual residence in Australia. Further, one parent, namely the father, never intended for the child to live outside Australia.

Is the child able to remain in the United Arab Emirates as sought by the mother?

1. The mother produced a "Resident Identity Card", which suggests that the mother is at liberty to remain in the United Arab Emirates for the period September 2025 to September 2027.[24] I have no information whatsoever about the basis on which or the period for which the child is able to remain living in the United Arab Emirates.

Does the mother present a risk to the child on account of her use of illicit substances and/or mental health condition(s)?

1. The father makes allegations to the effect that the mother is a person who is addicted to illicit substances and/or suffers from a mental health condition(s). Particularly, the father says that:

(a) The mother has a "long-standing history of substance abuse";

(b) In December 2024 and whilst under the influence of an illicit substance, the mother destroyed property and physically assaulted him in the presence of the child.[25] The mother concedes that she was charged with two (2) offences relating to these events but says that she was found not guilty of the charges in 2025.[26] She also concedes that as a consequence of her behaviour that evening, she was identified as a defendant in a Provisional Apprehended Domestic Violence Order;[27]

(c) The mother was hospitalised in late 2024 as a consequence of a "drug-induced psychosis";[28] and

(d) The mother suffers from suicidal ideation and threatened to kill herself on a regular basis during the parties' relationship.[29]

1. According to the father, his concerns about the mother's behaviour have been exacerbated in circumstances where he says that he has been advised by third parties that the mother continues to use illicit substances whilst living overseas.[30]
2. I discuss the allegations by commencing with an analysis of the events, which occurred in December 2024.

1. The father says that in late 2024, the mother asked him to collect the child from his childcare facility because the mother had otherwise rendered herself unable to drive on account of the mother's use of an illicit substance.[31] This occurred in circumstances where the father says the parties had resumed a relationship at the mother's request.[32]
2. On expressing concern about the mother's presentation, the father says that the mother became hostile and "screamed obscenities". At the same time, the father observed the mother to be "incoherent and physically unstable".[33] Such was his concern about the mother's presentation, that the father contacted police. Before police arrived, the mother left the parties' property and was later located at a friend's residence. Thereafter, the New South Wales Ambulance Service conveyed the mother to hospital.[34]
3. A toxicology report identified that on the occasion referred to above, the mother was under the influence of illicit substances.[35] The mother concedes that she had consumed an illicit substance but says that she did so at the invitation of the father.[36] Irrespective of the father's entreaties, the mother's decision to use an illicit substance is remarkable given that at the time of consumption, she was on her version of events charged with the primary care of a three (3) year old child.
4. As discussed, the father also says that the mother was hospitalised in late 2024 as a consequence of a "drug-induced psychosis".[37] The mother says nothing about her alleged admission by her affidavit filed on 21 October 2025. As discussed below, I do have notes from the G Hospital relating to the mother's admission in late 2024 for an alleged assault on her by the father.[38] However, those notes do not suggest that the mother was under the influence of illicit substances as alleged.

1. In May 2025, and having not seen the mother for several months, the father received a telephone call from the mother. She allegedly "didn't know where she was and was frightened".[39] The mother does not respond to this allegation directly but says that she was with a friend at the relevant time.[40]
2. Somewhat bizarrely, and whilst the father says he was trying to assist the mother, the father received a telephone call from Suburb H Police who advised him that he was suspected of kidnapping her.[41] The father then delivered the mother to the Suburb H Police Station and according to the father, it was determined that he had not kidnapped the mother as so alleged. On the father's version of events, he was directed by police to drive the mother to the maternal grandparents' residence. The father did so.[42]
3. The father says that for the following three weeks, he made efforts to contact the mother due to concerns for the child's safety at which time the mother advised him that she was "in a rehabilitation facility in [City J]".[43] The father says that this assertion was false and that the mother otherwise failed to advise him of the whereabouts of the child.[44] At some stage during this three week period, the father requested police to undertake a welfare check. Having done so, the father was advised that the child was in the care of the maternal grandmother in circumstances where the mother had otherwise been admitted to hospital.[45] The mother did not address this allegation by her affidavit and given it was filed about four (4) months after the father's affidavit of 5 June 2025, I consider it to be a striking omission.
4. The mother concedes that subsequent to the birth of the child, she experienced postpartum depression.[46] However, she says that her depression did not prevent her from caring for the child in circumstances where the father worked from 4.00am to 5.00pm on six (6) days per week.[47] The father conceded during the hearing that this was so.

Advice received by the father from third parties

1. The father says that subsequent to separation, he was advised by mutual friends of the parties that the mother has "continued to consume illicit substances and frequent parties, consistent with the lifestyle she maintained prior to her departure from Australia".[48] He also says that he was advised by third parties that the mother enrolled in a drug rehabilitation program overseas but failed to commence treatment.[49] The mother denies that she has used illicit substances whilst living overseas but does not address the father's allegations directly.

Conclusion as to the risks presented by the mother on account of her use of illicit substances and mental health

1. The mother concedes that she used an illicit substance in December 2024. Otherwise, and save for this reference, the mother says:

[The father] introduced me to drugs a few months into our relationship. He would get me to try [an illicit substance] recreationally until it became increasingly regular. I wouldn't say I was addicted, but I do say it became problematic and caused me health issues which I identified and wanted to work on.[50]

1. Given that the parties commenced a relationship in early 2022, and having regard to the concession made by the mother above, I infer that the mother was a regular user of illicit substances between early 2022 and December 2024.
2. Save for the mother's general statement (supra), the mother is otherwise silent as to the extent of her drug use. Instead, the mother says:

I knew that [the father] was supplying drugs and participating in criminal groups during the relationship. [The father] told me that it "was just for friends" but with time I noticed that [the father] frequently had meetings with other people and was carrying out a significant role in the commercial supply of drugs.[51]

1. It is common practice by litigants in this Court to place blame at the feet of the other parent and to make serious allegations against them. In the context of this application, however, I am concerned about the mother's failure to respond with specificity to the father's allegations about the mother's use of drugs despite the fact that the father's affidavit was filed on 5 June 2025 and the mother's response was not filed until 21 October 2025. That is, the mother had the benefit of the father's affidavit for a period of twenty (20) weeks but elected not to respond in any detail to his serious allegations.
2. Under a heading "Mental Health", the mother gives me some insight in relation her use of illicit substances. Particularly, the mother says as follows:

In [Country F], I undertook a rehabilitation program with an internationally recognised rehabilitation centre...for a period of two weeks. I was looked after and treated by a team of psychologists and psychiatrists that assisted me with my mental health and drug issues. I was discharged upon advice of the service that I was no longer required to participate in the program and given a discharge plan which included taking medication to help me maintain abstinence, seeing a psychologist, and other healthy habits.[52]

As deposed to above, the residential rehabilitation program I participated in assisted me in detoxing and becoming drug-free.

I have no ongoing drug issues at all.[53]

1. In support of her assertions, the mother provided me with a psychological assessment prepared by a psychotherapist practising in Country F. The assessment appears to have been completed following what is described as an "in-depth clinical interview" and a series of tests.[54] The report in part says as follows:

She has consistently undergone medical and toxicological screenings confirming complete abstinence from psychoactive substances, and she demonstrates ongoing commitment to treatment and recovery.[55]

1. It is not clear from the face of the psychotherapist's report whether the above information is derived from the notes of the rehabilitation facility to which the mother was admitted or the mother's self-reporting. Despite the report being fifty-seven (57) pages in length, it is otherwise silent as to:

(a) The illicit substances, which had been used by the mother. I do have a report from the psychiatrist upon whom the mother attended whilst at the rehabilitation facility and the report identifies that the mother "mainly admitted [to the use of an illicit substance]".[56] However, the report is silent as to the other substances, which the mother may have used;

(b) The period for which the mother had used the illicit substances and/or the extent of that use; or

(c) Any treatment, which may have been recommended to the mother subsequent to her discharge from the rehabilitation facility.

1. Further, the psychotherapist said as follows under the heading "Recommendations":

Continue regular medical follow-up and laboratory screenings under psychiatric supervision to confirm sustained remission from past substance use and ensure both physical and mental stability.[57]

1. I have no information whatsoever about whether the mother is continuing with "regular medical follow-up" and, if so, the identity of the practitioner concerned. Given that the mother returned to City E following her treatment, she could not have been attending on any practitioner in Country F.
2. I do know that on her discharge from the psychiatric facility in mid-2025, the mother was prescribed three (3) medications.[58] However, I have no information about the purpose for which the mother is taking the medications or whether the mother remains compliant with her medication. Further, I was not provided with any laboratory screenings, which may have supported a finding that the mother is abstinent with respect to the use of illicit substances.
3. The mother by her affidavit seeks to sate my concerns by boldly asserting that the United Arab Emirates "has severe penalties for individuals who engage in drug use".[59] That might be so, but it does not mean that I can simply ignore the lacunae with respect to the mother's evidence as referred to above.
4. With respect to her mental health, the mother says as follows:

Upon my arrival in [Country F] on Tuesday, 3 June 2025, I contacted various professionals and engaged in therapeutic treatment. I entered a rehabilitation program to address my substance dependence and focus on my personal recovery. I successfully completed the rehabilitation process, which helped me regain control of my health, emotional wellbeing and life direction.[60]

1. According to the psychiatrist upon whom the mother attended whilst in hospital, the mother was admitted for substance use disorder and secondly, "for trauma related to her past relationship with...the father of her son".[61] On assessment by the psychotherapist referred to above, the mother was diagnosed as being in "a gradual recovery phase from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following years of repeated domestic violence and direct life-threatening experiences during pregnancy and childbirth".[62] The psychotherapist also says that the mother's traumatic experiences "led to a complex dysregulation of the autonomic nervous system, manifested in panic attacks, hyper-arousal, depressive symptoms, and general emotional exhaustion".[63]
2. Having said this, the psychotherapist concluded that the mother has "the ability to care for her young son and provide him with a structured and secure daily environment".[64]
3. If I was seized only with the report of the psychotherapist, and if it was only the mother's mental health, which was in issue in these proceedings, then I might have been satisfied that the child is safe in the care of the mother albeit living overseas. However, there are four (4) matters, which leave me concerned with respect to the safety of the child in the care of the mother:

(a) I have an absence of information in relation to the mother's use of illicit substances and/or the current status of her addiction and/or treatment. The latest information in my possession appears to be for the period 23 June 2025 to 4 July 2025[65] and the report of the psychotherapist dated 25 October 2025. For the reasons discussed above, I consider the report to be deficient. I have not been provided with the test results referred to in the material;

(b) There appears to be a transience with respect to the mother's lifestyle. Particularly:

(i) The mother travelled with the child from Australia to City E in late May 2025 before travelling on to Country F for her rehabilitation. Although the mother was admitted to the rehabilitation facility for a period of twelve (12) days only, the mother remained in Country F for two (2) months;[66]

(ii) The mother advised me by her affidavit filed on 21 October 2025 that she was employed as a consultant in City E and that she was living in "a fully furnished apartment with my mother and [the child]".[67] I then learned during oral submissions that the mother returned to Country F two (2) days after signing her affidavit on 20 October 2025. I was not advised of that fact when the matter was before me for mention on 5 November 2025. Further, I learned that the mother travelled to Country F to receive support from extended maternal family in circumstances where the maternal grandmother had otherwise returned to Australia to attend to her business.[68] The mother describes that business as "still operating";[69] and

(iii) The mother says that she works for a consultant in City E and that her work is "flexible and includes work from home".[70] She says nothing about the actual terms of her employment or how it came to be that she returned to Country F whilst still being employed in the United Arab Emirates.

1. Insofar as the mother's evidence about the presence of her mother in City E may have satisfied any concern held by me in relation to the mother's parenting capacity and stability, such confidence is lost by reason of my knowledge that in fact, the maternal grandmother is in Australia. Further, and in circumstances where the maternal grandmother's business is in Australia, I do not have confidence that it is a viable proposition for the maternal grandmother to remain in City E pending a more thorough consideration of the child's best interests by way of a final hearing. However, I do know that between about January 2025 and May 2025, the mother lived with the maternal grandparents. [71] I also know from the mother's submissions that the maternal family have taken an active role in the child's day-to-day life and routine. Indeed, the mother says that "[t]he child reaps many benefits in his relationship with the maternal family". The report prepared by the Minister (supra) also identifies that a protective factor for the child is the support, which the mother receives from her mother and other extended family members. I have no confidence that the mother will continue to receive that support in the United Arab Emirates and this is a factor which concerns me given the mother's vulnerabilities. This being so, I have formed a view that it is in the child's best interests to live in proximity to the maternal grandmother and maternal family members so that they can provide some oversight of the mother to ensure the safety of the child.
2. Finally:

(a) I accept the submission of the father's counsel that in circumstances where the mother had returned to Country F, it would have been open to her to "check in" with the rehabilitation facility and/or obtain some evidence, which could have satisfied me that the mother was abstinent with respect to the use of illicit substances;

(b) The mother failed to comply with orders made by me on 3 November 2025 requiring her to undergo a supervised urinalysis drug screen; and

(c) The mother did not produce the results of a hair follicle test as ordered by me on 3 November 2025. I accept, however, that it would have been difficult to comply with such an order prior to the time that I conducted the interim hearing.

Does the father present a risk to the mother and/or the child on account of the perpetration of family violence by him?

1. The mother says that the father was "physically and emotionally abusive" towards his former wife and the two children of that relationship who are now aged twenty-four (24) years and twenty (20) years.[72] She says that those persons were identified as "protected persons" in an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order.[73] However, I have not been provided with any objective proof of that fact. She also says that the father was abusive towards a subsequent partner[74] but again, I do not have any objective proof of that fact.
2. With respect to the father's conduct towards her, the mother says that the father "would often push and shove me around physically, even in circumstances when we weren't arguing".[75] She says that such abuse "often included choking, pushing, slapping, and throwing things at me". On one occasion, the mother says that the father inadvertently hit the child in the process of hitting the mother.[76]
3. In addition to general allegations as to family violence, the mother identifies three (3) events with specificity. Particularly:

(a) The mother says that she was physically assaulted by the father following an argument on 6 December 2024.[77] The father has not addressed that allegation;

(b) The mother says that she was physically assaulted by the father on 7 December 2024 having stayed the evening prior with a friend. Prior to the assault, the mother says that the father "took a knife out of the draw and held it up and said "give me my son". The father does not address that allegation;

(c) The mother says that in December 2024, she was assaulted by the father. Particularly, she says that the father "threw [her] around the living room" and that the father hit and punched her.[78] The mother also says that the father "shoved" her head "into the corner of the wall".[79] The mother says that as a consequence of the father's actions, New South Police issued a Provisional Apprehended Domestic Violence Order for her protection.[80] That order was dismissed in 2025. The mother says that she does not know why the order was dismissed but the father says that it was dismissed "due to [the mother's] inconsistent statements and a toxicology report confirming the presence of illicit substances in [the mother's] system".[81]

The mother does not address the father's allegation that she was hostile and under the influence of illicit substances at the time of the alleged assault despite the fact that the two (2) affidavits relied upon by the father were filed some months prior to the mother's own affidavit;

(d) I do have some information, which suggests that the mother was assaulted by the father in late 2024. Particularly, a Discharge Summary prepared by the G Hospital in part reads follows:

Thank you for your ongoing care of [the mother], a 23 years [sic] old female who presented to [G] Hospital Emergency on the [date redacted] following an alleged domestic violence event.

She was found to have bruising around her neck and forehead, and had taken 4800mg of ibuprofen and 10mg diazepam prior to arrival to [G] Hospital. Her CT Brain showed no acute injuries or abnormalities.[82]

1. Whilst the mother's allegations have not been tested, the mother has produced photographs of injuries, which she says she sustained at the hands of the father. The mother also produced WhatsApp messages dated late 2024 wherein the parties had the following exchange:

Mother: Just have time for yourself I'm not staying home and getting bashed like how you kicked my face in this morning.

Father: If my son is not here wen I get home I will find u and take yi Yee [sic] head off your shoulders.

Mother: See what I mean.

You need to calm down.

...

I'm not getting bashed or harresed [sic] just have a night to yourself.[83]

1. I was otherwise provided with WhatsApp messages wherein the father used profanities and communicated with the mother in the most disgusting of terms.
2. The mother's allegations in cumulative form cause me to conclude that the mother have been subjected to family violence in some form during the relationship. There is no doubt the relationship between the parties was conflictual. The mother's allegations against the father and the dysfunction between them will need to be tested at final hearing.

Is it in the child's best interests to make an order on an interim basis to the effect that the mother be required to return the child's primary place of residence to New South Wales?

1. I am satisfied that the mother's unilateral relocation of the child to City E and/or Country F has disturbed and impacted on the child's relationship with the father. I note that this child is only two (2) years of age. It is generally accepted that a child of such young age benefits from a high frequency of relationship with his/her parents so as to establish proper attachments. In moving overseas, the mother has added the burden of logistics and travel for the child and his parents.
2. On a final basis, the father seeks an order that the child live with him. He promotes time between the child and his mother "as agreed between the parties or as determined by the Court". It is implicit therefore that the father's application is for time, which is more frequent and of longer duration than would otherwise be permitted if the mother remains at a geographical distance from him.
3. On an interim and final basis, the mother seeks an order that the child be permitted to live with her in the United Arab Emirates.
4. Jurisprudence has developed a set of "principles" to assist trial judges in dealing with parenting matters involving the potential relocation of children. Those "principles" remain valid despite recent significant amendments to Part VII of the Act and were eloquently summarised by Justice McGuire in Bonhomme & Bonhomme [2024] FedCFamC1F 854 as follows:

(a) Relocation matters continue to be determined in accordance with the broader provisions of Part VII of the Act;

(b) The child's best interests remain the paramount but not the sole consideration;

(c) A relocation proposal is to be evaluated within the context of the necessary findings in relation to the child's best interests (s 60CC factors);

(d) The Court must consider the parties' proposals, including the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed relocation and the Court may be required to formulate proposals itself in the best interests of the child;

(e) Neither party bears an onus to establish that a relocation or continuation of an existing regime will best promote the interests of the child;

(f) An applicant for relocation need not show "compelling reasons" in support of the proposed relocation but must produce probative evidence which permits a court, on balance, to find that a parenting order involving a relocation will be in the child's best interests; and

(g) The child's best interests must be weighed and balanced with the "right" of the proposed relocating parent's freedom of movement but that such a "right" must ultimately defer to the best interests of the child.[84]

1. Applications for an interim relocation of a child are complex. In Morgan & Miles[85] Justice Boland sitting as a single judge on appeal relevantly stated:

...make it highly desirable that, except in cases of emergency, the arrangements which will be in the child's best interests should not be determined in an abridged interim hearing, and these are the type of cases in which the child's present stability may be extremely relevant on an interim basis. ...

1. In this case, I am concerned that pending a final hearing, a status quo will be created by reason of the child's location in the Middle East. Further, but more importantly, I am not satisfied that it is in the child's best interests to remain at that location. The mother's immediate family live in New South Wales. It is in the child's interests to be as close as possible geographically to those supports in circumstances where I am concerned about the child's safety in the mother's care. Particularly, I am concerned about:

(a) The mother's mental health and the impact of her mental health condition on her capacity to care for the child. I hold that concern notwithstanding the views expressed by the psychotherapist (supra). This is because it appears the psychotherapist had limited information available to her and accordingly, the accuracy of her opinion is compromised;

(b) The mother's use of illicit substances over a period of at least three (3) years and whether or not the mother is now abstaining from the use of illicit substances; and

(c) The mother's transient lifestyle since May 2025 and the impact, which such transiency may be having on the child's development.

1. As discussed, there is also a lacuna in the evidence with respect to the ability of the child to remain in the United Arab Emirates.
2. For these reasons, I consider that it is in the child's best interests to return to the Commonwealth of Australia. Given that the maternal grandmother and maternal family reside in New South Wales, I do not consider that the mother requires any extended period of time within which to do so. However, and so that the mother might finalise her arrangements in the United Arab Emirates, I will direct that she not be required to return the child's residence to Australia until 4.00pm on 23 January 2026.
3. When making this order, I have not ignored the mother's asserted fear of the father or her concern for her safety and the safety of the child. Accordingly, I will make orders for the personal protection of the mother and the child pursuant to s 68B of the Act. Particularly, I will make an order that the father be restrained from:

(a) Attending or being within five hundred metres of the mother's residence, the maternal grandmother's residence or any location where the mother may be residing from time to time;

(b) Attending or being within five hundred metres of any location where the child may be attending childcare;

(c) Attending or being within five hundred metres of the mother's place of employment; and

(d) Contacting the mother by any means whatsoever save and except through her solicitor.

Can parenting orders can be made so as to mitigate the risk presented by either parent to the child?

1. At the hearing on 3 November 2025, I expressed concern about the allegations made by the mother against the father. Presumably, and having carefully listened to my comments, the father's counsel at the commencement of the hearing on 12 November 2025 advised me that the father would consent to an order for supervised time with the child.
2. I will list the competing applications for a final hearing before me on 11 May 2026. In the meantime, I am satisfied that the child will be safe from the harm of being exposed to or subjected to family violence under the conditions of professional supervision at a Contact Centre. Such an order will also provide protection for the mother.
3. When arriving at this conclusion, I am mindful of the decision of the Full Court in Helbig & Rowe [2016] FamCAFC 117 wherein the Full Court explained at [214] (citing A v A [1998] FamCA 25; (1998) FLC 92-800), that where a case is conducted on the basis of it being contended that there is an unacceptable risk of harm to a child in the care of one parent, "[t]he first enquiry is whether there is objectively an unacceptable risk. If there is the Court must take steps proportionate to the degree of risk" (Emphasis added).[86]
4. Additionally, after referring to and applying that decision, the Full Court in Keane & Keane [2021] FamCAFC 1; (2021) 62 Fam LR 190 at [84] stated:

In undertaking the task of considering what steps are "proportionate to the degree of risk", the decision of Blinko makes it clear that the mere finding that a child may be at an unacceptable risk as a result of spending time in the care of another parent does not conclude the task before the primary judge. A necessary consequence of that finding, having regard to the totality of matters that the court is required to consider pursuant to s 60CC of the Act, is for the court to contemplate whether steps can be taken to ameliorate or mitigate against that risk such that the child can maintain a meaningful relationship with the other parent. (Emphasis added)

1. In Summerby & Cadogen [2011] FamCAFC 205 at [95], the Full Court also noted the potential adverse impact upon a child of permanent separation from his/her parent and, in the context of that case, agreed with and applied the analysis of the trial judge in those proceedings to conclude that "the termination of a child's relationship with one of her parents is a course of last resort."
2. Given the potential consequences for the child of such a separation, I have determined that pending final hearing, an order for supervised time is proportionate to the risk, which I consider the father presents to the child.

1. Neither party addressed me as to what interim order (if any) ought to be made with respect to the exercise of parental responsibility. However, and given that I am able to list the competing applications for a final hearing within a short period of time, I consider that it is appropriate to address this topic at final hearing.

1. The father promotes an order that each party submit to hair follicle testing. Given the allegations made by each of the parties I agree that it is important that the parties submit to such a test so that the allegations of the parties can be objectively tested. So that a significant period of time might be captured, I will direct that each parent produce a three-centimetre length of his/her hair.
2. For the same reasons, I will make orders in the terms sought by the father with respect to urine drug screening by each party save that:

(a) My orders will require the Independent Children's Lawyer to request any such test; and

(b) I will limit the number of tests, which may be requested by the Independent Children's Lawyer to three (3) tests between 26 January 2026 and the final hearing.

1. I will not make any order for either party to participate in parenting programs. Each of them is aware of the allegations, which have been made by the other parent and each parent is in a position to prepare such evidence as he/she considers necessary for the purposes of the final hearing.

1. The father invites me to make an Airport Watch List order pending the final hearing and to otherwise restrain the parties from removing the child from the Commonwealth of Australia. Given the history of the dispute between the parties and for reasons, which will be obvious to a reader of this judgment, I agree that it is prudent to make such an order.

1. As discussed, the mother is the subject of an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order. I have also determined that it is appropriate to make injunctive orders pursuant to s 68B of the Act. For these reasons, the mandatory protections for the parties pursuant to s 102NA of the Act are invoked and I will make an order declaring that the requirements of s 102NA(2) of the Act will apply to any cross-examination occurring in the proceedings on or after the date of these Orders.

Appointment of an Independent Children's Lawyer

1. It is obvious from these Reasons that there is intractable conflict between the child's parents. Further, there are issues of significant psychiatric or psychological illness and drug addiction, which seriously impinges on the child's welfare. Accordingly, I have determined that it is in the child's best interests to be independently represented by a lawyer [87] and I will make an order under s 68L of the Act.

1. I have determined that the circumstances of this matter require the allocation of an early trial date. This being so, and in order to avoid any delay, I have secured the assistance of Court Children's Services to prepare a report pursuant to s 62G of the Act.

1. The orders set out at the commencement of these reasons are those that most capably meet the child's best interests.

I certify that the preceding ninety-three (93) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Anderson.

[1] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraph 1.

[2] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraph 2.

[3] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraph 7.

[4] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraph 5.

[5] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraph 4.1.

[6] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraphs 34 to 36.

[7] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraph 37.

[8] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraph 38.

[9] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraph 78.

[10] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraph 44.

[11] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraph 6.

[12] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraphs 6 and 7.

[13] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraph 9.

[14] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraph 53.

[15] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraph 32.

[18] Franklyn & Franklyn [2019] FamCAFC 256 at [73].

[19] SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13 at [100].

[20] Deiter & Deiter [2011] FamCAFC 82 at [61].

[21] Marvel & Marvel (No 2) [2010] FamCAFC 101; (2010) 43 Fam LR 348 at [120].

[22] Bunyon & Lewis (No. 3) [2013] FamCA 888 at [148].

[23] Amended Initiating Application filed 28 July 2025, Part D.

[25] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraph 15.

[26] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraph 53.

[27] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraph 53.

[28] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraph 16.

[29] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraph 17.

[30] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraph 12.

[31] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraph 19.

[32] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraph 18.

[33] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraph 19.

[34] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraph 20.

[35] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraph 22.

[36] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraph 58.

[37] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraph 16.

[39] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraph 24.

[40] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraph 71.

[41] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraph 24.

[42] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraph 28.

[43] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraph 30.

[44] Father's affidavit filed 28 July 2025, paragraph 48.

[45] Father's affidavit filed 5 June 2025, paragraph 31.

[46] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraph 16.

[47] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraph 21.

[48] Mother's affidavit filed 28 July 2025, paragraph 46.

[49] Father's affidavit filed 28 July 2025, paragraph 48.

[50] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraph 101.

[51] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraph 86.

[52] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraph 97.

[53] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraphs 102 and 103.

[59] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraph 115.

[60] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraph 111.

[66] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraphs 111 to 113.

[67] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraph 118.

[68] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraph 123.

[69] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraph 123.

[70] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraph 122.

[71] Mother's Outline of Case Document filed 2 November 2025, paragraph 49.2.

[72] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraph 23.

[73] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraph 23.

[74] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraph 24.

[75] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraph 26.

[76] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraph 27.

[77] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraph 40.

[78] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraph 60.

[79] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraph 60.

[80] Mother's affidavit filed 21 October 2025, paragraph 65.

[81] Fathrr's affidavit filed 28 July 2025, paragraph 22.

[84] Bonhomme & Bonhomme [2024] FedCFamC1F 854 at [55].

[85] Morgan & Miles (2007) FLC 93-342; [2007] FamCA 1230 at [88].

[86] Helbig & Rowe [2016] FamCAFC 117, at [214] (citing A v A [1998] FamCA 25; (1998) FLC 92-800).

[87] Re K [1994] FamCA 21.