Canna & Besco (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 873 | Case summary

(2022) FLC 94-123Canna & Besco (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 873 | Case summary | Zoe

[33]

The parties commenced cohabitation in November 2011 and separated on a final basis in June 2019. The mother is 44 years of age, and the father is 43 years of age.
After separation, X was spending time during the day with the father which was initially supervised by the mother and then became unsupervised. By informal agreement between the parties, X was spending two non-consecutive nights each week with the father and the remaining nights with the mother between early 2022 and October 2023. The mother ceased this arrangement for approximately four weeks between October and November 2023, when X did not spend time with or communicate with his father.
The mother commenced proceedings on 27 October 2023, seeking urgent interlocutory orders. On 20 November 2023, after the father removed X from the care of the mother, she sought the urgent recovery of X.
Interim orders were made on 23 November 2023 for X to be returned to the mother's care; the child to live with the mother and spend time with the father from 10.00 am to 3.00 pm on alternate Sundays; to communicate with the father via recorded video communication for 30 minutes every Tuesday and Thursday from 7.00 pm; for the father to undergo hair follicle testing and urinalysis testing; for the parties to communicate via the OurFamilyWizard application; and other ancillary orders.
The father filed an Application for Review of the orders on 1 December 2023, seeking orders for X to spend overnight time with the father on four nights per fortnight. This application was dismissed other than to discharge the orders for the urinalysis testing.
On 23 April 2024, a Child Impact Report prepared by Ms D was released to the parties. Ms D commented about the deleterious impact on X from being withheld from his father towards the end of 2023 and opined that the actions at that time demonstrated both parents lacked insight as to how their behaviours were impacting the child.
A Single Expert Report was prepared by clinical psychologist, Ms E, dated 8 July 2024 and released to the parties on 15 July 2024. Ms E recommended that the mother have sole parental responsibility for all decisions relating to X's care, the Court consider transitioning the father's time with X to monthly supervised visits with monitored video calls, and the father be restricted from attending any school or sporting events.
On 19 September 2024 interim orders were made for X to spend supervised time with his father on one occasion per month facilitated by a contact service. The orders also provided for a weekly recorded video call on every Wednesday evening between 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm and fortnightly on Sunday. These are the current spend time arrangements.

[48]

The mother's trial affidavit filed 18 June 2025 was replete with evidence about incidents of family violence between predominantly 2018 and 2023.
The father broadly denied the allegations made by the mother in his trial affidavit. He deposed at paragraph 73 of his trial affidavit filed 18 June 2025 that "at no time have I engaged in physical violence towards her, and I have never physically harmed her or placed her in fear of harm." The father also denied having ever perpetrated family violence towards the mother to Ms D during his interview in April 2024.
In his oral evidence he agreed that he punched a wall and floor and smashed an object which would have been frightening for the mother. However, he maintained that he never physically harmed the mother and emphasised that on several occasions the mother was not present when he damaged walls in anger and that his conduct was not directed at her.
The majority of the allegations made by the mother in respect of the father's family violence and dysregulated behaviour were not challenged in cross-examination. The father accepted that several of the incidents reported by the mother occurred. In respect of other incidents, although the father said he did not recall the incidents, there were independent corroborative records and third-party accounts of the events which supported the mother's evidence.
I accept that the mother has experienced violence and aggression from the father as set out in her affidavit. I reject the father's denials. In reaching that conclusion, I have had regard to the evidence of both parties, the contemporaneous reports and independent records, including the medical records, the notes of the NSW Police and the ambulance records. The evidence confirms the mother's accounts of experiencing aggression and violence from the father. I find that the father has engaged in family violence directed at the mother as set out below.
The father's understanding of family violence was limited. He minimised his behaviour and showed a lack of insight in relation to his conduct and the impact of his behaviour on both the child and the mother. I accept the mother's submission that the father's conduct in the incidents complained of illustrate emotional dysregulation, poor impulse control and aggression.
It is not necessary to detail every alleged incident particularised by the mother; however, the following incidents are illustrative of the complaints made by the mother about the father's conduct.

[50]

The mother deposed that in the first half of 2014 the father became angry with her and punched a hole in the wall next to their bed in Suburb L. While the father agreed that there was an occasion in 2014 when he punched the wall in the bedroom, he said the mother was not present on this occasion. This was an incident of family violence.
She deposed that while pregnant in 2016 she found the father using cannabis after he had assured her that he had ceased using. She said he became angry and punched the floor of their holiday house and broke his hand. The father accepted that due to punching the floor in anger he broke his hand. He initially denied this conduct in his 31 January 2024 affidavit and stated in cross-examination that this was a mistake. This was an incident of family violence.
On or around 24 June 2017, the mother said they were taking X for a walk after the father had been smoking cannabis, and the father became angry and punched a car and headbutted a wooden pallet. The mother was not challenged on this evidence. That same day, the mother emailed the father's consultant psychiatrist, Dr G, in which she wrote "[t]oday he also became quite violent when we were having a disagreement, and he ended up punching a car and head butting a wooden pallet."
The father's oral evidence was that he did not remember this incident and whether it occurred.
I accept the mother's evidence about the incident as she deposed and as corroborated by the contemporaneous email sent to Dr G. It is a further incident of family violence.
The mother gave evidence of an occasion in January 2018 where the father became angry at her and X for making too much noise and disrupting his sleep. She deposed that he said to her she should "put a gun to [his] mouth." The mother was unchallenged on this evidence.
In an email from the mother to Dr G dated 11 May 2018 the mother expressed her concerns that the father was not feeling well and stated that "[h]e says he wants to hang himself." I accept her evidence.
The mother gave evidence that in late 2018 the father had collapsed in the kitchen and was crying uncontrollably and holding a butter knife to his throat. She contacted the police and mental health response team. The records from the NSW Police dated late 2018 corroborated the mother's evidence, recording that the mother reported that the father was "feeling down and that he had been thinking about ending it all" and that the father "told police he wanted to stab himself and die".
Similarly, the ambulance medical records noted that the mother called as the father "has made threats of self-harm to [the mother] of stabbing himself in the chest". The records include that the mother appeared "nervous, tearful, and emotional" and that X was sleeping in the bedroom. It is also recorded that the father was agitated and that he "made homicidal threats towards [the mother] (slashing throat action)."
In his trial affidavit, the father denied ever self-harming or threatening to self-harm or that he has never been admitted to hospital for self-harm. In cross-examination, the father recalled the police attending his home on this occasion and removing him, but he did not recall screaming or being violent against the police. The father denied ever making homicidal threats towards the mother, but accepted he gestured running his finger across his throat to the mother. He accepted this could be interpreted as a threat to kill but gave evidence that the meaning of the gesture was to indicate to the mother that the relationship was done. He accepted that this was something likely to have caused the mother to be fearful.
The mother was not challenged on her evidence during cross-examination. This was an incident of family violence, and one that was minimised by the father.
The mother deposed to an incident in early November 2018 where the father punched a hole in the kitchen door of their apartment following a disagreement. In oral evidence, the father accepted that this incident occurred, that both X and the mother were home and that he was angry when he did it. He accepted that he had not included it in his affidavit.
The father deposed that during separation he punched a wall and broke an object in the "heat of the moment during a verbal argument." He said they were both angry because it was a hard period towards the end of the relationship. He accepted that this behaviour was likely to have caused the mother to be scared. However, when asked if he recognised this as an incident of family violence, he answered that the mother "was not in front of me" and "I didn't touch her at all. She was not even close to me." He did not recognise this behaviour as family violence.
The father contended that this was an isolated incident, that he regrets his behaviour, and that the behaviour has never been repeated. He said during cross-examination that it occurred in the context of trying different medications when he needed to sleep and he felt he was not receiving help.
Ms E reported at paragraph 108 of her report that when she suggested to the father that they discuss the family violence allegations he became animated, stating "nothing like that happened. I didn't touch her with a finger - no punching walls. She can say what she likes to my doctor, but it was not real." The father's evidence was that he did not remember saying that to Ms E. In cross-examination, Ms E confirmed it was a quote from the father. I accept the evidence of Ms E as to what the father said as she recorded as accurate.
The father deposed that "[s]uggestions of violent behaviour-such as punching walls or threatening [Ms Canna] -are exaggerated and taken out of context." He maintained this in his oral evidence.
I accept the evidence of the mother in respect of the behaviour of the father as she reported it. His behaviour was undoubtedly family violence, and the mother was exposed to his behaviour on a number of occasions during the relationship. It is clear on the evidence that the father was not frank with Ms E or his own treaters in respect of his behaviour in this regard. It is also clear the father does not understand that the conduct complained of is family violence and caused the mother to be fearful.

[55]

In late 2023 the mother went to pick up X from school and the father was already there holding X's hand and refusing to let go. At paragraph 118 of her affidavit, she contended that he prevented her from leaving with X by holding X's hand tighter and yelling words to the effect of "[n]o, it's my turn. I need makeup time. You kidnapped my son. It's my time. He's coming with me. He's coming with me."
The mother said X became distressed and began to cry, and she tried to de-escalate the situation by telling the father she would follow him home to discuss the matter away from the school and the child. She then deposed that upon arriving at the father's home, she saw the father and X playing in the front of the father's apartment and he told her to leave and went inside with X.
The father deposed to this incident, stating that he informed the mother in advance that he would collect X from school, as per the parties' arrangement.
The mother instructed her solicitor to send a letter to the father requesting that X be returned. The father did not do so. She then attended his home twice that evening and the father refused to return X over the apartment intercom. She collected him from school the following day.
In late 2023, the father emailed the mother stating that he was aware she had reported the incident to police and that the mother picked up X early from school in late 2023 and did not take him to school on an occasion in late 2023.
The mother deposed to further issues regarding the father picking up X up from school early, or not in line with their arrangement in late 2023. She made a report to NSW Police about the father removing X from school without her consent. The mother withheld X from school for close to a month in late 2023, because she feared for X's safety and that the father would leave the state or country with him.
The father stated that he had contacted the mother via email on various occasions, expressing his concerns about the sudden changes in X's routine. In late 2023, the father had X in his care overnight during which time he received a message from the mother requesting that the father take X to school the next day as there were arrangements made for a celebration in his class. The father stated that he dropped X off to school on a morning in late 2023 and the school later informed him that the maternal grandmother had collected him approximately 10 minutes after he was dropped off.
A party had been arranged in 2023 at a local park. The mother had invited the father to attend. The mother decided to change the location of his party and not inform the father because she was "increasingly concerned" about the father's behaviour.
The father had no advance notice of the unilateral change of party by the mother. The mother had invited the father, unilaterally changed the location and did not inform the father of the change or that he was no longer invited. Further, the mother did not facilitate the child speaking to the father when he attempted to call on three occasions. The conduct of the mother in this instance would have caused confusion for the father, increased distrust from the father and lacked child focus.
The mother deposed that that the father repeatedly attempted to contact her around X's birthday which included attending her home, calling out to X and throwing a birthday present over the fence. After his refusal to leave she then called police, and they attended the home.
The father said he was troubled by the mother changing the location and date of a party and choosing not the inform him. He tried to contact X several times in the evening as agreed but the mother did not facilitate any communication.
During the period when the mother ceased the father's time with X between October 2023 and November 2023, the father attempted to contact her many times.
The father made a second report to DCJ on 2 November 2023 due to X's non-attendance at school. His oral evidence was that he did not know who to contact as the mother was not communicating with him and the school informed him that they could not assist. On 7 November 2023, the school emailed the mother regarding the school's attendance concerns for X.

[57]

In late 2023 the father attended Suburb M Police Station. The police notes record the father said to police that the mother and X go to a public pool every Monday and that he intended to go to the pool with a friend and ask X if he would like to go home with him. The father was informed by the police on this occasion that they would likely be called if this was to occur, but that "nothing was stopping him as he is the father and no orders in place at this time."
In November 2023, the father attended and removed X from his swimming lesson. A friend of the father's was present and recorded the incident. In the recording the father can be seen entering the pool and picking up X as the mother follows them out of the pool. The man recording the incident can be heard saying to the mother it is the father's right to have "50/50" and stating to other patrons at the pool that the mother is "withholding access".
The father said that this was "not an appropriate way to manage the situation", but that it was driven by emotional distress and made "in the heat of the moment." When asked about this in cross-examination, he accepted this was a mistake in his affidavit given the report he had made to police of his intention to do precisely what he did. His oral evidence was that it was "the heat of that time" when he was missing his son immensely. He accepted it was intimidating for the mother. I do not accept this occurred in the heat of the moment. It was planned and executed by the father with no regard to the impact his actions would have on X or on the mother.
Ms E opined that the incident would have been confusing and distressing for X.
The father reported to Ms E that X was happy to go with him and had not been upset. The recording does not support his narrative. The father ultimately agreed in cross-examination that X was frightened and that the look on his face was scared, worried and uncomfortable. He said that he did not notice X's upset and distress at the time he was holding him. He agreed that X began crying shortly after he put him in the car. It is apparent from watching the recording of the incident that X was distressed, that he was being comforted by his mother, that the behaviour of the father and his male colleague in their deliberate conduct and in recording the event was distressing for both X and the mother. To her credit, the mother remained calm and focussed on reassuring X.
It is significant that the father was unaware of the discomfort that his conduct caused to X. The father's focus was entirely on what he perceived as the unfairness of the circumstances of him not seeing X on his birthday and in the period that followed, which overshadowed his capacity to empathise with X's distress and discomfort or show any empathy to the concern of the mother.
Ms E opined that this incident is an example of the father becoming unstable and unpredictable. The recording of the incident and the father's own evidence support Ms E's opinion. The incident is an example of lack of insight shown by the father on this occasion.

[71]

There were several examples of the father fabricating and misrepresenting events, such as the evidence he gave about his employment history and the limited reports he made to his treaters about past incidents of family violence.
Ms E did not agree with the view of Dr G about the risk posed by the father to X, and opined at paragraph 192 of the Single Expert Report that: "[w]hile being mentally ill does not in itself mean that a person is likely to be violent, the combination of chronic mental illness together reports [sic] of ongoing family violence (particularly an escalation in coercive control) significantly raises the level of risk".
Ms E opined that the father is ill-equipped to parent X and poses a risk of harm to both X and the mother, such that she recommended that X live with the mother and spend limited supervised time with the father. She recommended that the father's time be supervised at a children's contact centre, and that the video calls continue and are recorded.
Ms E assessed the risk of family violence using the "PPP" headings (potency, pattern and primary perpetrator). She found the mother's reports of family violence to be credible and consistent and supported by the subpoena material provided. Conversely, she found the father's reports were less credible in that he provides blanket denials of the incidents.
Ms E applied the "Ontario Checklist" to ascertain the lethality score of the father in these circumstances, which she calculated to be 18/39 on 4 July 2024, according to her handwritten notes. She noted in the Single Expert Report and in oral evidence that a score of 12 is the threshold, as scores of 12 or higher were found in a range of cases under review which resulted in lethal outcomes. She opined that the "risk should be taken very seriously, and steps taken to ameliorate risk, where possible."
In submissions, counsel for the father highlighted Ms E's concession that the checklist is only relevant at the time of completion and that the father's score of 18 may not be his current score. He further contended that the checklist was a "stretch too far" in relation to establishing the father's lethality risk.
Ms E's assessment is at odds with the more recent assessment of Dr G dated 18 June 2025. It was contended that the Court should accept and adopt the risk assessment of Dr G.
I have had regard to both risk assessments received into evidence. They both support a cautious approach to be applied in determining the orders that are in X's best interests.
Ms E opined that in light of his mental health issues, if the father's relationship with X is to endure, steps need to be taken to support both the father and the child. She also opined that supervised video calls and online gaming could provide a way for X and his father to maintain their connection. I accept her opinion.
Ms E noted that the father is qualified for a Disability Support Pension, Priority Social Housing and the National Disability Insurance Scheme, as well as a monthly Country S disability pension of $500 per month and at times had had additional funds provided by his parents in Country O. She further noted that he is bulk billed for his medical expenses and does not currently provide child support but advised he would be willing to do so.
I accept the opinion of Ms E which is supported by the underlying facts - including the father's management of his mental health, the history of family violence, the father's dysregulated and escalating behaviours and his propensity to embellish and exaggerate.

[72]

The father's mental health history is long-standing and complex. Ms E reported that his providers expressed the view that the father is treatment resistant. Dr G opined that the father's depression and generalised anxiety remain treatment resistant. This is a significant consideration in the context of the conduct and behaviour of the father and its impact on the mother and X.
The father should be congratulated on the commitment he has shown to engage with his complex mental health issues, and I accept the submission on his behalf that there is nothing wrong with seeking an alternative opinion on treatment. However, it is the change to medication, cannabis use and treatment-resistance which are factors relevant to the predictive exercise of assessment of future risk of harm to X arising.
The father gave evidence that he continues to review his medication regime and seeks second opinions. The father has a long history of managing his own treatment. This is illustrated by his evidence about his use of medicinal cannabis which he deposed "has always been medically supervised." In his oral evidence, he clarified this to mean it was medically prescribed in that the "dose was prescribed, but the way I was getting was not through a prescription". I do not accept his evidence that the cannabis he has grown from seeds (from a prescription he obtained in 2011 in Country S) is "medically prescribed" or "medically supervised" as he claimed. This claim was quite strange and illustrated the observations of Ms E of his propensity to "double down and embellish the lie."
A further example of the father's management of his medications is borne out in Dr G's notes dated 30 April 2025, which recorded that the father saw another psychiatrist in Country P who changed the dose of his medication. The father's oral evidence was that this was a mistake, he saw a GP in Country P not a psychiatrist.
I agree with counsel for the mother's submission that the father's complex mental health issues and the instability of his treatment regime have impacted his judgement, insight and functioning.
The father sought an order that he engage with a suitably qualified health professional on the issue of "parentification." He gave evidence that he intends to continue seeking the supports he has been receiving from his treating psychiatrist and psychologist. Given the father's long-term engagement with his mental health professionals which he says will be ongoing such an order is not necessary. The mother did not seek such an order nor did the ICL. I am not persuaded that such an order being imposed as a condition of spend time orders is required given the orders for supervision being made.

[73]

The father has a long history of using both medically prescribed and non-medically prescribed cannabis. The mother deposed that the father has used cannabis for as long as she has known him and that it was the source of many of their arguments. She said when he attempted to cease smoking, he would become "prone to outbursts of anger" and verbal aggression towards her, as well as damaging furniture near the mother during arguments on at least four occasions.
As above, the interim orders of 23 November 2023 required the father to undergo hair follicle testing. The father conceded that he had missed three tests between May 2024 and June 2025. He said this was due to financial restraints after supervised contact had commenced. This is objectively untrue as supervised time did not commence until after the orders dated 19 September 2024 were made. The mother's counsel sought that the Court draw the inference that these tests were missed because the results would not have assisted his case. Given the history and background such inference is open.
The father deposed that he does not have a dependency on illicit substances. As above, he gave somewhat confusing evidence claiming he had only used medically prescribed cannabis. I do not accept this evidence. He stated he was prescribed medicinal cannabis in Country S in 2011 for the treatment of mild anxiety. Following his relocation to Australia, he continued to use cannabis therapeutically and grew his own cannabis. His contention that he grew his supply from the earlier medical prescription was bizarre. Dr G gave frank evidence in cross-examination that he was aware the father has used both prescription and non-prescription cannabis.
Dr G's notes reference non-prescription cannabis use, such as a Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) relapse. Dr G accepted in cross-examination that this was a reference to non-prescription cannabis. Dr G's notes also include a reference to "smoked little joint" and "medical marijuana", clearly distinguishing medicinal and non-medicinal cannabis use. In this context, it is inferred that the text message from the father which said, "I won't ever smoke weed unless in holidays" also references non-prescription use.
In a record from Dr G dated 22 May 2023, he noted that there was an occasion when the father has X in his care when he was under the influence of cannabis. Dr G confirmed in cross-examination that the father was upset with himself because he was affected by cannabis while caring for X. The father's evidence was that he had "smoked too much" after X had been in his care, but maintained he was not intoxicated while X was in his care. Considering the contemporaneous note of Dr G and Dr G's oral evidence, I reject this evidence of the father. The fact remains that X was in his care at a time when he was drug affected against a background of long-standing treatment-resistant mental health issues.
In the Single Expert Report, Ms E at paragraph 17 noted that the material suggested the father would smoke cannabis in conjunction with his prescribed medication, with "poor adherence to his prescribed medication regime as well as withdrawal symptoms relating to cannabis and nicotine dependency." Ms E further noted at paragraph 18 of the Single Expert Report that Dr G confirmed that that father "previously presented with a pattern whereby he would self-medicate, mixing his medications, smoking cannabis and changing dosages, against the advice of his treating practitioners, advising that [the father] had recently become more compliant with his medication protocol." She also observed from the material that there are references to the father using very high dosages or unusual combinations of medication.
When interviewed by Ms E the father "vehemently denied ever using illicit drugs or smoking cannabis", and when challenged, he responded "well she used with me. Every time I used it was prescribed by a doctor. She is just making allegations." Ms E opined at paragraph 51 of the Single Expert Report that it "does not appear that [the father] has taken steps to understand the basis of his addiction."
The father was again prescribed medicinal cannabis following a motor vehicle accident, to assist in managing the chronic pain, insomnia and anxiety. He deposed that he has never used cannabis in a way that has impaired his parenting capacity.
The father is also currently taking the following medications as prescribed by his psychiatrist: Vyvanse; neulactil; lyrica; paroxetine; and memantine. It was not in dispute that the father had sought several opinions and had trialled many combinations of medication to assist his mental health.
The father, with the support of his long-standing psychiatrist, has been committed to management of his mental health issues. His commitment is a credit to him. Unfortunately, the father's medication regime and his self-medication and mixing of prescribed medications has been an ongoing issue for him. In the words of his own treating psychiatrist, he is resistant to treatment in respect of his generalised anxiety and depression.
This history supports the recommendation of Ms E to take a cautious approach to the issues of risk that X could be exposed to.

[79]

In determining what is in the best interests of X the Court must consider 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.
The mother's case included that the father's emotional dysregulation, mental health and cannabis use has impacted his parenting capacity. The father did not accept this. The father did downplay the history of family violence and aggressive behaviours, the extent of his mental health challenges and the extent of his self-medication and non-prescription cannabis use.
The mother was identified as the child's primary carer and attachment figure. Ms E opined, and I accept, that the mother can identify and meet X's needs and that the two have a secure attachment relationship and loving bond.
Regarding the father's relationship with X, Ms E opined that X has an anxious and insecure attachment to his father and that he is becoming increasingly aware of the father's mental health issues.
There is no doubt that the father deeply loves X and wishes to be involved in his life. The father has sought and continues to be supported in his mental health care and during the proceedings has undertaken various parenting programs which include Triple P - Positive Parenting Program; Circle of Security Parenting Program; 1-2-3 Magic and Emotion Coaching; and Parenting After Separation.
He deposed that these programs together with his continued therapeutic work have provided him with practical tools and "deeper insight into [X]'s emotional world." Ms E opined that although the father reported having completed these programs, "there is little evidence of him having put any of this information into practice to date." I accept that opinion.
In cross-examination the father stated after doing these courses he reflected on the swimming pool incident and that he regretted his actions after completing the courses. He gave evidence that there was much he had learnt from these courses, stating that they assisted in having communication with X which focuses on the child's needs and creating healthy boundaries and not to express certain emotions.
The father's roommate, Ms F gave evidence in support of the father's case. She and the father were roommates between 29 March 2021 and 6 December 2023, and during this time she observed the father and X spending time together on occasion. She stated that the father always seemed inquisitive about what was going on in X's life, and there was much laughter and mutual engagement between the two.
Ms F deposed that when X first started sleeping over, he would become sad and cry around bedtime, but that this subsided after a couple weeks as he became more settled into the arrangement and through the support of the father's comforting words.
Although counsel for the father agreed in submissions that there were concerns in relation to the manifestation of the father's complex mental health issues, it was contended that the father has consistently engaged with his mental health supports, is likely to continue and that he is stable in his treatment.
As stated above, the father has a deep love and affection for X and is proactive in striving to improve his parenting capacity. This dedication and effort, whilst commendable, must be viewed in the context of his very long-standing and complex mental health and the history of family violence with his limited insight.
On balance, I accept the evidence of Ms E that the father's parenting has the identified risks and limitations such that a cautious approach to the time orders is necessary.

[80]

In determining X's best interests, the benefit to him of being able to have a relationship with his parents, and other people who are significant to him, where it is safe to do so must be considered.
The mother, father and the ICL sought that orders be made for supervised time to occur because the identified risks to X can only be ameliorated by orders for supervision. I agree.
Ms E recommended supervision to address the risks she identified. She said and I accept that supervision is a means of protecting X from the harm of being exposed to the father's dysregulated and impulsive behaviour while maintaining the important relationship with his father.
The father opposed supervision being ongoing beyond X turning 10 years of age. The mother and the ICL sought that long-term ongoing supervision orders be made.
In Bant & Clayton [2019] FamCAFC 198; (2019) FLC 93-924, the Full Court identified the circumstances in which the making of long-term supervision orders is warranted, as follows:
1. It is well accepted that an order requiring a child's time to be subject to indefinite supervision is undesirable even though it might be warranted, and courts are encouraged to consider crafting orders which might avoid permanent supervision (see Slater v Light [2013] FamCAFC 4; (2013) 48 Fam LR 573 at 583-584; Champness & Hanson [2009] FamCAFC 96; (2009) FLC 93-407 at [209], [215]; Moose & Moose (2008) FLC 93-375 at [119]; H & K [2001] FamCA 687 at [40]- [41]; B and B [1993] FamCA 143; (1993) FLC 92-357 at 79,780).
2. Circumstances may however arise in which the only appropriate response to the identified risk is to make an order, in effect, for indefinite supervision of a child's time, if it is in the best interests of the child ...
Caution must be applied in making long-term supervision orders for the reasons set out in Bielen & Kozma [2022] FedCFamC1A 221; (2022) FLC 94-123. Each case must be decided on its own facts. Considerations including the cost of the supervision, the artificiality of an arrangement involving a supervisor and the potential negative impact on the meaningful relationship between the child and the parent subject to supervision, are all relevant factors in considering such orders.
Harper J commented in Pointer & Cheadle (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC1F 602 at [269] that "[a]lthough indefinite supervision may in a given case seem undesirable, it may still be a better outcome than the option of last resort, which is no interaction between child and parent at all".
The making of long-term supervision orders is warranted for X, because the existing risk of harm can be mitigated by ongoing supervision and there is no evidence that this risk will wane and become acceptable in the future.
The unacceptable risk of harm to X, as a result of the cumulation of the father's longstanding mental health issues, cannabis use and history of family violence, his parenting capacity and his lack of insight, all support the order for ongoing supervision to be made.
The benefit to X of spending time with his father supports an order being made as sought for supervision on an ongoing basis.

[91]

The ICL sought orders for the father to have a minimum of one two-hour supervised visit with X per month, increasing to a four-hour supervised visit each month once X attains 12 years of age, thus no decrease in time and a slight increase as he matures.
Counsel for the ICL submitted that reducing the time would risk X having tokenistic, "identity type time" and would consequently be more stressful for X. Similarly to the ICL, counsel for the father submitted that reducing the time presents a real danger of increasing potential cognitive dissonance, not reducing it.
There was no persuasive evidence that reducing time is in X's best interests. I am not persuaded that a reduction in the frequency of time for X is in his best interests for the following reasons.
Firstly, there was no expert evidence that supported a reduction of time. Indeed, Ms E did not provide a firm view as to the frequency of time, opining that both a decrease and a continuation of the current regime could have positive and negative consequences.
The evidence of Ms E was that there is a clear benefit to X in maintaining his relationship with his father for his identity, and for him to continue to know and learn of his culture and because he enjoys it.
I accept the evidence of the father, which was not contested, that since the supervised time orders of 19 September 2024 came into effect, during his supervised visits, X has consistently presented as "happy, affectionate, and engaged." He said during the time they engage in a variety of activities, including playing soccer, bowling, drawing and video games, and have discussions about school, sport and his life.
Secondly, X clearly articulated on two earlier occasions that he wanted more time with his father. X's sense was the current regime lacked fairness, which is important to him. I give some weight to X's views in considering the impact on him of any further reduction in his time with his father. In circumstances where X has expressed a desire for more time, to further reduce time sends a message to X that his view has been entirely disregarded. A further reduction in time, in my view, is more likely to increase his stress where he has expressed worry about the "fairness" of the regime and has requested an increase in time.
Thirdly, the current regime of monthly visits was identified as causing X stress because of his desire for more frequent time. The mother suggested that maintaining the current frequency supervised of time would mean that stress continues however reducing it could "provide some relief" for X. The contention was not accepted by Ms E who opined that it really depended on the experience of X. There was no evidence upon which to conclude that a reduction of time would reduce X's stress.
Fourthly, the contention that X may become resistant to spending supervised time as he gets older and it may become a challenge every month for the mother to facilitate time is speculative. There was no evidence of any resistance or challenge by X to spending time, and as referred to above, he has been observed to enjoy the time and had expressed a desire to spend more time with his father.
Fifthly, I accept the opinion of Ms E that the finalisation of proceedings, together with counselling, will help X with any cognitive dissonance he might experience from the time arrangements.
Sixthly, I accept the mother is child focussed and has supported and facilitated time between the father and X. I accept that the mother will remain attuned to the needs of X and is committed to him receiving the assistance of therapy. Given her support of the relationship since separation, I am confident this will continue, and the mother will make whatever arrangements are necessary to facilitate and encourage the relationship as ordered. I do not accept the "impact on the mother" as a factor that warrants against ongoing regular time with the father and child. I am satisfied that the mother will seek out necessary supports for herself such that she remains able to support X's continued relationship with the father.
Seventhly, I accept the submission of the father's counsel that the cost of supervision is not a basis to reduce the time. As referred to below, I have considered the circumstances of each parent and determined that the father has the capacity and should meet the cost of supervision.
Finally, I accept the opinion of Ms E that the parenting arrangement that is best suited to X's current and future needs involves X living primarily with his mother and spending time and communicating with his father in a structured way.
The father sought an increase in the frequency to fortnightly. The father said the matters that supported an increase were the express views of the child and that the environment is safe. I have considered carefully the issues of X's expressed views for more time, and the need to prevent X experiencing cognitive dissonance from exposure to conflict, however accept the opinion of Ms E that counselling and the end of the proceedings will assist X with these matters. The current arrangements are working well for X who has been observed to be enjoying the time notwithstanding the limitations of it occurring in a contact centre. X is reported to be responding well to the structure and frequency of the current time arrangements. There was no recommendation to increase or decrease the time by Ms E.
Accordingly, on balance, monthly supervised face-to-face time is in X's best interests and should continue. These monthly supervised visits are to be for two hours if at a contact centre and three hours if privately arranged.

[99]

The parties remained in dispute as to the frequency and duration of the Zoom calls between the father and X.
The mother's proposal is that the father's Zoom calls should be reduced from a weekly to a monthly basis, and each call should be for 40 minutes duration.
The mother's evidence was that during the 60-minute Zoom calls with the father the call drops out at 40 minutes, and she then restarts the meeting for the final 20 minutes (without recording). In addition to the cessation of the record function after 40 minutes, the mother gave evidence of difficulty at times ending the calls due to the father prolonging and delaying, causing X to become frustrated when he is not able to end the call.
The mother's counsel contended that facilitation of these calls every week and managing X's reactions after the calls was a relevant consideration to frequency of calls. It was also contended that less exposure by reducing the frequency and length of these calls would mean less conflict and stress in X's mind.
The father proposed that the frequency of these calls should be twice a week, on Tuesday and Thursday for 60 minutes duration. The father's counsel made the submission that the frequency should increase because "the child himself is seeking increased contact, very powerfully" and "the child seems to be doing well in relation to it and benefiting from this contact."
The father proposed the recordings be recorded and stored on the Google Drive which would resolve the 40-minute time limit. There was no evidence before the Court about the Google Drive recording and storage. The mother's evidence that the Zoom calls cease recording at 40 minutes was not challenged.
It was undisputed that the Zoom recordings have been effective, and it was a consent position that the recording should continue for the present time. The father sought a gradual phasing out of the recording because it was contended that as X gets older and becomes more independent, he might become troubled by having his discussions with his father recorded.
With respect to the video communication, Ms E recommended that these take place at a time that suits X's schedule and was of the view that the Zoom calls are a means of the relationship remaining connected. She was not challenged on this opinion. I accept Ms E's opinion about the benefit of the regular communication by this medium.
It is necessary to balance the positive benefit X derives from the video communication and gaming connection with his father, which he enjoys, with the difficulties of prolonged goodbyes and potential pressure on X.
There is no reason that persuades me that to reduce the frequency of time as sought by the mother and ICL would be in X's best interests. The time is part of a routine that X has been enjoying. It gives him an opportunity to keep in regular touch with his father and keep him advised of his school achievements or sporting achievement and other important events in his life. Importantly, he can do so safely, and the recording provides an added safety net for X.
The father said, and I accept, he will continue with his supports from Dr G and Ms H. Pursuant to these orders, the father is permitted to provide these reasons for judgment and the Single Expert Report to his treatment providers. With their ongoing assistance and noting the progress in his insight as reported by Ms H and Dr G, the video communication with X should continue.
On balance, there is no reason to increase or decrease the weekly frequency of time, noting the face-to-face time will only occur each month other than the month of his birthday and Father's Day. X has enjoyed and derives benefit from the video communication. It provides connection and is safe. In my view, the 40-minute period is a period where X can enjoy communication with his father while being recorded, without the issue of a "drop out" of the recording function. The time on a weekly basis appears to meet all the positives identified by Ms E, while addressing the mother's concerns of prolonged goodbyes and recording. In my view, it strikes the best balance and gives parameters and boundaries for the ongoing communication. Accordingly, the Zoom calls will continue once a week for the period of 40 minutes.

[101]

The father proposed that the mother has sole decision-making responsibility, but that she consults the father on long-term decisions and gives him the opportunity to "express a view."
It was contended by the mother's counsel that the order sought regarding consultation was too vague and that it should not be a consultation process. The mother's proposal in the alternative was that, if the Court was minded to make such an order, the mother should notify the father prior to making long-term decisions that she proposes to make; the father be at liberty to provide feedback via OurFamilyWizard; and the mother then considers the feedback but makes the ultimate decision.
The mother was concerned that notice or consultation with the father might "set up a false expectation" regarding the level of consultation and involvement that the father has. There is evidence of the father sending repeated text messages to the mother prior to the parties communicating through OurFamilyWizard. The mother thus sought an order that she provide the father three updates per year, which effectively would give the father notice of important decisions and day-to-day things relating to X. Counsel argued that this is like his order in that he is being kept up to date about important matters, but that he is not being notified prior to the decision.
OurFamilyWizard has been working well for the parties for their communication. It has the benefit of being a reliable record of communication. It is in X's best interests for the father to be advised of decisions relevant to X and have an opportunity to express a view before the mother makes the decision. The obligation to notify of a proposed decision and receive feedback on one occasion of any major long-term issues to be decided is not onerous. The benefit to X is that he will know his dad is up to date with major issues impacting him, such as which secondary school he will attend in the future. Accordingly, I will order the mother to inform the father prior to making any long-term decision, for the father to provide any view about the decision via OurFamilyWizard within seven days, for the mother to consider the views and advise the father of her ultimate decision.
It is important that the father is kept informed of X's school progress and other activities. This will ensure the father is able to meaningfully engage with X when they spend time together about education and other important aspects of X's life. I will order the mother provide school reports and general updates in the form that was proposed by the mother in her orders sought but will order that she is required to do so twice a year commencing at the end of Term 2 2026.
The parties should keep each other informed of their telephone numbers such that they can be reached in the case of an emergency involving X.
Both orders are in X's best interests and will be made for the reasons set out above.

[106]

It is contended that in the absence of the injunctions being made that there is an unacceptable risk to X in the future. That consideration is informed by a prospective assessment of risk informed by findings as to past conduct. It is appropriate, having regard to the risk factors identified by Ms E in her assessment of risk, to act cautiously in this case.
I have found in these reasons the father has behaved in a manner that lacks child focus and insight. He has behaved in a way that has caused the mother to be fearful. Ms E identified various risk factors that she considered were significant. Dr G considered the father's MDD and GAD are treatment resistant. It is agreed that supervision is necessary to protect X from the identified risks.
In final submissions the father withdrew his application to be able to attend school and extracurricular activities. Ms E opined that her preference is that the father be restricted from attending sporting or school-related events.
I have made findings above about incidents in the past of family violence, the fathers dysregulated behaviour at times, his lack of insight and the impact on X and the mother of being exposed to the father's behaviour in the future. I have carefully considered these past matters, the opinion of Ms E and the father's current treatment providers and find that they support the making of the injunctions sought.
No submission was made about any hardship that would be experienced by the father if the injunctions sought were made. These matters all support the making of the injunctions as proposed for the safety and protection of the mother and X and I so order.
The mother and ICL sought orders restraining the other from making denigrating comments. The father sought an order that communication be civil and courteous.
X is an intelligent and perceptive child who is becoming increasingly aware of the conflict between his parents. The orders each seek may assist to ensure an appropriate co-parenting relationship and I will make the orders each seeks.

Canna & Besco (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 873 (4 December 2025)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (112 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (4)

Cases Cited (1)