Callisto & Callisto [2025] FedCFamC2F 373 (21 March 2025)

(a) X will live with the mother from the conclusion of school (or 3:30pm) on Friday 28 March 2025 to the commencement of school (or 8:30 am) Friday 4 April 2025 and each alternate week thereafter; and

(b) X will live with the father from the conclusion of school (or 3:30pm) on Friday 4 April 2025 to the commencement of school (or 8:30 am) Friday 11 April 2025 and each alternate week thereafter.

1. X's time with each of the parties pursuant to Order 2 above is suspended during all New South Wales school holiday periods.

1. The costs sought by the Independent Children's Lawyer is dismissed.

1. The Initiating Application filed on 19 December 2022 and amended on 17 April 2023 and the Response to Initiating Application filed 6 February 2023 are dismissed.

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

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

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

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

1. These are parenting proceedings concerning the sole child of the relationship between Ms Callisto ("the mother") and Mr Callisto ("the father"), X ("X"), who is currently 12 years old. X was eight years old when the parties separated in August 2021.
2. The relatively amicable parenting relationship the parties enjoyed post-separation crumbled quickly, becoming increasingly conflictual to the point where they were unable to communicate even as to issues that had the benefit of concise and simply articulated interim orders regulating same. The parenting arrangements post-separation have, on several occasions, shifted substantially and X has been required to deal not only with those changes including, significantly, not seeing his mother for a period of three months, but also an acute awareness of the protracted parental conflict.
3. To their credit, the parties were able to resolve a significant number of contested issues during the course of the final hearing and orders were made by consent that include X spending half of the school holidays with each party. The following issues require determination:-
   • The allocation of decision making responsibility.
   • The time that X spends with each of the parties during the school terms.
   • Whether an order should be made for the engagement by the parties of a parenting coordinator for a minimum of 12 months as sought by the Independent Children's Lawyer.
   • Whether an order should be made that X's time with the father be suspended for a two-week period each year during X's school's annual Country B Exchange Student program, with the father being afforded makeup time at a time nominated by him (provided such time does not included the period 24 December to 1 January).
   • Whether an order should be made as sought by the Independent Children's Lawyer that their appointment continue for a further six months from the date of the final orders.
   • Costs sought by the Independent Children's Lawyer.
4. The father seeks to continue the current arrangement whereby X lives with each of the parties on a week about basis from Friday to Friday. This position is supported by the Independent Children's Lawyer and the single expert. The mother wants to decrease such time so that X spends four nights a fortnight with the father in one block period from Friday until the following Tuesday. The father and the Independent Children's Lawyer propose the parties have joint decision-making responsibility for long-term decisions, while the mother's substantive position is that she be allocated sole responsibility for making long-term decisions.
5. Despite the cross-allegations of family violence and the mother's various assertions as to risk in the father's care, no factual findings as to family violence are sought in light of the parties' positions as to time. It was submitted that family violence best be examined through a lens of parental conflict as opposed to an issue in and of itself. Thus, for the reasons recorded below, the ultimate question for me to determine so as to make orders in X's best interests is what arrangements will reduce the real risk of psychological harm for X, irrespective of his apparent emotional robustness, in being exposed to the parties' highly conflictual and toxic parenting relationship.

1. The applicant mother relied on the:-
   • Amended Initiating Application filed 17 April 2023;
   • Notice of Risk filed 18 December 2022;
   • Affidavit of herself filed 23 December 2024;
   • Child Impact Report of Ms D dated 28 March 2023 ("the Child Impact Report")[1];
   • Single Expert Report of Ms E dated 20 January 2025 ("the Single Expert Report")[2];
   • Outline of Case filed 5 February 2025; and
   • documents tendered during the course of the hearing including the Minute of Order sought by the Mother at the conclusion of the evidence.[3]
2. The respondent father relied on the: -
   • Response to Initiating Application filed 6 February 2023;
   • Notice of Risk filed 6 February 2023;
   • Affidavit of himself filed 31 December 2024;
   • Paternal Grandmother's Affidavit filed 31 December 2024;
   • Single Expert Report;
   • Outline of Case filed 3 February 2025; and
   • documents tendered during the course of the hearing.
3. The Independent Children's Lawyer relied on the:-
   • Amended Minute of Outline of Case Document filed 30 January 2025 which attached the orders sought by the Independent Children's Lawyer;
   • Single Expert Report;
   • Child Impact Report;
   • Report of Mr F dated 7 August 2023[4]; and
   • documents tendered during the course of the hearing.

1. The mother was born in 1977 and is currently aged 47. The father was born in 1977 and is also presently 47 years of age. The parties met online in 2011, commenced cohabitation in July 2012 and were married in 2012.
2. X was born in 2013. The mother took maternity leave for a period of approximately 6 months following his birth. The paternal grandmother assisted the mother during this period including staying over at the home to allow the mother to rest. When the mother returned to work in late 2013, X spent one day per week at the paternal grandparents' home and attended daycare at C Family Day Care twice a week.
3. The father was placed on a mental health care plan in late 2014.
4. X commenced daycare with Ms G at H Family Day Care in 2015.
5. In late 2015 the father underwent a mental health care review.
6. In July 2016, X commenced daycare at J Early Learning Centre three days per week.
7. The father was placed on a further mental health care plan in mid-2017.
8. X commenced preschool at K School three days per week in October 2018 and then began Year 1 at L School, Suburb M in February 2019.
9. Though there appears to have been numerous periods of separation throughout the relationship, the parties did not separate on a final basis until 18 August 2021, at which time they remained separated under one roof until the mother vacated the home with X in October 2022. Brief separations included the following:
   • In August 2015, the mother left the home with X, describing the relationship at the time as "volatile." She returned to the home in March 2016.
   • The father left the home in June 2017, returning in mid-2018 by agreement.
   • In 2019 the parties separated for a period of one month when the father moved into the paternal grandparent's residence at Suburb N.
10. The father was diagnosed with a pornography addiction in 2021 and commenced therapy in relation to same in late 2021. He self-admitted to O Hospital in order to address such issues in late 2021. The father then attended a program through a support group in late 2021.
11. On 10 November 2022 the father collected X from school. Whilst in the father's care that week, X was absent from school on 11, 14 and 15 November without explanation. X was again absent from school without explanation on 21 November 2022.
12. Between November 2022 and December 2022, several incidents arose that represented an escalation of the conflict between the parties, primarily surrounding uncertainty in X's parenting arrangements. Such escalation culminated with an event occurring in November 2022 at the home of the father and paternal grandparents, in which the mother conceded she behaved in an inappropriate manner:
    • The mother deposes that X was not returned to her care at the agreed time of 11:00am and despite contacting the father did not receive a response. Police material records that the father had a flat tyre and at 7:00pm offered to meet the mother at P Store for the changeover, however the mother was making dinner and requested X be dropped at her home. The father did not wish to do this.
    • At 8:00pm, the mother drove from her address in Suburb M to the home of the paternal grandparents in Suburb N and approached the front door, knocking.
    • The father and paternal grandparents refused to let the mother inside the home and requested she leave. The mother continued to knock on the windows and front door "extensively for minutes at a time" and "continued harassing and frightening the PINOPs for a further 15 minutes before police arrived."[5]
    • It was recorded that X was towards the back of the house, could hear the loud noise and was scared as a result. The mother stated during cross-examination that she was not sure what X heard as he had headphones on but agreed her behaviour was inappropriate regardless and that she "would have appeared out of control" to X.
13. The father requested that the parenting arrangements move to week on/week off on 30 November 2022. The mother declined this request.
14. An incident occurred between the mother and the paternal family in December 2022 at X's sports game. The paternal family claim that the mother approached them aggressively and physically assaulted the paternal grandfather. The mother denies this and asserts she was simply trying to say goodbye to X and was prevented from doing so.[6] A finding was not sought at to this incident.
15. The mother and father both reported this incident to Police, who, later that evening, attended both the paternal grandparents' and the mother's home to take the parties' and grandparents' respective statements. In December 2022 the mother was served with an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order. In early 2023, the mother consented on a "without admissions" basis to orders restricting her behaviour as to the paternal grandmother for a period of 12 months.
16. The father unilaterally withheld X from the mother's care from December 2022 to 5 March 2023; a period of three months, asserting that he did not believe it to be in X's best interests to see the mother until he had been assessed by a child psychologist. During this time, X saw the mother only once inadvertently at a funeral. The mother observed X to be uncomfortable and unsure "what he could/couldn't do" while he was with her.[7]
17. The father unilaterally arranged X to attend upon Dr Q of R Medical Clinic in December 2022. Dr Q diagnosed X with an "adjustment disorder" and a Mental Health Care Plan was created. X was referred to Dr S for "counselling to challenge automatic thoughts, manage inter-personal conflicts" and to "promote realistic self concept."[8] X continues to attend upon Dr S.
18. The mother sought urgent recovery orders on 19 December 2022. Orders were made by consent on 7 February 2023 that X spend time with the mother supervised by T Contact Service for four consecutive weekly sessions each Sunday from 8:30am to 12:30pm, with T Contact Service to prepare a report on such time. Notations were made that upon the completion of the four visits the "legal representatives shall confer with the view to continuing the mother's time with the child pending further order."
19. X spent time with the mother pursuant to the orders on 5 March 2023. It is uncontested that the visit was positive. There were then a further three supervised visits across a five week period.
20. Orders were made by consent on 18 April 2023 that X's time with the mother graduate over a period of six months, culminating in a week about arrangement from Friday to Friday commencing in October 2023. This remains the current arrangement. Orders were further made that the parties ensure X continue to attend upon Dr S, with the gap medical costs to be shared equally.
21. On 5 June 2023, the parties contacted "U Centre" to commence family therapy and subsequently engaged in separate video sessions with family therapist Mr F on 25 July 2023. Mr F then spoke to the parties again virtually on 7 August 2023. Mr F's report of same date opined that the parties' communication and decision making was ineffective and increasing the tension; thus they should utilise a parenting app in conjunction with a communication protocol to improve the effectiveness of their communication and start to reduce the "ill feeling" that the parties feel towards each other. Family therapy was not recommended at that time as a result of the family violence allegations and the father's reluctance to commit to the therapy. [9]
22. The mother completed the Parenting After Separation course on 23 July 2023.
23. A number of incidents of concern occurred in 2024:
    • The father took X out of school in early 2024 without the mother's consent or awareness despite it being the mother's time. The mother was advised by X, not the father, that he had been collected as the family dog was to be put down.
    • The father again unilaterally collected X from school on X's birthday. Pursuant to Order 9(f) of the 18 April orders, the mother was due to spend time with X from after school until 8:00pm. Such time did not occur. The father did not permit X to speak to the mother by telephone.
    • The father refused to allow the mother to take X home from sports training in April 2024. This incident was reported to the NSW Police by the parties after both recorded the interaction however no action was taken by police.
    • At 7:00 pm on 2 May 2024, the mother advised the father that X was too ill with a cold to attend school and that, pursuant to the interim orders, would be available for collection by the father at 8:30 am the following morning. The father failed to respond. X was eventually collected by the father at 12:00 pm on the Saturday.
    • The father again withheld X from 24-26 July during the mother's time. The father did not respond to any communication as to handover from the mother. The mother discovered X was not at school on 24 July through the online school portal.
    • The father again withheld X on 3 August 2024, citing that X was "highly distressed and outright refuses to go," and that he requested to be collected after his sports game the next day. Two players from X's sports team were due to stay at the mother's home but were unable to as X was not there. Thus, three players missed the game (including X). The mother asserts that X informed her after the fact that it was a relative's birthday.
24. The mother completed the Tuning Into Kids program on 14 March 2024.
25. The parties and Independent Children's Lawyer attended a Dispute Resolution Conference on 8 August 2024 and were unable to reach agreement.
26. The matter was listed on 20 September 2024 for final hearing for three days commencing 10 February 2025. The parties were granted an extension of time for filing their trial material on 12 December 2024.
27. The father's solicitor filed a Notice of Ceasing to Act on 5 February 2025, five days prior to the commencement of the trial. On the first day of the trial the father made an application for an adjournment of the final hearing for a period of three months in circumstances where he did not have legal representation and his application for a Legal Aid grant was still pending. The mother and Independent Children's Lawyer opposed such application. I dismissed the father's application in circumstances where the decision to discharge his legal representation was his own, where I was not satisfied the father would receive a grant of Legal Aid (noting he is a business owner) and where such an adjournment would not correlate with the overarching purpose of this court. The father thus represented himself and I allowed him time to prepare his cross-examination.

1. It was apparent to me that the mother had prepared exceptionally well for her cross-examination to the extent that it presented as a job interview - every question was an opportunity to present herself and her case in its best light, irrespective of what had been asked of her. There was no self-reflective capacity evidenced in any of the answers given as they all appeared rehearsed and prepared. Her answers were, at times, self-serving and non-responsive, designed to bolster her case:

FATHER: The report states that [X] values the equal shared care arrangement as it allows him to maintain strong relationships with both parents. Do you believe restricting his time with his father would strengthen or weaken this relationship?

MOTHER: I believe it will strengthen it.

FATHER: How will it strengthen it?

MOTHER: I believe that [Mr Callisto]'s reliance on his parents, his elderly parents, which are in their mid-70s, is a significant contributor that [X] would be best placed in my care.

HER HONOUR: Sorry that doesn't answer the question... how do you say that decreasing the time will strengthen the relationship between [X] and the father?

1. She further frequently repeated, outside the bounds of the questions asked of her, the benefits she saw reflected in her parenting capacity arising from the various parenting courses she had undertaken; she referred to the Parenting After Separation Course on four occasions and Tuning into Kids program on three occasions. She was at all times calm and composed.
2. Whilst acknowledging that the father was as a litigant in person during the final hearing, he appeared flustered and emotional during the course of cross-examination and was repeatedly unable to answer simple questions asked of him, requiring they be repeated several times. I formed the view that the father was unable to answer questions asked of him in a timely manner as he was trying to ascertain where the questions were leading, so as to answer in a manner that best presented his case.
3. I did not find either party to be an impressive witness.
4. The paternal grandmother was asked questions briefly. I formed the view that she gave her evidence to the best of her ability and recollection and her evidence was unchallenged. She was a credible witness.

1. The court is compelled to make such parenting orders that are considered proper.[10] When making parenting orders the court is to regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. [11] A child's best interests are ascertained by a mandatory consideration of six non-hierarchical criteria set out in section 60CC(2) of the Act.
2. In contemplating the mandatory considerations the Court must consider any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving a child or a person caring for a child, together with any family violence order that applies or has ever applied to a child or a member of the child's family. [12] Unless it is in the child's best interests to do so, the court must ensure that orders made are consistent with any family violence order and does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence.[13]
3. Unless an order is made to change it, parental responsibility for a child is vested in their parents regardless of their relationship status.[14] When an order is made conferring parenting responsibility for a child to more than one person in relation to "major long-term issues" the order may prescribe whether those persons have joint or sole decision making authority in relation to all or only specified issues.[15] "Major long-term issues" is defined to include issues such as the child's education, religion, culture, health, name and changed living arrangements.[16]

1. A Single Expert Report dated 20 January 2025 ("the single expert report") was prepared for the purposes of the final hearing by Ms E, educational and developmental psychologist ("the single expert"). There was no challenge to her expertise and I am satisfied she is suitably qualified to provide her expert opinion to the court.
2. The single expert broadly recommended that the current shared care arrangement continue, provided that parental conflict is minimised as:

Whilst there may be benefits for [X] to be primarily in one household given the level of parental discord, I think at his age it will overall create more difficulties for him.[17]

1. She further recommended that:-
   • Both parties engage a parenting coordinator for a minimum period of twelve months.
   • X continue to seek support from his psychologist to address his emotional needs and navigate the complexities of his family dynamics.
   • The final orders be as specific, detailed and clear as possible regarding all aspects of handovers.
2. The single expert was cross examined. Prior to such cross-examination she had read the trial affidavit of each of the parties.
3. I found the single expert's oral evidence to be clear, thoughtful and reasoned. She was an impressive expert witness. I give significant weight to her report and oral evidence which is discussed in more detail later in these reasons.

1. The mother's proposal will reduce the time that X spends with the father and the paternal grandparents from seven nights to four nights a fortnight. The proposal of the father and the Independent Children's Lawyer will continue the current equal time arrangement. Both parties assert that their proposal is in accordance with X's wishes and views.

1. It is uncontested that the parties' relationship was volatile, with the parties separating on a number of occasions and seeing a relationship counsellor on an irregular basis over the course of approximately eight years. Both parties make cross-allegations as to family violence occurring during and post separation. The mother alleges that the father has struggled with his mental health and has had a pornography addiction and substance abuse problems.
2. It is unnecessary to traverse the cross-allegations of family violence as:-
   • The parties concede that their co-parenting relationship has been highly conflictual.
   • The parties agree that specific findings as to the cross-allegations of family violence are unnecessary to determine what is in X's best interests.
   • Both parties seek orders that X spend at least substantial time with the other including overnight during school terms and half of the school holidays, which renders any substantial risk factor null.
   • Neither party seeks any order or injunction to preserve the safety of X.
   • No order or injunction is sought to preserve the safety of either the mother or the father.
3. At the conclusion of the final hearing it was submitted by the mother that X should live with her and spend four nights a fortnight with the father arising from the father's parental capacity and the potential risk to X of exposure to the father. This risk, the mother asserts, arises from the father's mental health and his lack of capacity to shield X from conflict and his own perspectives. It was not submitted, as was asserted in the mother's written evidence, Outline of Case and interviews with various experts in this matter, that the risk of harm in the father's care arose from X's exposure to adult content in the father's home, the father's drug use, and the father's authoritarian style of discipline.
4. I raised with the mother several times the inherent contradiction in her position that it is in X's best interests to spend four nights with the father (and her open offer of five nights per fortnight during submissions) during school terms and half of school holidays, and her assertions as to the factors recorded above giving rise to a risk of harm for X in the father's care. As Austin J stated in Pickford and Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249 at [90]:

Implicitly, the mother's case was posited on the basis that neither she nor the children were at any risk of harm from family violence committed by the father provided the children only spend four nights per fortnight with him in school terms, so it is entirely unclear how she could have conversely contended the children were at risk of such harm if they instead spend five, six or seven nights per fortnight with him in school terms. It may be wondered: what danger could emerge on the fifth night to threaten the children's safety which danger would be absent on the previous four nights? The question is incapable of a rational answer. The curious paradox was accentuated by the mother's satisfaction the children could safely spend one-half of all school holidays with the father, which would certainly entail them staying with him for no less than seven contiguous nights in each holiday stint.

1. The mother was unable to meaningfully address this paradox in her position.
2. In any event, there is no evidence to support a finding that the mother's concerns ground a finding that these issues pose an unacceptable risk of harm to X for the reasons recorded below.
3. I do not accept that the paternal grandparents' assistance in caring for X presents a risk arising from the father's incapacity to parent. The single expert report writer opines that it is not uncommon for children to benefit from the involvement of grandparents in their daily lives who can provide children "with additional support, stability, and a sense of family continuity."[18] Both the father and paternal grandmother gave evidence that whilst they all assist in X's care, ultimately it is the father that makes the parenting decisions and the grandparents do not interfere with his parenting. The father cooks for X and ensures he has a good health routine. They participate in activities together and have shared interests including watching movies, camping and sporting activities. There is no evidence to ground a finding that the paternal grandparents are not able to continue assisting the father in the care of X.
4. It is uncontested that the father is a "disciplined parent whose style emphasis routine, responsibility and fostering independence."[19] His tendency to adopt a rigid and authoritarian approach may lead to emotional distance and feelings of pressure by X. X told the single expert that one sporting dynamic is "hard" especially with the father as the coach, as there were better players in the team and the father would continue his coaching conversations at home. He felt the father was less harsh on him in another sport as he was "the best player on the team." [20] Whilst the father denies being a disciplinarian, he made appropriate concessions to the single expert that he has adopted a more encouraging and positive approach to his parenting style with X, especially sports. The single expert recorded at [153] that:

Pleasingly, the father did show some insight into this dynamic during his interview and has made attempts to be more encouraging and positive in his approach, which has been noted by both [X] and [Ms Callisto].

Moreover, the father noted during cross examination that he would no longer be X's sports coach for the new sports term this year and moving forward. I accept that this will likely decrease the pressure X felt in his sports endeavours to his benefit. I thus do not accept that there is an unacceptable risk of harm to X arising from the father's parental capacity.

1. There is no evidence to ground a finding that the father currently lives with mental health issues. I accept that the father has suffered with mental health fragilities in the past, including in late 2021 prior to his stint at O Hospital, where his recent symptoms were recorded as "[...] Depression - low mood, not able to function, emotional, sometime [sic] feels frozen."[21] The father further conceded that it is true the mother does not have any visibility as to the management of his mental health due to their lack of communication. However, the single expert's opinion that the father's mental health currently appears to be stable was unchallenged and I so find. The single expert's opinion that the father's profile does not indicate any significant clinical psychopathology was unchallenged and I so find.
2. There is no evidence to ground a finding that the father has current substance abuse issues that pose a risk to X's safety, nor is there sufficient evidence available for me to safely find in favour of the mother's concerns as to X being exposed to adult material in the father's home.
3. The above findings are again bolstered by the mother's position as recorded above that X spend substantial time with the father, including half school holidays. Further, the mother does not seek any orders:
   • requiring the father to obtain the assistance of any medical or therapeutic treatment as a condition of X spending time with him;
   • restraining the father's behaviour in any way as to the viewing of adult content material;
   • requiring the father to limit in any way X's access to video games or other viewing; or
   • restraining the father's use of illicit drugs.
4. For this reason, the determination as to X's best interests devolves to a consideration of his wishes and a comparative assessment of the parties' capacity to adequately provide for his needs, particularly including the parties' ability to shield X from conflict.

1. X is in Year 5 at L School and appears to be a stellar student. He is engaged in a multitude of extracurricular activities including sports. He is in good physical health. X has attended upon child psychologist Dr S since this was unilaterally arranged by the father in December 2022. To the mother's credit, she has continued to facilitate X's attendance upon Dr S since this time despite not being involved in the decision to commence same. X carries a small sports bag to school on Fridays with his instrument for music class to facilitate his changeover between households on that day. He has a bedroom in each parent's home and his bedtime is usually the same in each household.[22]
2. X impressed on the single expert as a "reserved and quiet boy", who is "thoughtful and observant"[23] and demonstrates a "mature understanding for a child of his age of his circumstances."[24] That said, he exhibited some people-pleasing traits and emotional sensitivity as to the parental dynamic.[25] The mother describes X as loving, kind-natured and well-behaved, and throughout her cross examination, she frequently referred to him as being incredibly resilient. This characteristic was echoed by Ms E in her observations, and the father too conceded that even in the face of substantive change, particularly the fluctuating family dynamic, X is resilient.
3. Despite the mother's assertion in interview that "she thought that the current parenting routine was working well for [X]", she deposes in her trial affidavit that she "does not believe [X] is currently coping with the current arrangements."[26] During cross-examination she confirmed that she did not agree he is currently coping. For the reasons recorded below I do not accept this assertion.
4. X is of Country V and Australian heritage. Neither party made any submissions as to X's connection to culture and I am satisfied that both parties' proposals will support this connection.
5. Both parties have played a significant role in caring for X throughout his life. The paternal grandparents are also important people in X's life.
6. X is emotionally attuned and continues to be highly aware of the conflict between his parents as recorded by the single expert:

[X] stated that he could tell when his parents had been to Court because they wear "nice stuff" when they drop him to school and that they usually return in a "grumpy" mood. Likewise he stated that he could also tell if they were arguing over something even if they did not involve him because their mood changes and they are obviously annoyed at something.[27]

1. He further expressed that he would not like his parents to come close to one another at events because he is nervous that overt conflict would arise if they started to speak with each other. I accept that the interactions between his parents have given rise to a considerable amount of internal stress in X which is antithetical to his best interests.
2. X has been clear and consistent to third parties over the course of the last two years as to his wishes for his future parenting arrangements and these asserted wishes were a central focus of the final hearing. He told the Child Impact Report writer in March 2023 that he would like to live equally between his parents, with a weekend at each parent's home. He advised that he had no concerns about missing a parent as he would see the other again soon, and that he would like it to be "even" between his parents, stating that he was confident he could manage such an arrangement.[28]
3. On 4 September 2024 Dr S, X's psychologist, wrote to both the parties as he wanted to communicate his opinion to them after meeting with X earlier that day:

Briefly, [X] informed me that his emotional state this weekend was due to him disliking the possible decision of a change to the 50/50 arrangements to his time with you both. He enjoys a positive relationship with you both and expressed clearly his wish that his 7/7 arrangement not be changed....

....I expressed to [X] that he needed to make clear his wishes to the adults around him, including you both.[29]

1. When asked to speak to the current parenting arrangement to the single expert in December 2024, X said that:

he "liked it because it was equal and fair". He stated that it also prevented each parent from "complaining" that one of them "gets more time" with him. He also stated that if he had only a short time in one household, he may find it more difficult to go there because he would not be "used to it". He used the example of spending extended amount of time with one parent over the summer / Christmas holidays and finding it difficult to adjust back to the other household, saying it feels "weird".[30]

...

[He] couldn't think of any ways that his parents could make life between two homes any easier. He stated that he wanted "things to stay like they are" meaning he wished for the week about shared care arrangement to continue. He stated that he was not sure how his parents feel but that his mother sometimes asked him how he felt about the "seven/seven night routine".[31]

I accept and find that X is not struggling with the current shared care regime.

1. The mother's written evidence as to X's wishes in her affidavit was minimal; merely deposing that in November 2022 X said to her: "I want to stay here more." Despite her unshaken contention during cross-examination that X wishes to spend more time with her, the mother did not advise the single expert of X expressing such a wish to her during the interviews on 2 December 2024. Rather, when asked why she sought a change in the parenting arrangements, she adverted to the ambiguous nature and ongoing difficulties with the current interim orders and asserted that X would be better primarily in her care arising from her concerns as to the father's parenting of X, including his reliance on the assistance of the paternal grandparents, the exposure of X to adult content and the father's authoritarian parenting style. Because of what the mother described during cross-examination as an "abundance of facilities" in her home and X's wishes that he "wanted his dad to be a fun dad", she maintained her position that X wished to spend more time in her care. The mother submitted that the views and wishes as reported to various third parties are not his true position; this view is influenced by the father and by what he views is necessary to avoid his exposure to conflict.
2. The father asserts that it is X's wish for the current regime to continue. It became apparent during the course of the father's cross-examination that his knowledge of X's purported wishes arose from discussions he has had with the father:

COUNSEL: Do you accept that you told [X] at some point in the last three years since you've separated from his mother, that you wanted an equal time arrangement? You are under oath.

FATHER: Yes.

COUNSEL: How many times have you spoken to him about this?

FATHER: Numerous times.

COUNSEL: Have you spoken to [X] during 2024 about your desire for there to be an equal time arrangement?

FATHER: Yes.

COUNSEL: How many times during 2024 did you speak to [X] about the fact you wanted an equal time arrangement?

FATHER: Three.

1. Such conversations occurred despite the existence of an order restraining the parties from discussing the proceeding with, or in the presence of X. The father would not concede that such "discussions" could have influenced X's expressed wishes in any way. He maintained that if X's wishes were not followed, he would be psychologically harmed. He could not accept that he had placed X at risk of psychological harm by his actions in making X aware of his parents' conflicting views. This conduct reflects poorly on the father and indicates a lack of insight as to the possible effect of his conduct on X. It is a further example of the father's inability to place X's best interests above his own wants and needs.
2. It is further concerning that the father admitted to the single expert that he had asked X not to reveal details of what they do together to his mother. He conceded during cross-examination that this exposed X to his viewpoint, being that he does not trust the mother, making X acutely aware of the conflict between the parents. Again, this is antithetical to X's psychological wellbeing.
3. The Court Child Expert in the Child Impact Report evaluated X's wishes and opined that X's views as to equal time may be due to his developmental age and stage as X is at an age where he thrives on predictability and structure, and children of his age have a particular focus on fairness "particularly when it comes to time with their parents."[32] She stated however that:

[X] seemed confident when discussing his views about an equal time arrangement, especially in relation to how he would benefit from each parent's parenting style. [X]'s description of each parent's parenting style was consistent with the parents' views about how they parent.[33]

1. Relatedly, the single expert opined:
   1. [X] demonstrated a mature understanding for a child of his age of his circumstances. The developmental impact of exposure to conflict is a concern, as it may affect his emotional well-being and sense of security. He likely benefits from the structure and expectations provided by his father, as well as the emotional support and open communication fostered by his mother.
   2. [X] exhibits a people-pleasing side to his personality, which likely influences his expressed preference for maintaining the equal shared care arrangement. It is possible that this wish stems more from a desire to reduce conflict between his parents and keep both of them happy, rather than a clear understanding of what he truly wants for himself. His views appear to be entangled with his motivation to maintain harmony, which reflects his emotional sensitivity and awareness of the parental dynamic. This is not necessarily a negative trait, as keeping the current equal parenting arrangement may indeed be the least anxiety-provoking option for [X], providing him with the stability and balance he seeks in a high-conflict situation.
2. In light of the consistency of X's expressed wishes to various third parties over a period of time I accept that, on balance, his expressed wish is to continue the current shared care arrangement.
3. During the course of her cross-examination by the Independent Children's Lawyer, the single expert opined that significant weight should be placed on X's expressed wish for the current arrangements to continue arising from his age, his insight (partly as to the parties' communication difficulties and conflict) and avoidance of the conflictual nature of the parties' relationship. X's expressed wishes to the single expert was one of the determining factors in her recommendations. At this time the single expert was clear that, despite X having a people-pleasing nature and a wish to not be "unfair" to either of his parents, she did not have concerns that his expressed wishes for an equal time arrangement might not be an accurate reflection of his real wishes:

I do actually think, despite me commenting that he was very emotionally intuitive to what was going on, and therefore wanted to please both parents, and not rock any boats, I do actually think that those wishes align - what he has expressed to me, you know, does align with his genuine wishes, in this case. I - and I think, partly, that is due to the levels of conflict, and that he can recognise that maintaining an equal shared arrangement with two parents he has a good relationship with is the best thing for him. And - and I would agree with that.

1. Given X's age, his temperament, his background and the fact that he has now been cared for in an equal shared care arrangement for some time, it was the single expert's opinion that it is crucial for his voice to be heard.
2. During the course of her cross examination by the mother, the single expert did not concede that X's wishes do not genuinely align with those of the father even in circumstances where the father had on at least seven occasions told X that an equal time arrangement was his preference. She did concede that it was possible that X's expressed views to her have been influenced by an awareness of his father's desires and lack of awareness as to his mother's together with a desire to please his father. X's expressed wishes therefore could be better viewed as an expressed wish for his parents to stop fighting. Ultimately, the single expert conceded that on balance, a better way of understanding X's expressed wishes is as a desire for his parents to stop fighting. I accept this evidence and find accordingly.

1. X reported to the Child Impact Report writer that:-
   • His father is "strict"; he follows through on consequences, but he can be fun, affectionate and kind. [34]
   • His mother is warm, affectionate and caring. She is patient with him and allows him time to finish tasks or games; the father does not.
   • He is happy that his parents are no longer in a relationship as whilst he has some positive memories together as a family, he remembers his parents swearing and arguing with each other. X reported that he tried to ignore the arguments by turning up the volume on the television and that he felt "sad", "worried" and "scared".[35]
2. The single expert's opinion that X experienced stress during the period his parents lived together which likely resulted in some of his emotional needs being unmet or inconsistently addressed was unchallenged and I so find. Despite this, the single expert broadly observed X and the mother to have a positive and engaged relationship and the father and X to have a warm and lively relationship.
3. I have recorded and found above that the father's parenting style is more rigid and disciplined, though to his credit the father did show some insight as to this dynamic and as the single expert recorded, has "made attempts to be more encouraging and positive in his approach."[36]
4. In contrast to the father, it is uncontested that the mother provides a warm and emotionally nurturing environment for X.[37] Whilst there is dispute as to the specific events that occurred in December 2022 at X's sports, there does not appear to be any dispute as to the mother's actions in attending the home of the paternal family in November 2022. Both incidents were described by the single expert as "emotionally charged responses." [38] The mother conceded to the single expert that her actions in November 2022 would have been difficult and stressful for X. The mother has undertaken the Parenting After Separation program, the Tuning into Kids program and the U Centre online program for parents in high conflict. I accept from the mother's evidence and the unchallenged evidence of the single expert that despite these past incidents of emotionally charged responses, the mother has reflected on her actions and demonstrated insight.
5. The father has completed the Tuning into Kids program. There is no evidence that he has completed the Parenting After Separation course, bar his oral evidence that "[he's] sure [he's] done it." He could not recall anything he had learnt from such course and could not remember whether he had completed the course before seeing the family therapist. The father's inability to recall anything he has learnt from any parenting course he has undertaken is evidenced in both his actions and lack of insight as recorded in these reasons.
6. Individually the parties display relative strengths in their parenthood and can provide for X in their own manner. Unfortunately, there remain bitter fault lines in the co-parenting relationship and communication between the parties. Whilst I accept the mother has historically acted on impulse and contrary to X's interests, I attribute much of the parties' inability to communicate effectively to the father's reduced capacity to provide for and consider X's needs and best interests. His lack of insight in this regard is a significant issue in this matter.
7. I have adverted to some instances of the father withholding X without explanation to the mother above at paragraph 31. It became apparent to me during the course of the father's oral evidence that he had not, even as at the date of the final hearing, taken the time to read the interim orders carefully. This has caused significant conflict and mistrust between the parties. The father has an entrenched inability to communicate with the mother; his communication a pendulum oscillating from ignoring the mother entirely and/ or not keeping her appraised, to contacting her at not one but seven email addresses (despite her requests to the contrary) and copying in third parties to their communication, including X's psychologist and the single expert as recorded below:
   • In 2024, the mother emailed the father at 8:21am requesting that she collect X from school and return him to P Store at 8:00pm as it was her birthday. She sent a further email at 9:32am to confirm the arrangements. The father responded at 11:06am copying in Ms E, Dr S and his own solicitor. He stated that mother had interpreted the orders incorrectly and accused her of "staging" the arrangements between her and X and that "[X] is starting to notice these inconsistencies...these conflicting patterns are already affecting [X's] mental and emotional stability."[39] The mother simply responded, without copying in the multitude of third parties:

...if you would please confirm without delay if I am to collect [X] from school at 3pm, and I will return him to your care, at [P Store] at 8pm. If not, I look forward to seeing him on Friday.[40]

Whilst the father agreed to the mother's proposal his response again copied in the third parties. His response included:

Your actions demonstrate that you apply one set of rules to suit your needs while dictating a different set when it comes to [X]'s wishes to have a relationship with me.

...

[X] withheld himself as a "protest" against your discussion of changing the current care arrangements.

...

Despite the ongoing confusion around birthday arrangements and [X]'s "protest," I firmly believe it is in [X]'s best interest to spend Quality time with both parents on special occasions. I will not deny him the opportunity, nor the chance for you to build special moments with him.[41]

The office of the single expert advised all parties that the father's correspondence was inappropriate and would not be provided to her and Ms E, and requested the legal representatives discuss the issue with their clients.

• Despite having legal representation, the father again unilaterally contacted the single expert on 16 October 2024. He was again advised to speak with his lawyer.
• The mother emailed the father on 31 October 2024 advising him X was unwell and would not be attending school. In her email of 1 November 2024 at 6:55am the mother asked the father to confirm changeover at P Store at 8:30am in accordance with the interim orders. The father did not respond to the mother until 2:22pm and when doing so copied in her six other email addresses, as well as her primary email:

Given [X]'s symptoms over the past few days...Would you agree that seeing a doctor should have been a top priority while [X] was in your care?[42]

The mother responded that she has requested previously he stop sending emails to her various addresses and that changeover would be at 3:00pm. The father then wrote back, again copying in Ms E, Dr S and his solicitor:

It's concerning that the focus has been on changeover time and email addresses rather than on [X]'s immediate illness. [X] was in your care for the whole day, and his health should have been the top priority.

This is HIGHLY concerning.

...

Note to [Y], [Ms E] and [Dr S]:

[X]'s mum continues to interpret the court order in a way that suits her needs rather than [X]'s. She has established different changeover times for each week.

...

These inconsistencies contribute to [X]'s stress and anxiety, which I am actively helping him manage...these changes undermine the stability he needs.[43]

1. The father had to concede during cross-examination that the mother's correspondence was child focused. I find the father's actions in this regard to be not only highly inappropriate but patronising and undermining of the mother's parenting. He is clearly unable to regulate his behaviour for X's benefit. This reflects poorly on him. There is no documentary evidence before me as to the father's assertion that the mother "becomes inflexible, argumentative and will say and do what she wants to get her way."[44] As above, the evidence is to the contrary.
2. The father is recorded as telling Mr F in July 2023 that he wanted to minimise the communication that he has with the mother as the mother "uses the communication to blame and harass [him]."[45] This statement was made subsequent to the father having the benefit of the Child Impact Report dated 29 March 2023 which opined that an equal time arrangement (which he sought) would be negatively affected by "the parents' poor communication and allegations of family violence...unless the parents address their communication issues" and that "the parents may benefit from appropriate professional support to improve their communication."[46] Plainly, the father does not appear to tolerate communication with the mother well, if at all. There is no evidence that the father has made any attempt to change this behaviour for the benefit of X, given he was copying in the expert and Dr S into emails between the parties as recently as November 2024.
3. The father's denigration of the mother to third parties has also included the following:
   • X was absent from school on 2 September 2024. When completing the school absence form to advise that X would be absent for a further three days the father stated:

..it's come to my attention that [X] and his mother have been dealing with significant issues. He's even asked to miss school and his school concert out of fear that his mother might show up and "get angry" with him.[47]

• When filling out a Family Background Questionnaire for X's attendance on Dr S, the father recorded that the mother has a history of mental health issues but failed to disclose his own.
• The father wrote on an unknown date to a school parent group chat:

Hey [L School] Families

Has anyone seen [X] over the past 2 weeks?

i meant to see [X] today for [a special occasion] (Court Ordered) and he didnt show up.

I have tried calling and emailing with no response.....

Worried Father!

(As per original)

• The father sent a similar message the following year to the school parent group chat:

Dear Y4 Parents,

...

I have been trying to recover [X]'s winter uniform and is now being withheld.

...

Appreciate any help[49]

(As per original)

• In the GP referral form for X's Mental Health Plan dated 7 December 2022 it was recorded:

Mother having possible longstanding mental health issues stemming from ? violence during upbringing.[50]

• On 15 October 2024, the father emailed Dr S at 7:07pm:

Since [X]'s last appointment with you, where he expressed his "protest", his mother has continued to push for the 4/10 arrangement. As you know, there's a final hearing approaching where [X] will be interviewed and questioned. He's been asking how things are going and whether his protest worked - if the fighting has stopped. Unfortunately, I had to be honest and tell him no, as we have a series of in-depth interviews and meetings coming up in December. He wasn't happy with this news.

...

His mother and I have had ongoing conflict over the school fees - she's told the school that she wants nothing to do with it, so I've been managing the debt and paying the current fees...

I have some theories, including:

1. His mother may have influenced him or encouraged the idea of changing schools, as she has distanced herself from any involvement with the school.[51]

1. While the above is concerning, during cross-examination the father demonstrated some reflective capacity. He indicated that upon receiving and reading the single expert's report he had reflected on his actions and the mother's parenting ability and deposed that his behaviour in the past had been poor, and he was able to articulate the mother's positive parenting attributes. The father was further able to concede in cross examination that his decision to withhold X from the mother for a period of three months "was not well thought through". I accept that single expert's opinion at [155] that:

[Mr Callisto]'s decision to withhold [X] from his mother appears to have been impulsive, reactionary, and inflammatory. It is likely that [X] was never at any significant risk while in [Ms Callisto]'s care, and the period of separation would have been a confusing and distressing experience for him. While [Mr Callisto] has framed his actions as a protective measure, the withholding of [X] not only further deteriorated the already strained parental relationship but also acted as a catalyst for litigation proceedings. This course of action likely contributed to [X]'s emotional turmoil and created additional conflict between his parents. [Mr Callisto]'s lack of a clear, long-term plan for withholding [X] raises concerns about his motivations, which may have been influenced by feelings of spite or a desire for retribution against [Ms Callisto], rather than a genuine concern for [X]'s well-being.

1. In light of the findings above, I accept the single expert's opinion that each parent possesses strengths and challenges that impact their ability to provide for X with both parents presenting as having a strong commitment to X's well-being, albeit with different parenting styles. However, the father's deficit in appropriate communication and frequent subversion of the mother as recorded above does little to assuage my concerns as to conflict minimisation. His involvement of X in adult discussions including the payment of his school fees is entirely inappropriate, places X in the centre of the parties' conflict and exposes him to psychological harm.

1. The mother seek seeks an order that X live with her and spend time with the father during school term each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school on Friday until the following Tuesday. The mother's proposal would mean a reduction in the time that X spends in the paternal family's household and thus with both the father and the paternal grandparents who are significant people in his life.
2. The father and the Independent Children's Lawyer propose that X live with each of the parties on a week about arrangement, with changeover between the parties occurring on a Friday. The father's proposal will continue the current arrangement of spending equal time with the mother and the paternal family.
3. The single expert agreed with the court child expert's opinion that generally, an equal time arrangement is best when the parents can demonstrate positive communication and can manage conflict away from a child. The single expert opined however that this would have more weight for a far younger child, and that X, given his age, will be able to live between two homes with minimal communication required between the parties in the future.
4. I have found that X's expressed wish to continue the current shared care arrangement arises from his desire for his parents to stop fighting. I accept that reducing the conflict that X is exposed to is in his best interests. Given his age, this wish is given significant weight in my determination. Thus the question is: whose proposal reduces the likelihood of conflict, and what effect would ignoring X's wishes have upon him?
5. The single expert's unchallenged oral evidence was that, if the court were to find that an equal share care arrangement was not in X's best interests, she would be concerned that X would internalise feelings of guilt, possibly self-imposed, and have feelings of worry for the father:

And I worry that that - that he would be very worried, upset and uncomfortable with that.....psychologically, it would require an enormous amount of support for that new routine by the father, and his parents, outwardly to [X]. Because, I think, given his personality and, I think, vulnerability, he would be quite anxious. I think if he detects this is unfair or not what his father wanted - I think he would really struggle with that.

....

...as I said, a lot of that comes down to the father's ability to be able to support that in combination with, I think, this young boy's temperament and his, I think, going to, yes, self-impose quite a bit of worry and guilt on himself if it moves through an equal time with his parents.

1. The single expert's opinion during her cross-examination by the mother as to the following was insightful:

..any change at all for this child...for him would signal not a cessation of-of fighting but, in fact, a continuation of it.

....that-partly, that knowledge may come from or-or that feeling may come from the knowledge that his father would not be happy at that, yes.

1. The single expert conceded that X is a resilient young man who would "ultimately" adjust, however opined that the length of time this adjustment would take and the ramifications for X in doing so is unknown. The single expert report opined in her written report at [159] that:

....[Ms Callisto] dismisses [X]'s expressed preference for the current equal shared care arrangement by suggesting that he would adjust easily to a change. This position does not fully consider [X]'s own sense of stability and comfort in the existing arrangement, which he perceives as fair and balanced. A shift in parenting arrangements, particularly against [X]'s wishes, could disrupt his sense of security and create unnecessary upheaval in his routine, underscoring the importance of giving due weight to his voice in this matter.

1. I accept the submissions of the Independent Children's Lawyer that ultimately, it is in X's best interests that he continue in a shared care parenting arrangement as this reduces his exposure to heightened conflict and his parent's respective desires. I do not accept the Independent Children's Lawyer's submission that this is not a case about the party's parenting capacities and the impact it has on X; a determination of X's best interests is axiomatically linked to the parties' parenting capacities. The single expert's final evidence was as follows:-

HER HONOUR: [Ms E], I just have one or two questions for you. You said on - several times during the course of your evidence today that the effect on [X] and the consequences for him psychologically, if I was to decrease his time with the father, would - and please tell me if I'm not quoting you correctly, but would very much depend on the parent's ability, and the father's ability specifically, to be able to support with [X] that change in the arrangements. Can you say anything about your views as the father's - as to the father's capacity in that regard?

THE SINGLE EXPERT: Thank you, your Honour. I think that not only would it require - you know, the level of support that it would require would be very explicit and outward vocalisations of support in the movement to that new arrangement. And hence why I think that if that was to happen, an order that the parties are to tell the child that they have come to that agreement together and they are both committed and 100 per cent, you know, supportive of that arrangement is - is paramount. I think this would only work if [X] truly believed that his father thought that this was the best thing for him going forward. I have reservations about the father being able to do that, purely based on the evidence even discussed before me today of the father's behaviour. Now, I understand the conundrum of - of potentially rewarding bad behaviour, and going down that line of keeping things as they are, because I don't think the father is able to support a new regime. And in terms of the parental conflict, and that is absolutely a risk going forward that this child will be continued to be exposed to parental conflict, and psychologically that is a risk factor, as he has been for a number of years now.

..The question that I had to pose myself was, to what extent will that conflict diminish? And then we minimise that with a nine/five routine or a ten/four routine. Conflict is minimised time-wise into five nights or four nights. But would the conflict still be present, and would that conflict be potentially heightened as the father struggles to cope with a loss of time with his son? So for those reasons, I do have - in answer to your question, I do have some reservations that the father would be able to support it. I think he would need some very explicit coaching, perhaps by a parent coordinator or such of the - specifically the words to use with [X], and to urge him in [X]'s best interest how to outwardly encourage and support his positive attitude towards a change in arrangements.

1. X's wishes are important and I place significant weight on them, not because I am merely acceding to the wishes of a 12 year old child but because of the ramifications of these wishes in light of the party's respective parenting capacities. I have found that the mother has a greater parenting capacity than the father. It is difficult to ignore the deficits in the father's parenting capacities which makes it such that I cannot, on the evidence, be satisfied that he will proactively support the implementation of any orders made by this court that do not accede to his proposal. For the reasons recorded above, I accept it as likely that in the event the mother's proposal were implemented, the father would undermine the arrangement by making X aware of his dissatisfaction and/or continuing to communicate with the mother with hostility, given his propensity to do so to date. The father will not have the benefit of a parenting coordinator for the reasons recorded below. I do not accept, for the reasons recorded above, that the father will shield X from his views.
2. Thus, I accept it is highly probable that the mother's proposal, irrespective of any potential benefit to X, will result in an increase in conflict between the parties. Reducing the risk of psychological harm to X requires a reduction in conflict and accordingly a reduction in the possibility that X will continue to be drawn into the parties' dispute. Whilst I accept that this unfortunately rewards "bad behaviour" by the father, it is not my role to punish behaviour or actions; I am mandated to make orders that are in X's best interests. I thus find that it is in X's best interests that the current care arrangements continue on a final basis.

1. Unless the Court makes an order changing the statutory conferral of joint parental responsibility, section 61(C) provides that each party will have parental responsibility until X attains the age of 18 years irrespective of the parties' relationship. When an order is made allocating parental responsibility for a child in relation to "major long-term issues" to more than one person, the order may prescribe whether those persons have joint or sole decision-making authority in relation to all or only specified issues (s 61D(3)). The Act defines "major long-term issues" to include those such as X's education, religion, culture, health, name, and changed living arrangements. Pursuant to s 65DAC of the Act, an order for equal shared parental responsibility requires the parents to make together (and jointly) decisions about major long-term issues affecting X.
2. The mother and father agreed at the commencement of the final hearing that X's health and education were both issues that will potentially require decisions to be made until X reaches adulthood. This joint position was borne out by both the written and oral evidence of the parties. It is clear that arising from the issue of the payment of X's school fees, a decision may need to be made in the near future as to the school that X will attend. X continues to attend upon a child psychologist. The parties have been unable to communicate as to X's medical needs in the past. Decisions will likely need to be made about his medical needs in the future, particularly given, as was submitted by Counsel for the mother, that X is a keen sportsman participating in sports that may inevitably cause injury. The submission of the Independent Children's Lawyer that there are no foreseeable issues that would require joint decision making is plainly incorrect and is rejected.
3. There is an inherent contradiction in the position taken by the father and the Independent Children's Lawyer that they could not agree to an order that would require the father to advise of two weeks makeup time in lieu of a two week block occurring with the mother during the Country B Exchange Student Program as this would lead to further conflict between the parties but the parties would be able to communicate in a manner to be able to come to joint decisions concerning long term issues for X. I accept the mother's submission that the father's inability to agree to this order as sought by the mother is emblematic of the difficulties the parties will face in the future.
4. Whilst the father told the single expert that "there are no issues now",[52] I am not satisfied that the mother and father will be able to communicate effectively and come to an agreement as to X's major long term issues as:-
   • The father himself submits that orders requiring further communication between the parties to give them effect gives rise to the potential for further conflict as the parties would not be able to jointly come to an arrangement with respect to same.
   • There are cross-allegations of family violence, and the father deposes that he has felt fearful in communicating with the mother in the past as the mother uses communications with him to blame and harass him. He further consistently noted during cross-examination that the mother's actions, primarily the incident giving rise to the Apprehended Domestic Violence Order has caused him "trauma".
   • There is a significant history of the parties being unable to communicate in a timely manner or at all as to simple issues such as changeover times and locations.
   • The father has been unable to communicate with the mother as to X's basic medical needs, and has in the past failed to facilitate his attendance on appointments the mother has organised with notice to him.
   • Despite their wishes to have a more amicable parenting arrangement, and the mother's statement in cross-examination that X's actual wish is for the parties to parent without conflict, this has not occurred to date.
   • The father conceded in cross-examination that his communications with the mother are "significantly hindered by deep-seated suspicion and mistrust" and he perceives the mother's actions through a "lens of defensiveness and scepticism." [53] The evidence as above as to the tone, tenor and content of such communication is concerning.
   • Family therapy was not recommended for the parties in 2023 because of such allegations of family violence and the father's reluctance to commit to it; advising the consultant psychologist that he wanted nothing to do with the mother.[54]
5. I accept in light of the reasons recorded above that requiring the parties to agree as to decisions concerning X's long term parenting arrangements gives rise to an inherent likelihood of further conflict and tension between the parties. This is clearly not in X's best interests. I am satisfied that in order to decrease the potential of harm to X only one party should be allocated long-term decision-making responsibility for X. I accept to reduce the possibility of future litigation that such responsibility be for all long-term decisions. Sole parental and decision-making responsibility will be allocated to the mother in circumstances where the father himself conceded that if I decided that an order allocating long-term decision making to one party only was in X's best interests, it should be to the mother. I am satisfied this best ensures X's continued therapy for example, as recommended by the single expert.

1. The Independent Children's Lawyer seeks that orders be made that the parties engage and equally financially contribute to the costs of a parenting coordinator for a minimum period of twelve months to assist the parties to:-
   1. Provide guidance and support to ensure that any parenting decisions remain focused on the child's best interests while minimising conflict between the parents.
   2. Provide a structured framework to address disputes constructively, reduce tension, and create a more stable and predictable environment for [X]. [55]
2. This position accords with the recommendations of the single expert.
3. There is no evidence before the court nor orders sought regulating the process of the parenting coordinator's appointment. There is clearly an issue as to the parties' ability to pay X's school fees. Neither party supports the orders sought by the Independent Children's Lawyer. I am satisfied that both the process of appointing the parenting coordinator and their role will potentially cause further conflict and tension between the parties. The single expert and X's psychologist has in the past been used by the father as a means to denigrate the mother and support his position. I am accordingly not satisfied that the appointment of a parenting coordinator as sought by the Independent Children's Lawyer is in X's best interests and is refused.

The Independent Children's Lawyer's Continued Appointment

1. The Independent Children's Lawyer was unable to advise the court as to the power to make an order that their appointment continue for a further period of six months upon the conclusion of the parenting proceedings. I am not satisfied the court has the power to make the order sought (see Austin J in Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249, at [143] - [147]) and it is refused.

1. The father did not consent to the order sought by the mother in her tendered minute of order that there be a two-week block period that X spends with her during the Country B Exchange Student Program, even though the father would be afforded the opportunity to also have a two-week block period in lieu. The father submitted that he could not agree to such an order as the nature of the parties' parenting relationship was such that it would lead to further conflict. The Independent Children's Lawyer did not agree with the proposed order as it was not consented to by the father. There being no evidence to ground the order sought, I refuse to make it.

1. No submissions were made in relation to any further Orders sought save for those addressed in the reasons herein.

1. The Independent Children's sought that each party pay one half of their costs; with the specific sum to be sought to be particularised by the Independent Children's Lawyer within 7 days of the conclusion of the hearing. Both parties oppose such an order and submit that a costs order would cause them financial hardship. Whilst neither party is legally aided, I am satisfied that the evidence as to each of their respective financial positions grounds a finding that a costs order would cause each of them financial hardship. I therefore refused the application for costs as sought by the Independent Children's Lawyer.

1. For the reasons recorded above, X's best interests are met by parenting arrangements that reduce the risk of psychological harm to him in being exposed to the parties' highly conflictual and toxic parenting relationship. In light of the parties' respective parenting capacities, this is achieved by a continuation of the current equal shared care arrangement.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and sixteen (116) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Murdoch.

[8] Exhibit M11 - Step 2 Mental Health Care Plan Action/Task.

[9] Report of Mr F, Consultant Psychologist dated 7 August 2023.

[10] Section 65D of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act")

[11] Section 60CA of the Act. This is confirmed in s 65AA.

[12] S60CC(2A)

[13] Section 60CG

[14] Section 61C(2), s61C(3) and s61D

[15] Section 61D(3)

[16] Section 4(1)

[17] Single Expert Report, paragraph 168

[18] Single Expert Report, paragraph 154.

[19] Single Expert Report, paragraph 153.

[20] Single Expert Report, paragraph 113.

[22] Single Expert Report, paragraph 107

[23] Single Expert Report, paragraph 160.

[24] Single Expert Report, paragraph 162.

[25] Single Expert Report, paragraph 163.

[26] Mother's Affidavit, paragraph 182.

[27] Single Expert Report, paragraph 112.

[28] Child Impact Report dated 29 March 2023

[30] Single Expert Report, paragraph 110.

[31] Single Expert Report, paragraph 118.

[36] Single Expert Report, paragraph 153.

[37] Single expert report, paragraph 157

[45] Report of Mr F dated 7 August 2023.

[46] Child Impact Report, paragraph 29-30.

[52] Single expert report, paragraph 80

[53] Single Expert Report, paragraph 156

[54] Assessment and Feedback Report of Mr F, Consultant Psychologist, marked as Exhibit ICL3 in Chambers, page 5.

[55] amended outline of case document open brackets final hearing close brackets of the independent children's layout filed 30 January 2025.