Brydan & Sillars (No 4) [2025] FedCFamC1F 670 (25 September 2025)

1. That the child shall live with the mother.
2. That the child spend time with the father under the supervision of Ms Z as follows:

(a) one Sunday each month as agreed by the parents in writing and failing agreement on the first Sunday of the month, between 12.00pm and 5.30pm or such shorter period that the independent professional supervisor is available, subject to:

(i) for the child's birthday, the time is to be spent on the Sunday closest to her birthday;

(ii) for Easter, the time is to be spent on Easter Sunday if the independent professional supervisor is able to accommodate such arrangement;

(iii) for Christmas, the time is to be spent on the Sunday closest to Christmas Day if the mother has not earlier notified the father that the child will be away from the Southeast Queensland area for Christmas;

(b) with the paternal grandparents to be responsible for facilitating changeover at the commencement and conclusion of time from the mother's residence;

(c) with the visits to occur at the paternal grandparents' residence or such other place as agreed between the parents, and

(d) at the cost of the Father.

1. That in the event that Ms Z is no longer available to supervise the child's time with the father, the mother is to propose a panel of three independent professional supervisors who are available to supervise the time as set out in these Orders and the father will nominate his choice of supervisor within seven (7) days of receipt and the provisions of Order 3 hereof will then apply to that supervisor.

1. That the child will spend her school holidays with the mother, and time under Order 3 hereof is suspended during all school holiday periods, save that the child will spend supervised time with the father from 12.00pm until 5.30pm on a Sunday during the month of January as agreed and failing agreement on the second Sunday.

1. That provided the child is spending time with the father in accordance with Order 3 hereof, the father shall communicate with the child by FaceTime every second Wednesday, before 7.00pm, facilitated by the mother assisting the child to call the father.

1. That pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act"), the father is hereby restrained from driving a motor vehicle with the child as a passenger unless there is prior written consent from the mother.
2. That pursuant to s 68B of the Act the father is restrained from attending the child's school. any hospital or health service provider the child is attending, or any of her extra-curricular activities or sports at a time when the child is present, unless there is prior written consent from the mother.

1. That the parents use the Talking Parents App for all communication between them about child related issues.
2. That the mother and father shall keep the other parent informed at all times of their mobile phone number and email address and notify each other within forty-eight (48) hours of any changes to those details.

1. That the father shall advise the mother if upon being charged with any offence by police and shall detail the nature of the charges to the mother within three (3) days of any such charge being laid.

1. That the mother shall inform the father as soon as is reasonably practicable of any serious illness, accident or medical emergency involving the child and in the event the child attends hospital for any illness or injury, the mother shall notify the father within six (6) hours.
2. That in the event of any medical condition, health issue or illness suffered by the child while in the father's care, he or the supervisor must notify the mother forthwith if the child requires medical treatment, but if the child does not require medical treatment, then he or the supervisor is to notify the mother of the medical condition, health issue or illness at the time that the child return to the Mother's care.
3. That the mother shall do all acts and sign all necessary documents to authorise the child's education facilities to provide the father with information about the child's educational or other progress and other school related activities.
4. That these Orders shall operate as an authority to any medical practitioner or any other health care professional providing services to the child to communicate with the father in writing and provide him with all such information and documents, he may request from time to time regarding the child's attendance upon that medical practitioner.

1. That pursuant to s 65Y of the Act, the mother is at liberty to remove the child from the Commonwealth of Australia for holiday travel.
2. That for the purpose of section 11(1)(b)(i) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth), the child X born 2018 is permitted to hold Australian Travel Documents including an Australian passport.
3. That the mother is authorised, by these Orders, to make any application for passport or renewal of a passport for the child and this Order stands as an authority for the Australian Passport Office to issue a passport to the child on the basis of any application made solely by the mother.
4. That in the event the child travels internationally with the mother, the mother is to provide the father with:

(a) written notice of the intended travel at least twenty-eight (28) days prior to the departure date; and

(b) a written itinerary including the flight numbers of the international flights; destination cities; accommodation and contact numbers, fourteen (14) days prior to the departure date.

1. That pursuant to s 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the mother is permitted to provide these Orders to the child's school, to the professional supervisor and to the paternal grandparents.
2. That any previous undertakings given by the other in these proceedings are discharged.

1. That the mother agrees for the child to spend time with the paternal grandparents at such places and for such times as decided by the mother upon receiving a signed undertaking from the paternal grandparents that they have read these Orders and undertake not to allow the father to spend time with the child in any way contrary to these Orders.
2. That the mother agrees to notify the paternal grandparents, once each term, of the extracurricular activities which the child is engaged in, and the paternal family shall be at liberty to attend such events that grandparents and extended family members are normally invited to attend, subject to the sole discretion of the school or activity provider.

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

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

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

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

1. Since the parents of a young girl X (born 2018) ("the child"), separated in August 2019 (when the child was 17 months of age), the child has always lived in the care of her mother, the Respondent (in relation to the parenting proceedings) Ms Brydan ("the mother').
2. The father, Mr Sillars ("the father") has maintained some regular physical interaction with his daughter since separation, but for the reasons set out below, such time has been in the presence of supervision.
3. The parties spent considerable time, energy and costs resolving complex property proceeding, which resulted in final orders made by me on 6 June 2023. Although some difficulties with the enforcement of those orders occurred, those matters are not relevant to my determination of the parenting orders.

1. Earlier interim orders, for Reasons published, shaped the ongoing care arrangements for X, where, on untested evidence, the Court sought to balance the alleged risks the father's use of cocaine and alcohol presented, with the child's right to develop a meaningful relationship with her father. In particular see:

(a) the Orders of 23 August 2021 (Brydan & Sillars [2021] FamCA 618); and

(b) the Orders of 16 November 2021 (Brydan & Sillars [2021] FedCFamC1F 198).

1. These Orders were shaped by the opinions expressed in a family report of social worker Mr C (published on 28 May 2021) arising from interviews and observations on 20 April 2021.
2. On 31 March 2023, the mother filed an amended Initiating Application seeking orders in respect of both property and parenting issues, however on 5 April 2023, I ordered the proceedings be bifurcated and listed the property proceedings for a five-day hearing to commence on 5 June 2023.
3. On 8 May 2023, the father sought the appointment of his father ("the paternal grandfather") as his litigation guardian, in all of the proceedings, and although that application was opposed by the mother, on 18 May 2023, I ordered that Mr G be appointed as the father's litigation guardian. As earlier noted, final property orders were made on 6 June 2023. This meant the parties thereafter were able to focus on seeking to resolve the parenting issues relating to X and the following relevant steps then took place on 30 October 2023, inter alia:

(a) I appointed social worker Mr GG as a single expert to prepare a fresh family report; and

(b) I appointed an Independent Children's Lawyer ("ICL"); and

(c) I listed the matter for final hearing on 20 May 2024.

1. On 27 February 2024, at a Case Management Hearing, I made the following relevant directions:
   1. That the father shall now be regarded as the Applicant in these proceedings.
   2. That the mother shall now be regarded the Respondent in these proceedings.
   3. That by no later than 4.00pm on 5 March 2024, the father serve upon the mother and the Independent Children's Lawyer:
      1. a list of each hair follicle drug and alcohol test performed by the father since 1 January 2021, including the date of the test, the laboratory, and shall also provide a copy of the report if not already disclosed; and
      2. a list of each health service provider attended upon by the father with respect to mental health; drug and alcohol use; and rehabilitation since 1 January 2021, including the date of his last appointment with each such health service provider.
   4. That [Dr CC] of [JJ Clinic], and such toxicology expert as [JJ Clinic] shall retain, is appointed as a single expert for the purpose of preparing a toxicology report with respect to the hair follicle test reports undertaken and disclosed by the father subsequent to the hair follicle test undertaken by him [in late] 2021.
   5. That the parties shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to effect the appointment of [Dr CC] on or before 6 March 2024, following the father's compliance with Order 3 hereof, with the father to pay the costs of the report.

Trial directions

1. That these proceedings remain listed for Final Hearing for not more than three (3) days commencing at 10.00am on 20 May 2024 in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) at Brisbane.
2. That by no later than 4.00pm on 12 March 2024, the father provide to the mother and the Independent Children's Lawyer any medical evidence, including any reports obtained from a health professional, relevant to his asserted capacity or otherwise to give evidence at the Final Hearing. The father shall not be entitled to rely upon any affidavit material with respect to such evidence not disclosed in accordance with this Order without leave of the Court.
3. That in the event the litigation guardian seeks to be discharged or the paternal grandparents seek to intervene in these proceedings, such Application be filed and served by no later than 4.00pm on 12 March 2024. The father shall not be entitled to rely upon any affidavit material with respect to the discharge of the litigation guardian not filed in accordance with this Order without leave of the Court.

1. The final hearing proceeded in a somewhat unusual fashion on 20 May 2024, in that:

(a) Mr Williams of King's Counsel appeared essentially for the litigation guardian and where the father offered no evidence at all, because of his inability, it was said to do so. The father relied upon an affidavit of the supervisor Ms Z (filed 2 May 2024), who was ultimately not required for cross-examination.

(b) Mr Atkinson of King's Counsel with Ms Karaman of Counsel appeared for the mother. The mother and her witnesses (her then fiancé Mr F and Dr CC (a consulting toxicologist)) were not required for cross-examination.

(c) Ms Downes of Counsel appeared for the ICL and called the report writer Mr GG who was the subject of cross-examination. Although the ICL's Case Outline referred to the report of Mr C (as did the mother), Mr C's report was of historical relevance only. Certainly, Mr GG noted he had access to Mr C's earlier report.

1. From 6 May 2024, the statutory pathway for parenting orders has altered. Now, there are just two objects in section 60B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act"):

(a) s 60B(a) is to ensure the best interests of the children are met; and

(b) s 60B(b) is to give effect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

1. During my term as a judicial officer, I have navigated the changing landscape for parenting orders from s 68F through s 60CC of the Act, the additional and primary considerations, and now a new regime contained within four sections of a new s 60CC of the Act. The destination, however, has never altered. It is what is in the best interests of the children.
2. The very expansive section 60CC(2) and (3) which had primary and additional considerations has been very much shortened. I note as well as the orders provided the presumption of equal share for responsibility no longer applies in parenting cases.
3. Section 60CC provides that when determining a child's best interests certain things must be considered.

(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).

1. I am satisfied that I have considered the prescribed obligations of a Court when determining a child's best interests, and subject to s 60CC(4), the Court must consider the matters set out in 60CC(2). The general considerations contained in section 60CC(2) prescribe that, for the purposes of the best interests consideration, 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.

1. By final submissions, where the Court was addressed first by Counsel for the ICL, the final orders sought by the ICL were tendered as Exhibit 1 and those proposals are Appendix One to these Reasons.
2. Ms Downes' brief oral submissions identified her proposed orders 3 and 4 were contentious - or put another way, neither parent opposed the Court making orders as to decision making being vested in the mother or that X would live with the mother.
3. The ICL's proposals required supervision to continue indefinitely through Ms Z, with a mechanism for replacing Ms Z prescribed by order 4. The time for visits with the father would reduce to one Sunday each month (for four hours); includes some special days; requires the paternal grandparents to facilitate changeovers "from the mother's residence" and with visits to take place at the home of the paternal grandparents. Facetime interaction is to reduce to every second Wednesday, before 7.00pm.
4. The mother's written submissions, at paragraph 33, identified the mother's highest position is "that the father should take time to get his house in order and in the meantime, he would not have time with [X]". At paragraph 34, Counsel for the mother articulated three options, being:

(a) keep the current regime;

(b) reduce time; but

(c) concluded a "no-time" order is in the child's best interests.

1. The father's final minute of order (tendered as Exhibit 3) articulated a different position than that set out in the father's Case Outline filed 16 May 2024. Exhibit 3 essentially agreed with indefinite supervision; no conditions relating to testing for illicit substances, but that the monthly time occur between 10.00am and 5.00pm on the first Sunday of each month. The father seeks to continue the regime of FaceTime interactions each Monday, Wednesday and Friday before 7.00pm.

1. The inability of the father, by the time of the final hearing, to give any evidence as to how his chronic addiction to the use of cocaine was being dealt with by him, meant the assessment of the risk he presents, if time was to be become unsupervised in the future, was the core issue in dispute. As set out earlier, the father's minute proposed continuance of supervised time indefinitely - a departure from his Case Outline filed 16 May 2024, where the father proposed unsupervised time after 12 months with a regime of testing for illicit substances.
2. Mr Atkinson KC's written submissions at paragraph 12(b), (d), (e) and (f) establish, he says, a basis for the submissions at paragraph 12(h), that: -

"...the Court should proceed on the basis that the father is a serious substance abuser who is unlikely to seek out treatment, let alone be reformed, in the foreseeable future."

1. Reference to Exhibit 1, being a few subpoenaed records reveal that:

(a) the father's erratic behaviour is demonstrated by the charges laid against him in late 2023 relating to the use of a motor vehicle whilst unlicensed and driving under the influence of alcohol (although there is no evidence of any conviction);

(b) he now has a diagnosis of epilepsy and a doctor noted in late 2023 that the patient had (I infer) confirmed he had a third seizure "this year";

(c) medical notes between early 2022 and early 2023 reveal his admission as to continued use of cocaine (and relapses);

(d) appointments the father made with a treating psychologist Mr KK on two occasions were either cancelled or he did not attend;

(e) the HH Hospital notes in relation to a motor vehicle accident in early 2019; an admission in early 2021 and a further admission in mid-2023 are concerning; and

(f) periodic testing of hair follicles from the father in late 2021; early 2022; mid-2022 and late 2022 all reveal a positive excessive use of cocaine. The evidence of Dr CC, which I summarise below, deal with these results.

1. It is to be recorded again, that despite the father having an opportunity to seek to explain his behaviour as identified by these events above, he has filed no recent affidavit - his last affidavit relating to parenting proceedings being filed on 19 December 2022.
2. Dr CC's affidavit filed 22 April 2024, attached two reports dated 2 November 2021 (with an addendum dated 3 November 2021) and more recently a report dated 19 May 2024 (sic) where Dr CC opines that:

(a) a review of the six most recent test results reveals that the pattern of use of cocaine is "largely unchanged" although the final test result on 10 October 2022 was the lowest concentration and may represent a reduction of used in the months prior to October 2022 (paragraph 3.6);

(b) results suggest the father co-ingested cocaine and alcohol; and

(c) the pattern of use of alcohol is largely unchanged and the concentration of EtG in the hair sample collected in late 2022 were higher than the preceding samples which may represent an increase in use - and (at paragraph 4.1) Dr CC opined the test results suggest the father, in the four months prior to collection was ingesting an average of six or more standard drinks daily.

1. Before I analyse the evidence and competing proposals, essentially in respect of the manner and frequency of time X should spend with her father, I will make some findings relating to the evidence of the child expert Mr GG, who as earlier observed, was the subject of cross-examination.

1. Mr GG, a highly experienced social worker and report writer, conducted interviews and observations in late 2023, resulting in a report dated 2 February 2024.
2. After identifying the issues in the matter as being:

(a) the father's continuing inability and/or unwillingness to provide drug tests;

(b) X's development and attachment; and

(c) the weight that might be placed upon the father's conduct and how that can be inferred to affect X's welfare.

1. Mr GG, for the reasons he explained, opined inter alia that:

(a) the report writer found the father was "difficult to interview" and who "obfuscated" when asked questions about his drug use. As to his current functioning, there were "good months and bad months". The father conceded that "he has never complied with orders for drug testing" responding in general that he "found it embarrassing" and was concerned it might be "on the public record";

(b) the mother presented to the report writer as "slightly anxious and distressed at points in her interview but otherwise co-operative". The mother said she thinks X enjoys her time with the father and is also excited to see her grandparents. Her main concern is about X's physical safety as "[Mr Sillars] is a proven drug and alcohol addict" who needs to go through a "significant period of rehabilitation to get himself off the booze and drugs so that he can be a father for [X]". X is already asking "why she has to be supervised and protected around her father". The mother stated the child's contact with the father's extended family "is important" but the mother doesn't feel she can fully trust the grandparents to be supervisors, as the mother believes they are "delusional about their son's drug and alcohol addiction";

(c) after recording some non-controversial relationship history, at paragraphs 83 to 88, Mr GG details how X presented as "a happy child with good language for her age, not particularly shy or anxious, but relaxed and went easily between each of her parents". She was observed as engaging well with both parents, who were responsive - as she obviously enjoyed the attention. X expressed a wish "to spend more time with her dad, although she is not upset about it in any way that can be observed";

(d) in concluding (at paragraph 137) that he did not think it is necessary to make a recommendation in this matter, because the "options are limited and much depends on the weight the Court might apply to the respective functions", paragraph 102 to 136 recorded various opinions formed by the report writer, inter alia:

(i) Initial arrangements, post separation in August 2019, were informal and flexible until the mother reassessed the risk to X, based she says on the father's behaviour then, but also past patterns. The father saw no need for supervision then, and no need now;

(ii) X is a child who is above her age developmentally, and the father asserts the mother does not support his relationship with the child using her references to drug use and safety risk, as "a ploy". Mr GG formed the opposite view, concluding the mother is "hoping for an enduring and healthy relationship between father and child" and her concerns about this lack of compliance with drug tests "reflects her resolute intention to protect [X] rather than a personal vendetta";

(iii) After opining the father "is disinclined to acknowledge he has a problem, and little, if any intention, of complying with drug/alcohol testing Court Orders" (at paragraph 125), Mr GG reached a critical conclusion (at paragraph 133), that the father "is unable to place [X's] needs above his own and obfuscates and re-frames the problem to anything other than personal responsibility. There is a pattern of behaviour here now, which reduces the likelihood of change which can be believed";

(iv) Concluded (at paragraph 135) "that [X's] bond with her mother is a safe emotional platform for her development, the preservation of which ensures stability and growth" Mr GG made a cautionary observation that "as things stand, she is quickly outgrowing the arrangements with her father, and it has limited scope for a child such as her".

1. In circumstances where the single expert was critical evidence in this case (although the Court is not bound to accept the evidence of a report writer (see Hall & Hall (1979) FLC 90-713)), his cross-examination by the experienced counsel, was focussed properly on exploring the options and conclusions reached with some further relevant evidence given:

(a) It is hard to assess the severity of risk to X from the father's addiction and the lack of insight, including his minimisation of drug use;

(b) If the father shared his negative views about the mother with X, what would be a concern;

(c) The current arrangements are better than a contact centre and there is no evidence that X finds the arrangements "overwhelming" although long term it could be a problem and X, will need some context over time;

(d) Although he has read the affidavit and report of supervisor Ms Z (herself a psychologist) about the visits between 24 October 2021 and 7 December 2023, it was hard to assess the rapport the child has developed with Ms Z, who X, in a matter-of-fact sort of way, accepts is there but doesn't really know why. A change of supervisor may be disruptive, but X is likely to adjust;

(e) Mr GG, whilst expressing concern about stopping and starting time, expressed a reluctance to support a "no time order", it being an option that did not "jump out" to him; and

(f) Some reduction in the frequency of "FaceTime" might be appropriate but it is hard to assess whether that would "be good or not".

1. In the context of the evidence given by Mr GG, the unchallenged evidence of the supervisor Ms Z was also before the Court. That evidence records the number of visits she has supervised, with a high level of compliance by both parents. The warm interactions of X with the father and the father's parents are a consistent theme. X obviously enjoys the time and has formed an attachment and identifies with her father and extended family.
2. Noting that Ms Z was not engaged to prepare a family report, her conclusions set out at paragraph 12.1. 12.2 and 12.3 are fairly unremarkable - shaped by a sensible opinion, that it is a matter for the Court to assess risk and safety concerns to X; noting that at least supervision (with the paternal grandparents), provides some benefits - including to the father from continual parental support, thereby establishing a scaffolded approach armed at ensuring continued successful visitations. As circumstances evolve, this approach can potentially be reviewed once concerns regarding risk are alleviated". I give considerable weight to the opinions expressed by Mr GG.

1. I rely upon but do not repeat earlier findings. The findings which follow, in a narrative style, through the statutory pathway, are succinct because, in the end analysis, two significant issues - where X shall live and who should have major long term decision making responsibility are not in dispute.
2. Where the issue of whether the father is an unacceptable risk to X if time is unsupervised (which the father does not seriously contest), I am nonetheless satisfied on the evidence that the child would be at risk in the father's unsupervised care as a result of:

(a) the effect of his addiction to cocaine and excessive alcohol use, and the inability to determine how he might present on any given day;

(b) the father's lack of insight into how the risks from his behaviour could adversely affect X, coupled with his consistent minimisation of the use by him of illicit substances and excessive alcohol use;

(c) his history of relapse over the years despite significant therapeutic intervention and his more recent, in my view, less than dedicated commitment to seeking help;

(d) where unsupervised time might increase the prospect of the father making negative comments to X about her mother; and

(e) where a combination of these factors, on the evidence, gives the Court no confidence as to when in the future, if at all, the father's personality will allow him to engage with treatment and change permanently his use of illicit substances and excessive use of alcohol. It is to be recalled that the father is now 39 years of age and his initial (sadly unsuccessful) rehabilitation attempt in July 2018 is now seven years ago.

1. In my conclusions below, I deal with the core issue of whether it is in the best interests of X to maintain some reduced supervised visits or cease all time.
2. I find that although the mother has, I accept, found the father's attitude and behaviour (despite many chances and orders for testing) extremely disappointing, I am not satisfied she is at an emotional risk of harm, by facilitating supervised visits. She has the support of her now husband Mr F and presents to the Court, as a mother with high levels of resilience, capable of placing the interests of her child as the primary consideration.
3. The child's views do not support a no time order, and even at her tender age, the supervised visits are generally enjoyed by X and meaningful.
4. I deal later with the differences in the two stark competing proposals, on X's developmental, psychological and emotional needs.
5. I am satisfied and the mother has demonstrated the capacity to meet the child's needs, even when under significant pressure which inevitably, flew from the birth of X's siblings Y in 2021 and FF in 2022 and the strain of the financial and property litigation. The father has not shown the same capacity - and it is clear on all the evidence his capacity is compromised. The father did not attempt to even try to assist the Court (or provide comfort to the mother), by either giving evidence or seeking to adduce evidence from a medical specialist like a psychiatrist (or even a clinical psychologist) directed to how he might try to deal with his functioning.
6. Clearly X's relationship with her mother provides the support, guidance and stability to continue to develop well. In this primary relationship she has been able to develop a close and warm relationship with her stepfather Mr F and her siblings Y and FF.
7. X does have a relationship with her father and the paternal grandparents, evidenced by both the observations made by Mr GG, but particularly Ms Z, which I accept. I am satisfied X does benefit from these relationships and although these relationships might be improved and develop with more memorable experiences, supervision does cause some obvious limitations.
8. Section 60CC(2)(f), invites the Court to consider "anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child".
9. In this respect, at paragraph 72 and 73 of the mother's written submissions, Counsel for the mother seeks a Jones & Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298 inference that the failure of the father to call evidence from the paternal grandfather Mr G means that the paternal grandfather's evidence would not have assisted the father's case. Although the inference may be available, the more concerning aspect of the failure to call evidence, is that it robbed the Court of important evidence about how the paternal grandparents saw the visits of X being of benefit to her and what the future holds for X's relationship with the father - and almost as important - their relationships with their granddaughter, an issue the mother conceded was important to X. The father is recorded as making some remarks to Mr GG about his parents' views, and how as former teachers, they have an insight into the developmental needs of children. By not giving evidence, it is impossible to make findings beyond the fact that X enjoys spending time with her grandparents, which has for the majority of time, been occurring at their home.
10. Of course, the paternal grandparents had a right to seek to intervene in these proceedings and seek separate orders to provide opportunities for X to spend time with them - like many grandparents do. It is mere speculation that their failure to get involved more directly, in this way, in the parenting litigation reflects a concern they have as to how such actions might affect their relationship with their son (the father), or whether as the mother believes, they are not prepared to expose their beliefs about the existence or otherwise of their sons addictions. The failure to give evidence, at least means that the mother's concerns about the paternal grandparents being the only supervisors, should not be reasonably rejected.

1. The well-structured written submissions of the mother's Counsel at paragraph 44 to 53, provides a number of authorities which have sought to discuss the general undesirability and unsatisfactory nature for long term supervised contact and then the issues that can arise from cessation of time. I see no need to discuss the helpful authorities, which re-enforces the discretionary nature of parenting directions which must focus on the best interests of a child, as the paramount consideration, but not the only consideration. I note, for example, caution has been expressed about orders for long term supervision having no "review clause" see (Champness & Hanson [2009] FamCAFC 96 at [219]).
2. I have reached at conclusion, on the evidence at this time, that continued supervised time, whilst in some ways problematic, is in the best interests of X and "warranted" (see Betros & Betros [2017] FamCAFC 90 at [13]) and that ceasing time is not in her best interests, for a number of reasons which I now identify, in no particular order of priority, namely:

(a) X does have an established relationship with her father and she derives some benefit from that relationship - not only a sense of identity with the paternal side of her life, but because the activities she engages in with her father are creating positive memories;

(b) even the supervised time, allows engagement with the paternal grandparents, emphasising a sense of family;

(c) Mr GG did not support a "no time" order, nor does the ICL - which is not definitive of the position, but certainly requires weight;

(d) even though the Court is not satisfied the father has the willingness or capacity to deal with his issues at this time, parenting orders are aspirational and it would be brave to accept it might never happen. I accept that the mother feels the father has been given plenty of chances. But effectively removing him from the child's life is not the answer; and

(e) the father has the financial capacity to meet the costs of a professional supervisor and this enables this option to be considered.

1. It is difficult to assess how, or when (as is likely), X might begin to find even monthly visits, less enjoyable or if she was to become confused about how she only sees her father in the environment created by the Orders. However, I accept the mother has the skills to deal with those issues sensitively.
2. I cannot discount the possibility that at some future time, an application evoking s 65DAAA of the Act might be necessary by:

(a) the mother seeking to cease time because of wishes being expressed by the child; or

(b) the father seeking to move to more regular or expanded time (including perhaps the removal of supervision);

1. That will be a matter for the Court at that time, on the evidence, but at least these Reasons might provide some context for why the Orders pronounced today, have been made.
2. The Orders which appear at the commencement of these Reasons are in X's best interests, adopting the ICL's minute of order, but:

(a) increasing the child's time with the father from 12.00pm noon from 5.30pm, so as to allow the child to share a meal with the father and his family - a generally important bonding experience; and

(b) providing for FaceTime to occur each Wednesday. I accept that FaceTime is not a real substitute for physical time, however I do not believe the child interacting with the father once a month physically and two times a month by FaceTime, is sufficient to seek to maintain the relationship that now exists.

I certify that the preceding forty-nine (49) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Baumann.

1. The mother shall have sole decision-making in respect of all major long-term issues for the child, X born 2018 ("the child").

1. The child is to live with the mother.
2. That the child spend time with the father under the supervision of Ms Z as follows:
   1. one Sunday each month as agreed by the parents in writing and failing agreement on the first Sunday of the month, between 1.30pm and 5.30pm or such shorter period that the independent professional supervisor is available, SUBJECT TO:
      1. for the child's birthday, the time is to be spent on the Sunday closest to her birthday;
      2. for Easter, the time is to be spent on Easter Sunday if the independent professional supervisor is able to accommodate such arrangement;
      3. for Christmas, the time is to be spent on the Sunday closest to Christmas Day if the Mother has not earlier notified the Father that the child will be away from the South East Queensland area for Christmas;
   2. with the paternal grandparents to be responsible for facilitating changeover at the commencement and conclusion of time from the Mother's residence;
   3. with the visits to occur at the paternal grandparents' residence or such other place as agreed between the parents, and
   4. at the cost of the Father.
3. In the event that Ms Z is no longer available to supervise the child's time with the Father, the Mother is to propose a panel of three independent professional supervisors who are available to supervise the time set out in these Orders and the Father will nominate his choice of supervisor within seven days and the provisions of Order 3 will then apply to that supervisor.

1. The child will spend her school holidays with the Mother, and time under Order 3 is suspended during all school holiday periods, save that the child will spend supervised time with the Father from 1.30pm - 5.30pm on a Sunday during January as agreed and failing agreement on the second Sunday.

1. Provided the child is spending time with the Father in accordance with Order 3 herein, the Father communicate with the child by Facetime every second Wednesday, before 7.00pm, facilitated by the Mother assisting the child to call the Father.

1. Pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Father is hereby restrained from driving a motor vehicle with the child as a passenger unless there is prior written consent from the Mother.
2. The Father is restrained from attending the child's school, any hospital or health service provider the child is attending, or any of her extra-curricular activities or sports at a time when the child is present, unless there is prior written consent from the Mother.

1. That the parents use the Talking Parents App for all communication between them about child related issues.
2. The Mother and Father will keep the other parent informed at all times of their mobile phone number and email address and notify each other within forty-eight ( 48) hours of any changes to those details.

1. The Father shall advise the Mother if and upon being charged with any offence by police and shall detail the nature of the charges to the Mother within three days of any such charge being laid.

1. The Mother shall inform the Father as soon as is reasonably practicable of any serious illness, accident or medical emergency involving the child and in the event the child attends hospital for any illness or injury, the Mother shall notify the Father within six (6) hours.
2. In the event of any medical condition, health issue or illness suffered by the child while in the Father's care, he or the supervisor must notify the Mother forthwith if the child requires medical treatment, but if the child does not require medical treatment, then he or the supervisor is to notify the Mother of the medical condition, health issue or illness at the time that the child return to the Mother's care.
3. The Mother shall do all acts and sign all necessary documents to authorise the child's education facilities to give the Father information about her educational or other progress and other related activities.
4. These Orders operate as an authority to any medical practitioner or any other health care professional providing services to the child to communicate with the Father in writing and provide him with all such information and documents, he may request from time to time regarding the child's attendance upon that medical practitioner.

1. Pursuant to s65Y of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the mother is at liberty to remove the child from the Commonwealth of Australia for holiday travel.
2. For the purpose of section 11(1)(b)(i) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth), the child X born 2018 is permitted to hold Australian Travel Documents including an Australian passport.
3. The Mother is authorised, by these Orders, to make any application for passport or renewal of a passport for the child and this Order stands as an authority for the Australian Passport Office to issue a passport to the child on the basis of any application made solely by the Mother.
4. In the event the child travels internationally with the Mother, the Mother is to provide the Father with:
   1. written notice of the intended travel at least 28 days prior to the departure date; and
   2. a written itinerary including the flight numbers of the international flights; destination cities; accommodation and contact numbers, 14 days prior to the departure date.

1. Pursuant to s 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Mother is permitted to provide these Orders to the child's school, to the professional supervisor and to the paternal grandparents.

1. The Mother agrees for the child to spend time with the paternal grandparents at such places and for such times as decided by the Mother upon receiving a signed Undertaking from the paternal grandparents that they have read these Orders and undertake not to allow the Father to spend time with the child in any way contrary to these Orders.
2. The mother agrees to notify the paternal grandparents, once each term, of the extra curricular activities the child is engaged in, and the paternal family are at liberty to attend events that grandparents and extended family members are normally invited to attend, subject to the sole discretion of the school or activity provider.