Cantrell & Bowens [2025] FedCFamC2F 1697 (3 December 2025)

(a) advise the Father by email of any proposed decision at least 14 days prior to making the decision (save in the event of an emergency in which case the Mother will be permitted to make the decision without notice to the Father);

(b) seek the Father's opinion in relation to the proposed decision;

(c) take the Father's opinion into account in making the decision, provided the Father's opinion is provided in writing by return email within seven days of the Mother's email to him pursuant to Order 3(a) (noting that nothing in this Order limits the Mother's ultimate decision-making power); and

(d) notify the Father in writing within seven days of making the decision.

1. The Mother is authorised to do all acts and things and sign all documents (electronic or otherwise) as may be necessary to apply for an Australian Passport in the names of the Children as well as any necessary visa(s) for travel and the consent and signature of the Father will not be required.
2. The child previously known as X CANTRELL born in 2017, now be known as X BOWENS.
3. The child previously known as Y born in 2019, now be known as Y BOWENS.
4. For the purposes of Orders 5 and 6, the Mother will apply to the Victorian Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages to register the change of name for each of the Children, and will do all acts and things and sign all documents as may be required to give effect to that registration and the consent of the Father will not be required.

1. The Children live with the Mother.
2. The Children spend time with the Father as follows:

(a) on a professionally supervised basis by a nominee of the B Family Services or such other supervision service as may be agreed between the Mother and the Father in writing, once per month (preferably on the last Sunday of each month unless otherwise agreed), for up to three (3) hours per visit on a Sunday at such times as can be accommodated by B Family Services provided the time commences no earlier than 11.00 am and concludes no later than 5.00 pm;

(b) in the event any of Christmas Day (25 December), Easter Sunday, Mother's Day, the Mother's birthday, X's birthday or Y's birthday fall on a Sunday, the arrangements in Order 9(a) will be suspended, with make up time to occur on another mutually agreed Sunday suitable to the Mother and B Family Services; and

(c) otherwise, by agreement in writing with the Mother, on such days and at such times and on such conditions (including supervision by B Family Services or such other professional supervision service) as the Mother determines.

(a) the Father will pay and be solely responsible for the costs of B Family Services and the costs of any other professional appointed to supervise the time between the Father and the Children as may be agreed between the parties in writing, or as determined by the Mother as the case may be, including all intake sessions, all supervised visits and the preparation of all observation reports (if required);

(b) if the Father's residential address changes, the Father will, within seven days, appoint B Family Services to prepare a Home Assessment of his new residential address at his sole expense, with a copy of the Home Assessment to be released to the Mother and the Father simultaneously;

(c) if the Father's residential address changes, and pending completion of the Home Assessment in relation to any such address, the supervised time will occur in a public location to be agreed in advance;

(d) upon the completion of the Home Assessment, and assuming no risk or other issues are identified, the supervised time may occur at the home of the Father;

(e) the Mother and the Father will follow all reasonable directions of B Family Services or such other supervision service as may be agreed between the parties in writing, or determined by the Mother, as the case may be; and

(f) unless otherwise directed by B Family Services, or such other supervision service as may be agreed between the parties in writing, or determined by the Mother, as the case may be, changeover for the supervised time will occur as follows:

(i) the Mother will arrive 10 minutes prior to the commencement of time, and deliver the Children to the supervisor;

(ii) the Father will arrive on time (and no earlier than the specified changeover time) to collect the Children;

(iii) the Father will return the Children 10 minutes prior to the conclusion of time, deliver the Children to the supervisor and immediately leave; and

(iv) the Mother will arrive on time (and no earlier than the specified changeover time) to collect the Children.

1. If the Children, or either of them, are unwell during any period during which they are to spend supervised time with the Father, the Mother will notify the Father as soon as practicable prior to the time commencing and thereafter provide him with a copy medical certificate via B Family Services or such other professional supervisor that may be appointed to supervise the time between the Father and the Children.
2. The Father will immediately instruct B Family Services or such other professional supervisor that may be appointed to supervise the time between the Father and the Children to notify the Mother if:

(a) the Children or either of them suffer any serious illness or injury, accident or hospitalisation, or medical condition during any time spent with him, and immediately notify the Mother of the name, address, telephone number and location at which the Children or either of them are or have attended as a patient;

(b) an emergency service has been contacted to attend upon the Children, or either of them, including but not limited to Victoria Police, Ambulance Victoria and Fire Rescue Victoria; and

(c) there is any attendance by the Children, or either of them, at any hospital including but not limited to any attendance at any emergency department.

1. The Father is at liberty to send age-appropriate gifts, cards and letters addressed to the Children, via Australia Post, to an address or post office box nominated by the Mother on the following occasions:

(a) on each of the Children's birthdays;

(b) for Christmas;

(c) for Easter;

(d) on one further occasion each year, at the Father's election; and

(e) as otherwise agreed between the Mother and the Father in writing.

1. For the purposes of the preceding Order, the Father must not refer to any parenting arrangements, family law proceedings or parenting matters generally in any card or letter addressed to the Children, and the Mother is at liberty to open all cards, letters and gifts to assess if they are suitable prior to providing the same to the Children.

1. Save as otherwise expressly provided for in these Orders, pursuant to section 68B(1) of the Act, the Father be and is hereby restrained by injunction from:

(a) for a period 24 hours prior to, and during any period in which the Children are spending time with him, from consuming alcohol and/or using or taking any illicit substance;

(b) approaching or remaining within 50 metres of the Children, or either of them;

(c) communicating with the Children by any means (including but not limited to by text message, messenger, online gaming platform, social media applications and the like);

(d) going to or remaining within 200 metres of C Street, Suburb D, Victoria or any other place where the Mother and the Children live;

(e) going to or remaining within 200 metres of E School or any other primary, secondary school or outside of school hours provider at which the Children or either of them are enrolled to attend;

(f) alleging, suggesting or implying that the Mother or any partner of the Mother is a perpetrator of sexual abuse and/or family violence to, with, or in the presence or hearing of, the Children or either of them;

(g) denigrating, abusing, belittling or otherwise insulting the Mother, or any member the Children, or either of them;

(h) discussing these family law proceedings (including any documents prepared for the purposes of and/or filed in these proceedings) with or in the presence or hearing of the Children, or either of them;

(i) showing to, or leaving accessible to, the Children or either of them, any document connected with these proceedings;

(j) showing to, or leaving accessible to, the Children or either of them, any written communications directly between the Mother and the Father; and

(k) getting any person to do anything the Father is restrained from doing pursuant to this Order.

1. The Mother and the Father will communicate with each other about matters concerning the care, welfare and development of the Children, or either of them, by email only and for the purposes of such communication:

(a) the Father will limit communication with the Mother to emergencies, noting that any communication should, at first instance, be conveyed through B Family Services or such other professional supervisor that may be appointed (save as otherwise expressly provided for by this Order including Order 3(c)); and

(b) the Father will ensure that all communications to the Mother are at all times polite, courteous and respectful.

(a) Father will keep the Mother informed of his current residential address and, if there is a change to that residential address, he will notify the Mother of that change not less than 14 days prior to the change taking effect (noting the requirement for a home assessment to be conducted prior to the Children spending supervised time with the Father at any new residential address);

(b) Mother will advise the Father within seven days of the address or post office box at which the Father can send the Children cards, letters and gifts pursuant to Orders 13 and 14 and advise the Father of any change as soon as practicable and preferably not less than 48 hours prior to the change taking effect;

(c) Mother and the Father will keep each other informed of their current mobile telephone numbers and email address and advise the other of any change to that mobile number and/or email address as soon as practicable and preferably not less than 48 hours prior to the change taking effect.

1. The Mother is permitted to travel with the Children, or either of them, within and outside of the Commonwealth of Australia on such dates and at such times as determined by her.
2. In the event such travel occurs during any period in which the Children are to spend supervised time with the Father pursuant to Orders 9 and 10 herein, the Mother will offer make up time to the Father in the following calendar month provided the same can be supervised by B Family Services or such other supervision service as may be agreed between the parties in writing, or determined by the Mother, as the case may be.

1. The Mother is at liberty to provide a sealed copy of these Orders to:

(a) E School, or any other primary school, secondary school or outside of school hours care provider at which the Children or either of them are enrolled to attend;

(b) any extra-curricular activity provider at which the Children, or either of them, are enrolled to attend from time to time; and

(c) any General Practitioner, medical practitioner, specialist practitioner, allied health practitioner or similar upon whom the Children, or either of them, attend; and

(d) B Family Services and any other professional supervision provider.

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

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

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

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

1. These proceedings concern X, aged eight, and Y, aged six.
2. The boys live with their mother, Ms Bowens, and currently spend supervised time with their father, Mr Cantrell.
3. It is agreed that the boys will continue to live with Ms Bowens and that Ms Bowens will have sole parental responsibility for the children.
4. Mr Cantrell formally proposes that the boys spend time with him on an unsupervised basis increasing to four nights per fortnight over the course of 12 months, as well as for extended periods during school holidays and on special occasions. The particulars of his application are contained in his Amended Initiating Application filed 27 October 2025. In opening address, he abandoned relief sought for his adult son Mr F to independently spend time with the children. In closing address, Mr Cantrell proposed that the children continue to spend supervised time with him, that he attends psychological and psychiatric therapy and completes a behaviour change program.
5. Ms Bowens proposes that the boys spend professionally supervised time with Mr Cantrell once a month. She seeks to change their surnames to hers and seeks injunctive relief pursuant to section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The particulars of the relief sought by her are contained in a Minute of Final Orders Sought annexed to her Outline of Case filed 13 November 2025.
6. The parties rely on the documents identified in their Outlines of Case, save that Mr Cantrell no longer relies on the affidavit of his adult son, Mr F.
7. The applications fall to be determined by reference to Part VII of the Act. I am guided by the objects of that Part.[1] X and Y's best interests are the paramount consideration.[2] In determining those best interests, I am to consider the matters prescribed by section 60CC of the Act.

What arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of X and Y and each person who has care of them (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for them)

1. Ms Bowens contends that the children are at unacceptable risk of harm, primarily emotional and psychological harm, in the father's care, should they spend unsupervised time with him. She contends those risks cannot be ameliorated other than by supervision.
2. The Family Report Writer, Dr G, opines that that the children's experience of their father is such that there is a "lack of emotional safety in his care".[3] Whilst they have fun, positive, enjoyable experiences with their father, she considers it "clear that they lack consistent emotional safety in his care".[4] She considers "emotional regulation difficulties can be a risk factor in parenting" and if Ms Bowens' evidence is accepted, "there remains ongoing risk for the children, both emotionally and physically, in the father's care".[5]
3. For reasons that follow, I am satisfied that the children lack emotional safety in their father's unsupervised care. That conclusion is consistent with Mr Cantrell's concession in closing address that the children's best interests are served by continuing to spend supervised time with him at this stage.

1. In June 2024, Mr Cantrell commenced spending unsupervised time with the boys for the first time after he was hospitalised for mental health issues in July 2021. A litany of issues arose thereafter.
2. The first relates to Mr Cantrell's response to the children talking about genitalia. Mr Cantrell deposes as follows:

On 25 August 2024, the children were spending time with me, and during the afternoon, [Y] attempted to sit between [X] and myself on the couch. [Y] tried to climb on top of me and stated the following: "I want to sit on your penis." This comment made me feel repulsed and alarmed as to its sexualised connotations. A further conversion I asked him if he had seen Mummy's boyfriend naked, to which he replied he was asked to shower with him. I inquired if this man had any tattoos on his body so that it could potentially be relied on if investigated further.

During a visit when [Mr F] was also present in August 2024, [Y] also stated, "I want to eat your penis" to him while we were at a petrol station en route to drop off. These sexualised comments are not normal or reflective of conversations for children of this age, and understandably they have caused me to be significantly concerned for the physical and mental wellbeing of the children.

1. Reporting on Mr Cantrell's conversation with her, Dr G, records:

[Mr Cantrell] also wished to raise some further concerns regarding the children's care whilst with the mother. [X] had recently stated "can I sit on your penis Daddy?". He described that he was upset by this comment, and asked [X] why he had asked this, if "mummy is still with the boyfriend" and "does he play with you naked". He explained that [X] laughed in response. He wondered how he's been exposed to nudity in the home, and discussed how [X] had described tattoos on the mother's partner, and had had a shower with him. He asked [Y] where [X] slept, and [Y] advising "sometimes in Mummy's bed with [Mr H]". He described another occasion where [Y] had stated (in the context of discussing food), "I want to eat you're penis" and laughing.[6]

1. It is of note that Dr G reports that it was X who asked to sit on his father's penis, whereas Mr Cantrell deposes to it having been Y. Mr Cantrell gave the following oral evidence:

COUNSEL FOR [MS BOWENS]: So was it [Y] or [X] who said this?

[MR CANTRELL]: It was [X] that wanted to sit on my penis.

COUNSEL FOR [MS BOWENS]: This is a pretty important and serious allegation, isn't it?

[MR CANTRELL]: Yes.

COUNSEL FOR [MS BOWENS]: And in the report you talk about [X], in your affidavit you talk about [Y]. It would be pretty important to get the child right, wouldn't it? Or are you just making things up?

[MR CANTRELL]: No, I'm not making things up.

HIS HONOUR: Definitely [X]?

[MR CANTRELL]: Yes. Yes. Sorry, it was [Y] wanted to - was the one that was talking about sitting on penises. [Y] was the one that had more emphasis around penises.

1. Had Mr Cantrell not continued to make an issue of the incident in these proceedings, it would have been immaterial whether it was X or Y who made the comment. As it is, Mr Cantrell has continued to raise the incident in these proceedings and so his inability to accurately give evidence as to which of his two children made the comment to him is most troubling. I cannot resolve the controversy on the evidence before me.
2. Dr G expressed the following opinions in relation to the incident:

The father's direct response to the children's statements (regarding sitting on a penis, and the sleeping arrangement) is of concern. By his own evidence, the father has had an emotional response, observable to others, and has engaged in leading questions. His response is demonstrative of cognitive leaps (to the negative) regarding the boys' wellbeing in the mother's care. This is despite no clear disclosures from the children, and no contextual information to suggest the boys were distressed.

The father's response would be experienced by the children as negative (including about the mother's partner). It risks inculcating the belief that they have been abused and/or that something negative/inappropriate has occurred in the mother's care, in the absence of any evidence to suggest this is the case. It is developmentally typical for children at [X] and [Y]'s age, to engage in jovial conversation about body parts. The father requires assistance from a suitably skilled and experienced professional in understanding what is and is not developmentally typical, and how to manage such comments from children, to ensure his response is not negatively affecting the children.

If the father continues to hold the belief that the children are being sexually abused in the mother's care, in the absence of evidence and/or advice from professional bodies, it is questionable how he might continue to support the children's time and relationship with her.[7] (emphasis added)

1. Dr G's opinions were not successfully challenged in cross-examination and I accept them.
2. Mr Cantrell gave oral evidence that his questioning of the children was inappropriate. He conceded that he put ideas of sexual interference by Ms Bowens' partner into the mind of his then six or seven year old son. He also accepted that it had not occurred to him at the time of filing his trial affidavit to depose to the fact he now considered his behaviour to have been inappropriate. He claimed that his insight into the inappropriateness of his conduct had developed during the month of the trial.
3. When asked to explain why he inappropriately interrogated Y, he gave evidence "I just wanted to understand background, why they're talking about nudity and penises". He also gave the following evidence:

COUNSEL FOR [MS BOWENS]: This is just a dangerous narrative that you have put in the minds of your children. What effect do you think it would have on them for them to think that they are at risk of sexualised harm in the care of their mother?

[MR CANTRELL]: The children have never brought anything up further.

1. There was nothing about the way Mr Cantrell gave evidence that suggested that he had understood the risks posed to the children by his conduct in inappropriately questioning them. His answer to the quoted question does not demonstrate any insight into the problem he created.
2. Despite Dr G's express recommendation that Mr Cantrell needs professional assistance to manage comments from the children and ensure his responses do not negatively affect them, Mr Cantrell gave evidence that he did not even discuss the issue with his psychologist. He has not obtained the professional assistance considered to be necessary by Dr G.
3. Absent such professional intervention, I consider the risk of Mr Cantrell continuing to negatively expose the children to inappropriate beliefs is unacceptable. The harm that flows to the children of believing that they have been sexually mistreated in their primary caregiver's care can hardly be overstated.
4. Consistent with a lack of Mr Cantrell developing any insight into his behaviour regarding the children's references to genitalia, he has pursued the allegations in these proceedings. He has done so despite Dr G reporting that Mr F told his father to relax, "it's probably nothing".[8] Dr G opined orally that Mr Cantrell "has got his 18 year old child, having to tell him this is not a serious thing, who is more attuned to the children and their needs than [Mr Cantrell] at the time, and [Mr Cantrell] then, in his conversation with me, continued on to ask the children the questions about it". Consistent with evidence, I find Mr Cantrell's conduct demonstrates a significant lack of attunement to the children's needs.
5. Mr Cantrell also maintains the allegations in these proceedings despite his interactions with police in August 2024. He was then advised by an officer that "children say silly things". He was provided with the phone number for the Sexual Offences and Child Abuse Investigation Team. He called that team the next day and was advised that "children say wild things". He gave oral evidence that "the police and SOCIT said there's nothing to investigate".
6. After the incident in August 2024, Mr Cantrell told Dr G that he wrote to Ms Bowens' solicitor "about his concerns".[9] He did no such thing. He did write to ask for Ms Bowens' address, but he did not make any enquiry about the things said by Y or X.
7. Whatever Mr Cantrell's motivation for continuing to complain about the children referring to genitalia in his care, it reflects poorly on him. At no time has he sought to protect the children's safety by removing them from Ms Bowens' care. It is inconceivable that he genuinely thought their safety was at unacceptable risk in her care. I reject Mr Cantrell's denial of the proposition put to him that he has raised the allegations in these proceedings to try to "twist the narrative around". No other plausible explanation was offered.
8. Somewhat ironically, Mr Cantrell's pursuit of the allegations has drawn into sharp relief the inappropriateness of his interrogation of the children. It also illustrates his failure to reflect on Dr G's opinions and recommendations.
9. Mr Cantrell's inappropriate interrogation of the children in relation to genitalia was not the only incident of him inappropriately engaging with the children during unsupervised time in late 2024.
10. On 7 August 2024, after spending time with Mr Cantrell, Y reported to Ms Bowens that "Daddy said you take all of his money".[10] Mr Cantrell gave oral evidence that he had obviously said that, despite also giving evidence it was inappropriate for him to do so. He accepted that he couldn't even hold his tongue not to criticise Ms Bowens to Y over the first three weeks of unsupervised time. The oral evidence is wholly inconsistent with his deposition that "I deny have made comments to these children that expose them to the proceedings and adult matters".[11] I find that, contrary to his written evidence, Mr Cantrell said to the children words to the effect of: "Mum took all of [my] money".
11. On 18 August 2024, Ms Bowens deposes to the children complaining that Mr Cantrell had been mean to them, and Y telling her that Mr Cantrell told him he had to "sit on the road until dark time".[12] Mr Cantrell did not refer to the particular allegation in his written evidence. In oral evidence, he denied saying that to Y and said that the boys were arguing amongst themselves and both trying to jump into his car. He said he had to stop X by getting him to sit on a wooden log in the car park at a park while he was "crying his eyes out". He gave oral evidence that he is sure he did so with a bit of abruptness. Even on his own evidence, real questions arise as to his capacity to manage the competing demands of two young children without causing one of them considerable distress by being abrupt.
12. On 5 September 2024, Mr Cantrell admits that he said to the children they have a "big fat Mum".[13] He admits that he waits until no one else is around to make comments of that type to the children. More generally, X complained to Dr G in November 2024 that his father calls Ms Bowens names and called her a "skibidy toilet".[14]
13. Ms Bowens deposes that on 18 September 2024, Y told her that Mr Cantrell told him to "stop being a little shit" and that Mr Cantrell often says "naughty words at him".[15] She deposes that on 5 October 2024, Y again told her that his father had said to him "stop being a little shit".[16] She also deposes that on 13 October 2024, Y told her that his father called him a "little shit" and told both of the children to "shut up".[17]
14. Mr Cantrell denied swearing at the children in oral evidence. He also gave oral evidence that he doesn't think the children would know that many swear words. I reject his evidence. He otherwise admits to being abrupt with the children, denigrating their mother to them, causing X to cry to his eyes out, and exposing them to adult matters contrary to his written evidence. I find that Mr Cantrell has sworn at his children during unsupervised visits in 2024.
15. Ms Bowens deposes that on 1 October 2024, Y reported to her that he told his father he had "a big fat belly", following which his father flipped him upside down onto a bed in an angry way causing him to be scared.[18] Mr Cantrell gives no written evidence in response to this allegation. Ms Bowens gave oral evidence that was consistent with her written evidence. She denied that Y's report to her was the product of her having negatively conditioned the children. Mr Cantrell did not suggest to Dr G that Y's report was the result of negative conditioning of the children. The evidence more generally does not support such a conclusion.
16. Ms Bowens deposes that Mr F was present for the incident on 1 October 2024 and that he laughed. Despite Mr Cantrell having filed an affidavit from Mr F and him relying on that affidavit in his Outline of Case, he abandoned reliance upon Mr F's evidence after himself giving evidence. No evidence was adduced explaining that forensic decision. The unexplained failure to call Mr F permits me to conclude that his evidence would not have assisted Mr Cantrell's case, and to draw, with greater confidence, an inference unfavourable to Mr Cantrell.[19]
17. In the absence of any response by Mr Cantrell to the allegation of 1 October 2024 and given the unexplained failure to call Mr F, I am satisfied that Y's report to Ms Bowens is accurate. I find that his father inappropriately reacted to Y teasing him about his belly and flipped him onto the bed in anger. That finding is also consistent with X's report to Dr G that he worried a lot about "his father flipping [Y]".[20]
18. Ms Bowens gives unchallenged evidence of having been advised by a child-care educator, Ms J, that at the conclusion of the children's time with Mr Cantrell on 16 October 2024:

Upon arriving, [Mr Cantrell] advised [Ms J] that he had attempted to drop [X] at OSHC but [X] didn't know where to go.

Upon [Ms J] advising [Mr Cantrell] that he needed to resolve this issue by next Wednesday, [Mr Cantrell] turned to [X] and angrily said to him words to the effect that "you need to do better [X]", "you need to do better'', "this is not good enough" and "this is on you".

[X] began to cry. Rather than comfort [X] [Mr Cantrell] told him not to cry and to "hold the tears in".[21]

1. X recalled this situation in interview with Dr G, "explaining how his father yelled and screamed at him, and was saying 'hurry up and find team kids' and it made him feel sad".[22] Y's kindergarten teacher described Mr Cantrell's conduct as "particularly harsh, and outside the normal range", that Mr Cantrell was "yelling" and that despite X crying and being upset, he "continued to yell at [X]".[23] I accept Dr G's opinion that:

The instance described by child-care indicates that the father's response to this inevitable failure was to blame [X], and criticise and publicly chastise him, continuing with greater harshness than would be required, without stopping when presented with information from [X] to indicate the threshold for tolerance had been exceeded.[24]

1. In oral evidence, Mr Cantrell accepted that he angrily turned to X and told him he needed to do better. He gave evidence "there was a panic and an urgency to get the boys back on time" and that it was "poor planning on [his] part and it was just the stress". He also gave the following oral evidence in relation to the incident:

COUNSEL FOR [MS BOWENS]: And your reaction on this occasion was to repeatedly berate [X] and tell him he needed to do better, it wasn't good enough, and it was on him, as he was crying. That's how you behaved, isn't it?

[MR CANTRELL]: I did project my stress on [X] where we were trying to find where the drop-off was and we were getting lost, so I then had to go to [...] to drop [Y] off and - without Mum, you know, being at the same place at the same time.

COUNSEL FOR [MS BOWENS]: You had been on notice of where the children needed to be dropped off since 30 August. You had had a long time to figure out the logistics, hadn't you?

[MR CANTRELL]: Yes.

COUNSEL FOR [MS BOWENS]: And when you hadn't figured it out, you took it out on your six year old son, seven year old son, didn't you?

[MR CANTRELL]: Yes.

COUNSEL FOR [MS BOWENS]: You didn't comfort him in that moment, did you? You told him to hold the tears in?

[MR CANTRELL]: Yes.

COUNSEL FOR [MS BOWENS]: What kind of message do you think that sends to your son?

[MR CANTRELL]: Yes, the wrong one.

...

COUNSEL FOR [MS BOWENS]: You couldn't help yourself from berating [X], even though you were in a public setting, in an educational setting, with another worker present. That wasn't enough to stop you, was it?

[MR CANTRELL]: No.

1. Mr Cantrell also gave evidence that at no time has he ever apologised to X for berating him publicly on that occasion. I accept Dr G's opinion that there is "no repair with [X]" and that Mr Cantrell's attempt at an apology to the service provide for his behaviour is "not necessarily what [X] needs". I also accept her evidence that she is concerned Mr Cantrell has never apologised to X, and that:

When kids experience a - even if they're correctly, you know, disciplined and told off, what the child experiences is a mis-attunement. Essentially, "I'm feeling this way and my parent doesn't get me." And what's important for kids is to have that feeling integrated and made sense of. And this is the main difference between the mother's yelling and the father's yelling, is that there's clearly repair to the point where they feel safe with their mother and there's not necessarily that repair there with their dad. So they're left with this feeling of unsafety, lack of safety with their dad.

.... without that experience being made sense of for [X] and a dad saying, "I got that wrong, mate. I've really messed up. That was an adult problem, and I put it on you. And I'm really sorry." It's still going to be hard for [X] to integrate that... without making sense of that, that's left as a trauma for him.

... he crossed the line, and he has caused harm to his child which has interrupted his relationship ultimately. (Emphasis added)

1. Far from Mr Cantrell's conduct on 16 October 2024 being an isolated incident, Y's kindergarten teacher reported to Dr G that it was "one of three occasions where child-care staff have experienced the father as particularly harsh in his parenting approach".[25]
2. It is seen that during a period of the children spending unsupervised time with Mr Cantrell in 2024, he has exposed them to questioning suggesting they have been sexually abused in their mother's care, he has openly denigrated her, he has sworn at them, he has flipped his son onto the bed in anger, he has caused his children considerable distress while trying to put them into a car, and has berated them for his own failings in not knowing where their changeover was to occur. As a result, his children feel unsafe in his care, have had their relationship with him interrupted, and are left with trauma.
3. I accept Dr G's opinions that:
   • Mr Cantrell has "difficulties regulating his emotions in an adaptive way at times, and can be harsh and critical in his parenting of the children";[26]
   • Mr Cantrell "has difficulties moderating his parenting approach in a manner that is sufficiently sensitive to the children's emotional needs";[27]
   • The children's "likely experience of the father is that he can be unpredictable, harsh and overly-critical, and lacking in emotional warmth";[28]
   • both children "find the father's treatment of them scary at times";[29]
   • Mr Cantrell's inappropriate parenting is "immensely damaging for children's developing self-identity";[30] and
   • "the children's lack of emotional safety in the father's care needs urgent consideration".[31]

1. At no point prior to the final hearing did Mr Cantrell acknowledge the inappropriateness of his behaviour. Significantly, despite Mr Cantrell undertaking psychological counselling this year with Dr K, at no time did he mention any of the incidents of himself behaving inappropriately in the presence of the children to his psychologist. Absent any discussions of these wholly inappropriate interactions with his psychologist, I place limited weight on Dr K's opinion that Mr Cantrell "has developed and is able to implement appropriate coping mechanisms and strategies to effectively manage challenging emotional experiences".[32] That opinion is wholly uninformed by any awareness of the occasions on which Mr Cantrell has compromised his children's emotional safety. Mr Cantrell himself was unable to identify what he talked about with Dr K that led him to express that opinion.
2. Mr Cantrell also gave evidence that he had failed to tell Dr K he had been having difficulties containing his emotions at work, that he had sworn at people in the workplace, and that a number of people had reported him inappropriately dealing with them. He accepts that he had been unable to contain his emotions in a work environment. Mr Cantrell's failure to inform his psychologist of his inappropriate conduct in the workplace reinforces my conclusion that limited weight can be placed on Dr K's expressed opinion as to Mr Cantrell's capacity to implement appropriate coping mechanisms to manage challenging emotional experiences.
3. Dr G opined orally that Mr Cantrell's failure to raise with Dr K episodes of his inappropriate behaviour towards the children and in the workplace raise real concerns about the efficacy of Dr K's treatment. She considered that I could have little confidence there has been much development of insight or understanding into the inappropriateness of his conduct. As Dr G opined, "if you were wanting to work on your emotional regulation in your role as a parent, absolutely, that would be a core thing that would need to be discussed". She describes Dr K's treatment as taking the first steps. It has not addressed the fundamental issues relating to the children's emotional safety in Mr Cantrell's care.
4. Dr K's treatment was also uninformed by any awareness of the following recommendation from Dr G:

It is vital that the children experience emotional safety with their father prior to the consideration of further progressions in time. Longer term recommendations regarding time spent cannot be made until a point that this is achieved. It is incumbent on the father to have demonstrated sufficient change prior to review of recommendations considered herein.[33]

1. The principal aim of Dr K's work was "to support [Mr Cantrell] in managing stress related to a history of depression, and to address the emotional and psychological impact of impending and ongoing family court matters."[34] In oral evidence, Dr K described the primary focus of the work as being the "management of stress associated with family law difficulties, with a past history of depression". Crucially, Dr K accepted that he had done no work with Mr Cantrell around his capacity to provide emotional safety for the children.
2. In January 2025, Dr G suggested that Mr Cantrell's psychological treatment should be sought from a "child psychologist or suitably skilled/qualified other professional, to develop greater insight into children's development, and parenting matters".[35] Dr K accepted that this was not the treatment he provided because he is not qualified and it is not the area in which he works.
3. Dr G's concerns about Mr Cantrell led her to make the following explicit recommendations:
   • It is recommended that the father seek psychological care as recommended (by [Dr L]), and develop his parenting repertoire and understanding of children's needs.
   • The father should have demonstrated change, prior to further review of recommendations contained herein, and the children must experience emotional safety in the father's care, prior to consideration of unsupervised time.[36]
4. Dr K gave oral evidence that he had not provided the recommended psychological care nor had he worked on developing Mr Cantrell's parenting repertoire and understanding of children's needs.
5. When Mr Cantrell's failures to even mention his inappropriate conduct towards the children to his psychologist were put to him, he was invited to address the Court on how I could have any confidence that there will not be a repetition of such inappropriate behaviour. He gave the following evidence:

I - I'm obviously undertaking this Court sessions. I - yes, I - I - I - I'm going to do everything in my power - - -

....

Well, your Honour, I'm going to be more mindful. If you want me to have another session with [Dr K], I'm more than willing to undertake that as well.

...

So the children are my world, I love them. I just want to be in their lives.

1. Despite Mr Cantrell's professed desire to be a part of his children's lives, and his application to spend unsupervised time with the children, he has failed to obtain any therapeutic assistance to address the specific issue that gave rise to the unusual step of time pursuant to interim Orders of this Court progressing from supervised to unsupervised only to return to supervised.
2. Mr Cantrell has failed to obtain the psychological treatment recommended by Dr G. He failed to acknowledge any inappropriateness in his behaviour towards the children prior to giving his oral evidence. In oral evidence, he expressed willingness only to attend upon a psychologist who lacks the qualification and experience to address the issues of his children's emotional safety in his care. I am not satisfied that he has acquired any necessary insight into the impact of his inappropriate behaviour towards the children.[37] That absence of insight to some degree predicts the likelihood of its repetition. [38]
3. Even though supervised time has resumed this year, and despite the treatment he has received from Dr K, Mr Cantrell has still been unable to behave appropriately towards the children. On 16 October 2025, Mr Cantrell considered it appropriate to interrogate the children about their hygiene, by saying to X "why are your teeth yellow and do they have a white line?".[39] Mr Cantrell accepted in oral evidence that he asked X that question. Ms Bowens gives evidence that X reported that he told Mr Cantrell he brushed his teeth every night but his father responded angrily "I don't believe you." [40] She deposes to X being very upset. Mr Cantrell does not respond to that evidence and did not challenge it. I accept it.
4. I find Mr Cantrell's conduct on 16 October 2025, in a supervised context, has sought to inculcate something negative in the children about their mother's care of them. He has been unable to shield the children from his negative and emotional reactions. As Dr G opines, it would "demonstrate that he still has a negative view of the Mum, and he's still behaving in a way that would send the message of undermining the mother's competencies in a parenting role".
5. Dr G recommends that the children's time with their father requires supervision. She opines that "to progress with unsupervised time-spend ongoing, without the presence of safety, has negative potential implications for, (i) the children's development, (ii) their relationship with their mother, and; (iii) their relationship with their father".[41] I have accepted Ms Bowens' evidence, with the result that Dr G opines "there remains ongoing risk for the children, both emotionally and physically, in the father's care".[42] She considers it "vital that the children experience emotional safety with their prior to the consideration of further progressions in time".[43] Dr G's opinions were not successfully challenged and I accept them.
6. Mr Cantrell has not demonstrated the capacity to provide for the children's safety. I accept Dr G's opinion that the children's emotional safety in their father's care "remains unestablished".[44]
7. Mr Cantrell himself acknowledges that a further period of supervised time is in the children's best interests. I find the children spending unsupervised time with the father to leave them at unacceptable risk of emotional and psychological harm.

1. Mr Cantrell has a history of alcohol abuse. He deposes that he had a "problem with alcohol for a period of about 6 months in 2010" but drank alcohol to a much lesser extent during the parties' marriage.[45]
2. Ms Bowens deposes that Mr Cantrell told her "he had sustained liver damage as a result of abusing alcohol prior to meeting [her]".[46] Although Mr Cantrell denies the allegation, he did not challenge her evidence in that respect. Given other inconsistencies in his evidence, I prefer Ms Bowens' evidence.
3. When he was admitted to N Hospital in July 2021, a friend of his who was caring for Mr F reported believing that Mr Cantrell has a "'drinking problem' and thinks it is [his] way of coping; has been 'going on for many years', has drunk in early morning (~8am) when he believed everyone had left the home."[47]
4. In August 2021, Mr Cantrell reported to N Health clinicians that he consumed a two to three bottles of wine per week . He did this at a time when he was in a mental health crisis and on anti-depressant medications. He gave oral evidence that the medication he takes "doesn't really agree with alcohol". That did not stop him consuming alcohol in August 2021. It also calls into question his evidence that "I seldom consume alcohol at any other time as I take medication that could cause adverse side effects when mixed with alcohol."[48]
5. Ms Bowens deposes that she requested Mr Cantrell undertake a test for illicit substances as well as excessive alcohol consumption and that Mr Cantrell "refused to be tested for excessive alcohol consumption".[49] Mr Cantrell did not challenge her evidence. He maintained in oral evidence that he did not deliberately refuse testing for alcohol use . Mr Cantrell has adduced no independent evidence in relation to his alcohol consumption.
6. I am satisfied that Mr Cantrell has minimised the extent of his alcohol use problem in these proceedings. He has adduced no corroborative evidence to confirm that he is not currently drinking to excess. Given the historical minimisation of his alcohol use problem and his failure to undertake requested hair follicle testing, I do not feel an actual persuasion of his oral evidence that he does not consume alcohol at all now.[50] It is not consistent with his written evidence wherein he simply deposes to not drinking alcohol within 24 hours of spending time with the children.
7. There are no family violence orders applicable to the children or a member of their family.

1. In November 2024, X told Dr G that he "worried a lot about his father yelling at him, about his father flipping [Y], or on the playground".[51] He described his time with his father as "good and bad".[52] He "spoke unfavourably about his father's treatment of him (explaining that he "screams" at him, and makes him and [Y] clean up)." [53]
2. X also described to Dr G that "when his mother informs him about time spent, he feels "distressed" and "angry", feeling scared his father will yell at him, with his heart beating fast". [54] X also stated that he "did not feel safe with his father, when he feels like 'something bad's gunna happen'".[55]
3. Whilst ordinarily the weight to be afforded to the views of then seven year old would not be significant, here X's views convey his experience of a lack of safety in his father's care. His apprehension of being screamed and yelled at, his brother being flipped onto the bed, and his worry about bad things happening in his father's care are consistent with conclusions I have reached in relation to the risk posed to the children in their father's care.
4. Significantly, X told Dr G that he does feel safe with the supervisor present. That statement is also consistent with Ms Bowens' case that the risk posed to the children by their father is ameliorated by professional supervision.
5. Also consistent with the themes of X feeling unsafe in his father's care, Y described to Dr G his father "to be angry and yell, and found this 'scary'".[56] They are also consistent with evidence that on 24 August 2024, Y told his mother he didn't want to spend time with his father because he "is always saying mean things to [X]".[57] Further, on 8 September 2024, Y told his mother he didn't want to go back to his father's home because "he laughs at me". [58] Y's views are also consistent with the conclusions I have reached in relation to the children's lack of emotional safety in Mr Cantrell's care.

The developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the children

1. The children are happy and healthy young boys who are meeting their expected age and developmental milestones. X is in Grade 2. Y is in Prep. Both are meeting expected academic targets and engage well in the classroom.
2. Mr Cantrell sought to highlight the apparent inconsistency between the children reporting negative things about their time with him and the notes of the children's supervised time with him. Dr G gave the following evidence in relation to that perceived inconsistency:

... as you will see in my report, when I stepped through the feelings for [X], the majority of his anxiousness was anticipatory anxiety. And he's happy when he sees his dad. So that was certainly the information that was given to me. This is not uncommon in children when they're lacking a sense of emotional safety and security because, you know, nine times out of 10, it's possibly a great visit. You know, they do fun things. They have a fun - they love their dad. There's not a question about that. The anticipatory anxiety is because it's not predictable for them. So is this going to be a time where they get to go to a festival and have, you know, treat food and a fun time with Dad, and Dad's in a good mood, or, "Is this a time that I'm going to get chastised in public to the point where I'm inconsolable?" So, no, it's not inconsistent at all. That would be very consistent with my interview with [X], where he's getting anxious in the lead-up. It's typically only after the event - you know, after something bad happening that he's able to articulate exactly what the issues were. But there are lots of moments of, you know, fun and joy and laughter with Dad too.

1. She also opined orally that "it can be consistent to have a really good time and also be overwhelmed" and that:

... they could have a fantastic time, the best of times, and then come home and still feel that that's an overwhelming activity to undertake on such frequency. So think about the emotional energy for a little boy, you know, to have to contain that and wonder whether their dad is going to provide safety today and wonder who else is going to be there and wonder whether he's going to yell at them like he has before.

So we need to kind of understand this from a child perspective, that children cannot talk and say, "My dad was misattuned to me. My dad didn't know my emotional needs." So they're not going to be able to necessarily communicate that and about why they're not feeling entirely safe with their father. They can't necessarily say, "I'm traumatised from, you know, that time a year ago when he yelled at me, and I still haven't recovered." That's not how children speak.

1. Further, Dr G opined that with X "the crux of the issue... is that anticipatory anxiety of him essentially not feeling safe".
2. I find no reason to reject Dr G's opinions. I find the children to experience anticipatory anxiety prior to spending time with Mr Cantrell due to the lack of predictability as to their interactions with him. As Dr G opines, that experience is not inconsistent with having a good time with Mr Cantrell.

The capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the children to provide for their developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs

1. As has been seen, Mr Cantrell's capacity to provide for his children's needs is compromised by his inability to provide them with emotional safety. That is not the only limitation to his capacity to provide for their developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs.
2. In June 2023, despite having only spent 15 hours with the children since his admission to hospital in July 2021, Mr Cantrell proposed that the children, then aged 4 and 6, commence spending week about time with him. He gave oral evidence that it was "hard to know for sure" if the children would cope. His answer demonstrates no insight into the children's developmental, psychological or emotional needs at that time.
3. I accept Dr G's opinion that the children's experience of their father is one of "inconsistency, and limited emotional attunement".[59] I also accept her opinion that Mr Cantrell "lacks an age-appropriate understanding and expectations of children".[60]
4. Dr G opines that:

There is a clearly emerging pattern of the father utilising and/or exposing the children, to inappropriate behaviours/conversations, that may serve to undermine the mother's parenting. Again, whilst not accepting the mother's evidence as fact, such behaviour is consistent with her allegations against the father. The assessor is sufficiently concerned about the father's ability to support the mother-child relationship. A negative perception of the mother would likely be obvious to the children.[61]

.... with clear risk issues for the children if this were ongoing (in terms of their ongoing relationship with both parents, and their development). In addition, by the father's own evidence, there is risk that he may inculcate the belief that the children are not safe in the mother's care, and/or that the children will become anxious regarding everyday matters.[62]

1. Mr Cantrell maintained allegations in these proceedings that were irrelevant and expressly critical of Ms Bowens. His continued inappropriate involvement of the children in their parents' dispute, leaves them at risk of developing further anxieties. His capacity to provide for their needs is accordingly very limited.
2. By contrast, Dr G observed that Ms Bowens "has generally presented as supportive of the children's time with the father".[63] Dr G also observed Ms Bowens to "display warmth and affection, and was responsive" to the children.[64] I accept Dr G's unchallenged opinions in that respect.

The benefit to X and Y of being able to have a relationship with their parents, and other people who are significant to them, where it is safe to do so

1. Mr Cantrell is at pains to refer to and rely on the extensive notes in evidence of the children's supervised time with him. Those notes detail important and positive interactions between himself and the children. I accept Dr G's oral opinion that the recent "supervision reports were very positive about him in a parenting role", and that there are occasions of Mr Cantrell giving the children the message they're allowed to have a relationship with both parents.
2. Mr Cantrell also relied on the report of a psychologist upon whom the children have attended, Ms M. Ms M reports that X "has a good relationship with both parents that he is loyal to" and that Y "is loyal to both parents".[65] I accept Dr G's opinion that it is difficult to place much weight on those opinions because it is unclear what assessments were done, and whether the issues were understood in full.
3. However, the difficulty with Mr Cantrell's submissions is that the statutory consideration is caveated by the phrase "where it is safe to do so".[66] There is no doubt that the children would benefit from spending extended and unsupervised time with their father, but as has been seen, doing so would imperil their emotional and psychological safety. In the absence of Mr Cantrell being able to afford the children appropriate safety in his unsupervised care, positive supervision notes are inadequate to satisfy me that it is in the children's best interests to do so.
4. Consistent with that conclusion, having read the extensive supervision reports in evidence in the proceedings, Dr G opined that she is "yet to be sufficiently satisfied that the issue of attunement has been successfully addressed, or is being addressed". It is also consistent with Dr G's evidence that the children have:

... a managed attachment. This is what they have. They've got anticipatory anxiety about someone who's supposed to be in a caregiving role.

1. In August 2024, Mr Cantrell wrote to Ms Bowens' solicitors accusing her "again of going down the path of parental alienation".[67] Certainly Mr Cantrell's time with the children has been inconsistent and sparse, but it is tolerably clear that the blame for that lies with Mr Cantrell, not Ms Bowens.
2. The parties separated in July 2020 when Mr Cantrell travelled to the United Kingdom. He did not return until October 2020 whereupon he was required to spend 14 days in quarantine.
3. Mr Cantrell then proposed to spend four hours each Sunday with the children. Agreement was reached for such time to occur for three hours and for video calls to occur twice each week.
4. From early 2021, it was agreed the children would spend time with Mr Cantrell for three and a half hours each Wednesday, and each Sunday for four or six hours. He didn't avail himself of the agreed time, arriving to spend time with them on Wednesdays two hours' late.
5. In July 2021, Mr Cantrell and Ms Bowens attended a marriage counselling session. Thereafter, Mr Cantrell attempted to overdose on sleeping tablets and attempted suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning. He was thereafter involuntarily admitted to the psychiatric unit at N Hospital for 17 days.
6. Mr Cantrell gave oral evidence that his hospitalisation for suicidality was something Ms Bowens needed to know. He admitted that she needed all the available information as the children's parent. He nevertheless admits that he was not forthcoming with any information in relation to his psychiatric admission.
7. More than just not being forthcoming, Mr Cantrell was actively deceitful towards Ms Bowens. He sent her the following messages: [68]

I'm needing a break and in hospital. Can't see and running tests etc

I collapsed

They won't release me I'm fine just doubled vision and tremors and stuff

1. Mr Cantrell also told N Hospital not to release any information to Ms Bowens.
2. Mr Cantrell accepted in oral evidence that this comprised a pattern of him keeping important information about his capacity to look after the children from Ms Bowens, and that he avoided giving her that information.
3. Mr Cantrell accepts that he provided no information in relation to his health to Ms Bowens from July to September 2021. During that period, he also accepts he made no enquiries as to the children's progress.
4. In September 2021, Mr Cantrell wrote to Ms Bowens asking to see the children for the first time since his hospital admission. She asked him for information about his admission "what occurred, what his treatment plan was and what medication he had been prescribed, in order to best consider the arrangements for the Children."[69] Mr Cantrell failed to provide any requested information.
5. In the absence of Mr Cantrell providing any information to Ms Bowens about his hospitalisation or mental health, Ms Bowens proposed the children have video calls with their father. Mr Cantrell accepted in oral evidence that so much was to Ms Bowens' credit.
6. Despite agreement being reached for the children to speak with Mr Cantrell three times each week between 6:00pm and 6:30pm, Mr Cantrell called only three times between October and December 2021. Ms Bowens gives unchallenged evidence that him not calling "was particularly challenging for the Children, as [she] would ensure they were set up at their table on each occasion ready to take a call that was never made".[70]
7. Mr Cantrell accepted in oral evidence that he did not communicate to Ms Bowens that he would not call at the agreed times. Further, when Ms Bowens' solicitors wrote to him on 20 December 2021 to enquire whether he intended to take up the calls, he did not respond. He accepted in oral evidence that he did nothing to fix the problem that had arisen. Nothing about his evidence suggests that he had given any consideration to the impact on the children of not calling at the agreed times.
8. Mr Cantrell did nothing further about seeing the children until September 2022 when he sought to initiate Family Dispute Resolution. He chose not to pursue parenting orders during property settlement proceedings initiated by Ms Bowens in February 2022 which were finalised by the making of final consent Orders in August 2022.
9. In preparation for the Family Dispute Resolution conference, on 3 November 2022, Ms Bowens' solicitors wrote to Mr Cantrell's solicitors "seeking information in respect of [his] mental health, including the circumstances of his admission, to ensure that [she] could engage in considered negotiations in relation to the Children".[71] She "requested copies of [his] [N] Health Admission and Discharge reports, and information from his GP, psychologist/psychiatrist, information about when he commenced , the number of sessions, the frequency of consults , his presentation, his diagnosis, his prognosis and treatment plan and whether he has been compliant."[72] He provided no requested information. He has provided no explanation for his continued failure to provide it which he admits Ms Bowens needed to make decisions as the children's parent.
10. Despite Mr Cantrell's failure to provide requested information about his mental health to Ms Bowens, agreement was reached in November 2022 for the children to commence spending professionally supervised time with Mr Cantrell and to return to Family Dispute Resolution thereafter.
11. Mr Cantrell spent time with the children on five occasions in January and February 2023. He thereafter declined Ms Bowens' offers to continue spending such time with the children pending the next Dispute Resolution Conference. He offers no explanation for his failure to do so. Rather, without particulars and contrary to his oral evidence, he deposes:

The Respondent obstructed my involvement with the children and opposed reasonable interim parenting arrangements. I have never stopped fighting to be involved in the children's lives.[73]

1. I do not accept Mr Cantrell's written evidence, he did nothing to try to speak to or see his children from November 2021 until September 2022. He did not avail himself of offered time from February 2023.
2. On 3 April 2023, Ms Bowens again proposed that some further supervised time occur before a progression to unsupervised time be considered. Mr Cantrell declined stating he is "not willing to have supervised visits".[74] He accepted in oral evidence that he was incapable of putting the children's needs to spend time with him uninterrupted over his own pride about spending supervised time. So much reflect extremely poorly on his capacity to provide for the children's needs.
3. On 28 April 2023, Ms Bowens made a further proposal for the children to spend five supervised visits with him, progressing to unsupervised time for three hours each week, increasing gradually to six hours each Sunday. Mr Cantrell did not accept the proposal, preferring to spend no time with the children. He gave oral evidence that it was his choice to spend no time with the children rather than spend supervised time with them.
4. On 9 June 2023, Mr Cantrell commenced proceedings in this Court for parenting Orders. Despite Ms Bowens' open offer made 28 April 2023, Mr Cantrell continued to spend no time with the children until supervised time commenced with B Family Services in April 2024 following the making of interim consent Orders to that effect made 1 March 2024.
5. On 9 June 2023, Mr Cantrell signed a Court document in which he asserted the truth of the fact that he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. He also asserted the truth of the following:

I am on medication and visit my GP as a check in and to confirm continued prescription of 125 milligrams. I was under the supervision of [N] Mental Health but completed one year supervision with their office and its continued supervision with my local GP. Medical notes previously submitted to the ex-wife and her lawyer.

1. Mr Cantrell gave oral evidence that the diagnosis was incorrect. He believed that he had a "potential diagnosis" at the time. It is significant that his assertions to the Court on the central impediment to him commencing unsupervised time with the children, namely his mental health, were inaccurate. That was so despite repeated requests having been made by Ms Bowens for information about the issue for more than 18 months.
2. Mr Cantrell accepted in oral evidence that he did not disclose to the Court that he had attempted suicide and been involuntarily admitted to hospital, even though it was clearly relevant to his application for the children to spend equal time with him. He also admitted that he did not disclose the circumstances in which his psychiatric treatment had concluded.
3. Despite accusing Ms Bowens of alienating the children from him, Mr Cantrell now accepts that his lack of time with the children was not the result of her conduct. He also accepted in oral evidence that his criticism of her for not facilitating the children's time with him is unfair. He accepts that he did not take opportunities made available to him to see the children.
4. Mr Cantrell was afforded an opportunity to explain why it was that he had chosen not to spend offered time with the children for extended periods of time. He gave the following evidence:

So I think at the time, I was of the opinion that I didn't want to do supervised visits. And I kept requesting time with my children without the supervision.

1. Nothing about Mr Cantrell's evidence suggested he had given any consideration to the impact on his children of choosing not to see them. His counsel conceded that there is no evidence of Mr Cantrell having any insight about the impact of him choosing not to see his children for two years.

Anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of X and Y

1. Mr Cantrell conceded in closing address that Ms Bowens ought to have sole parental responsibility for the children. I am satisfied that concession is appropriately made. Mr Cantrell has repeatedly failed to provide information requested by Ms Bowens in relation to issues affecting his parenting capacity. Mr Cantrell admits that he criticised Ms Bowens in these proceedings in ways that are irrelevant to the determination of the issues in dispute. He misled both the Court and Ms Bowens in an affidavit filed in October 2025 as to the reasons for his resignation from his employment after allegations of inappropriate conduct were investigated and substantiated against him.
2. Dr G gave evidence that recent events did not bode well for the parties' co-parenting relationship. Dr G recommends, without effectual challenge, that Ms Bowens "continue to make decisions regarding the children, and keep the father informed".[75] I am satisfied it is in Y and X's best interests for Ms Bowens to have sole parental responsibility for the children subject to consulting Mr Cantrell with respect to major long-term decisions. The relief she seeks for the issue of passports for the children is ancillary to that conclusion, and I am also satisfied it is in their best interests.
3. Despite Mr Cantrell's concession that an order for sole parental responsibility is appropriate, he opposes the children's surnames being changed to Bowens. Major long-term issues are defined in subsection 4(1) of the Act to include name changes and so would ordinarily fall within the vesting of sole parental responsibility in Ms Bowens. Nevertheless, the order for the name change is a parenting order, with the result that the children's best interests are paramount.[76] Factors relevant to the determination of such an application have been held to frequently include:

(a) Any embarrassment likely to be experienced by the child if his or her name is different from the parent with residence or care and control;

(b) Any confusion of identity which may arise for the child if his or her name is changed or is not changed;

(c) The effect any change in surname may have on the relationship between the child and the parent whose name the child bore during the relationship;

(d) The effect of frequent or random changes of name;

(e) The contact that the non-custodial parent has had and is likely to have in the future with the child;

(f) The degree of identification that the child or children have with their non-custodial parent; and

(g) The degree of identification which the child or children have with the parent with whom they live.[77]

1. Mr Cantrell submits that the children have been recognised by his surname from birth and carried that name in their school. He points to the fact that Y told him his name was Cantrell during a supervised visit. He deposes to the children's names being part of their identity. He contends that administrative convenience is not a sufficient reason to change the children's surname, which "has a significant connection to their father".
2. Mr Cantrell relies on Dr G's evidence that "if there is any name change, that it should be the children who are the ones that - that are kind of seeking that". However, Dr G opined that there was no evidence before her that Ms Bowens was going to use a name change as a means to undermine the children's relationship with their father. Further, there is no legal requirement for children's name changes to be initiated by them.
3. Ms Bowens deposes as follows:

I say that I have requested to change the boys' surname to be the same as my own as I am their primary carer and the parent who manages their day to day needs. It will improve fluid identification for doctors, schools and other third parties or treaters who would be able to readily identify me as the Children's guardian. This will become particularly so when the Children become more responsible for themselves for managing matters at school and at extra curricular activities as they get older. I anticipate the Children will become exasperated at having to explain their connection to me, as a result of different surnames. Given the age of the Children, I do not think they have a strong attachment to their surname. They do not introduce themselves using their surname but rather by their first name only. I do not expect that the change of their surname will impact on their relationship with [Mr Cantrell].[78]

1. That evidence was unchallenged in cross-examination and I accept it. It is evidence that the children do not strongly identify with their surname, even if Y has correctly stated it to his father during a supervised visit.
2. I reject Mr Cantrell's evidence that Ms Bowens' application is an example of her having "gradually and systematically taken steps to erase [him] from the children's lives".[79] It finds no support in Dr G's evidence and is inconsistent with the fact that it has been Mr Cantrell who has chosen not to spend time with his children for extended periods of time and it is Mr Cantrell who has failed to follow the expert recommendations in order to progress the children's time with him.
3. In terms of the children losing a connection with their father, Dr G gave oral evidence that the children will not now forget his existence. She opined that:

... they're at an age where they can remember their father. So, that's no problem. So, they've got an explicit memory of him. That's not going anywhere. They've also got an implicit feeling, you know, memory of their experience and time with him. So, they're not going to forget him.

1. The evidence does not support a conclusion that the children's relationship with their father will be negatively impacted by changing surnames.
2. The children currently have a different surname to the parent with whom they live and who will have sole parental responsibility for them. Pursuant to conclusions I will shortly reach, they will spend time with Mr Cantrell once per month in a supervised environment for the foreseeable future. On balance, I am satisfied that it is in the children's best interests to have the same surname as Ms Bowens.

1. Ms Bowens proposes that the children spend time with Mr Cantrell on a professionally supervised basis once per month. In closing address, Mr Cantrell proposed that he continue to spend fortnightly supervised time with the children until:
   • a child psychologist, briefed with certain documents, reports that Mr Cantrell has had ten sessions;
   • a psychiatrist, also briefed with certain documents, reports that Mr Cantrell is attending "as per the treatment plan"; and
   • Mr Cantrell completes a men's behaviour change course.
2. Implicit in Mr Cantrell's proposal is an acceptance that it is not now in the children's best interests to spend supervised time with him. He effectively concedes that he requires therapeutic intervention prior to unsupervised time commencing.
3. The evidence before me does not establish that the regime of interventions now proposed by Mr Cantrell will inevitably result in an adequate amelioration to the unacceptable risk of harm he poses to the children. Mr Cantrell has already attended upon a psychologist and failed to engage with that psychologist with respect to the central issue of his own emotional dysregulation with his children. Mr Cantrell might attend upon the relevant professionals but engage entirely unsuccessfully. Accordingly, conditioning the progression to unsupervised time merely upon attendance or engagement could not be in children's best interests.[80] As I postulated to Mr Cantrell's counsel, Mr Cantrell could comply with the proposed conditions by attending sessions and remaining mute. I could not be satisfied that the mere attendance upon therapeutic intervention will cause the risk to the children's emotional safety in Mr Cantrell's unsupervised care to be acceptable.
4. Dr G opined in February 2024 that "whilst it is recommended that [Mr Cantrell] seek ongoing psychological treatment, particularly, aimed at the development of his emotional competencies, it is unlikely that this would be of benefit unless [Mr Cantrell] was intrinsically motivated to attend."[81] She observed in January 2025 that Mr Cantrell had failed to heed this advice. She then recommended that Mr Cantrell "seek psychological treatment from a child psychologist or suitably skilled / qualified other professional, to develop greater insight into children's development, and parenting matters".[82] Mr Cantrell again failed to heed that advice.
5. If Mr Cantrell was genuinely motivated to improve his parenting capacity, he would have done so without any order to regulate his decisions. Absent a genuine desire for any such improvement, "any order intended to cajole such an outcome is likely to unsuccessful at best and disregarded at worst".[83] Given Mr Cantrell's conduct towards the children as recently as October 2025, it is clear that the therapy he has received has failed to engender any significant change in his behaviour. I am not confident that his proposal advanced for the first time in closing address to attend upon further professionals, will be any more successful than the therapy which preceded it.[84]
6. As Dr G opines "it is incumbent upon [Mr Cantrell] to have demonstrated sufficient change, prior to review" of the recommendations for a continuation of supervised time.[85] His proposal for mere attendance upon various professionals and a program is inadequate to demonstrate a change in his capacity to provide for his children's emotional safety.
7. I am required to take Mr Cantrell as I find him. The Court is not a therapeutic agency "using litigation as the vehicle to meddle by making aspirational directions about how litigants should improve their parenting capacity in the hope of enhancing their children's familiar experiences".[86]
8. In the absence of being satisfied that, unsupervised, Mr Cantrell is capable of providing his children with emotional safety, I am not satisfied that an order for their time with him to progress to unsupervised is in their best interests. I reach that conclusion even having regard to the conditions Mr Cantrell proposes be satisfied prior to such time commencing.
9. Long term orders for supervision are generally undesirable.[87] However, there is no legislative edict to that effect.[88] I am encouraged to consider crafting orders to avoid such an outcome, although circumstances may arise in which the only appropriate response to the identified risk is to make such an order.[89] Long term supervision orders are not prohibited when the only unpalatable alternative is the complete elimination of a parent from a child's life.[90]
10. No application was made for Mr Cantrell to call further evidence to demonstrate the change Dr G considered essential prior to any review of the now agreed professional supervision of the children's time with him. Whilst clearly it is within my prerogative to contemplate doing so,[91] having regard to the principles enshrined in section 102NE of the Act and the Court's overarching purpose prescribed by section 95 of the Act, I decline to do so. These proceedings have been on foot for two and a half years. Consistent with both parties' positions, it is in the children's best interests for the proceedings to be finalised.
11. Absent satisfaction that Mr Cantrell is capable of providing for his children's emotional safety in his unsupervised care on the evidence now before me, I am left with the alternatives of either terminating the children's time with their father or making a final supervision order. Neither party contended for a termination of the children's relationship with their father. The evidence does not support the desirability of such an outcome. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that a final supervision order is in the children's best interests.
12. Ms Bowens proposes that supervised visits occur monthly. Mr Cantrell contended in closing address that visits should occur fortnightly, although not indefinitely given his proposal to progress to unsupervised time. Dr G opined orally that it might benefit to reduce the visits from fortnightly to monthly, observing "it's about quality, not quantity". She also opined there to be a "really clear indication that [the children] are not coping with the frequency" of fortnightly supervised visits. I accept that evidence.
13. Inconsistent with Mr Cantrell's position that he seeks to maintain fortnightly supervised visits, he deposes that he is "unable to meet the considerable financial burden of $390 per supervised visit", given his lack of income and weekly expenditure of $1,7656 per week.[92] The only proposal before me is for Mr Cantrell to continue to pay for supervised visits. He has previously elected not to see the children for extended periods of time without consideration of its impact upon the children.
14. Given it is in the children's best interests for time with their father to be supervised on an ongoing basis, and given Dr G's evidence, I find Ms Bowens' proposal to be in the children's best interests. It will maximise the possibility of the visits in fact occurring given Mr Cantrell's past conduct and his written evidence in relation to financial matters.
15. Mr Cantrell made no submissions with respect to the specific relief sought by Ms Bowens providing for monthly supervised time. I am satisfied it is in the children's best interests.
16. Given the risk to the children's emotional safety in Mr Cantrell's care I have identified, it is not in the children's best interests for Mr Cantrell have to the first right to care for the children in the event of Ms Bowens being unavailable.

1. Ms Bowens proposes that Mr Cantrell be at liberty to send age-appropriate letters, cards and gifts to the children on special occasions. Mr Cantrell did not address the proposal in his submissions. I am satisfied the children's best interests are served by being able to receive such items from Mr Cantrell, subject to the condition proposed by Ms Bowens that such communication must be suitable for them. That conclusion is consistent with Dr G's recommendations.
2. Mr Cantrell proposes that he have communication with the children each week without interference or observation by Ms Bowens. He did not address the application in submissions. In circumstances where I am not satisfied he is able to provide emotional safety for his children in an unsupervised environment, I am not satisfied that affording him the opportunity to have unsupervised communication with them is in their best interests.
3. Mr Cantrell seeks an order that the parties "continue to communicate via the OurFamilyWizard application".[93] There is no evidence the parties have previously used such an application. The only evidence in relation to the issue is the following:

COUNSEL FOR [MR CANTRELL]: And should the Court accede to time being unsupervised, would you be agreeable to using a parenting communication application like AppClose or MyFamilyWizard to communicate with the father?

[MS BOWENS]: I'm not familiar with either app, but if that's what's required for the orders, I will comply with that. Would I be comfortable? I don't know until I've used it.

1. I have not acceded to the application for unsupervised time. The evidence does not satisfy me it is in the children's best interests for their parents to communicate using the application proposed by Mr Cantrell.
2. Ms Bowens proposes that the parties communicate via email, which proposal I find to be in the children's best interests. It is clear from the evidence before me that Mr Cantrell has regularly used that method of communication to discuss parenting matters.
3. I am not satisfied that the further information Mr Cantrell seeks to have provided to him is in the children's best interests given the agreed position in relation to parental responsibility and the necessity for ongoing supervised time between himself and the children. He advanced no submissions in support of that further relief sought.
4. Mr Cantrell seeks orders regulating the circumstances in which travel may occur. He advanced no submissions in support of the relief sought. It is inconsistent with his concession that Ms Bowens ought to have sole parental responsibility for the children. I find no reason to limit her capacity to travel with the children absent evidence in support of Mr Cantrell's application. I am satisfied that it is in the children's best interests to be permitted to travel with Ms Bowens subject to the provision of make up time, as is proposed by her.
5. Mr Cantrell proposes the parties attend family therapy. The only evidence in support of the application is Mr Cantrell's written evidence that he seeks orders for the parties "to engage in Family Therapy with the children at our equal shared expense to assist us with reestablishing an effective co-parenting relationship."[94] Such therapy is not recommended by Dr G, nor was it suggested to her in oral evidence. Mr Cantrell made no submissions in support of the application. The evidence does not satisfy me that family therapy is in the children's best interests.
6. Ms Bowens seeks injunctive relief for the children's personal protection pursuant to section 68B of the Act. Mr Cantrell did not address the application. Given conclusions I have reached as to Mr Cantrell's incapacity to provide for the children's emotional safety and his inappropriate interactions with the children in public settings, I conclude that it is in the children's best interests not to be exposed to their father outside of the ordered supervised visits. I am accordingly satisfied that the injunctive relief sought is appropriate.
7. Mr Cantrell seeks to restrain Ms Bowens from allowing or encouraging the children to call any other person 'Dad'. He also seeks other injunctive relief against her. I am not satisfied the children's best interests are served by such injunctions being made against Ms Bowens. The evidence does not satisfy me that she has behaved inappropriately towards the children. It is common ground that she will continue to overwhelmingly care for them. I find no warrant to regulate her conduct with the children in those circumstances.
8. It is appropriate for Ms Bowens to have the authority to send a copy of the Court's Orders to relevant third parties who are involved with the children. Mr Cantrell made no contrary submission.
9. Whilst it is strictly unnecessary to discharge all extant interim parenting orders,[95] I accept Ms Bowens' proposal that I do so. It will minimise the risk of any confusion arising with respect to the operative parenting orders.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and fifty-six (156) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Glass.

[1] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 60B.

[2] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 60CA.

[3] Updated Family Report dated 6 January 2025, paragraph 129.

[4] Updated Family Report, paragraph 107.

[5] Updated Family Report, paragraph 118.

[6] Updated Family Report, paragraph 46.

[7] Updated Family Report, paragraphs 111 to 113.

[9] Updated Family Report, paragraph 47.

[10] Affidavit of Ms Bowens filed 3 November 2025, paragraph 81(b).

[11] Affidavit of Mr Cantrell filed 10 November 20225, paragraph 52.

[12] Affidavit of Ms Bowens filed 3 November 2025, paragraph 81(d).

[13] Affidavit of Ms Bowens filed 3 November 2025, paragraph 81(f).

[14] Updated Family Report, paragraph 71.

[15] Affidavit of Ms Bowens filed 3 November 2025, paragraph 81(h).

[16] Affidavit of Ms Bowens filed 3 November 2025, paragraph 81(j).

[17] Affidavit of Ms Bowens filed 3 November 2025, paragraph 81(k).

[18] Affidavit of Ms Bowens filed 3 November 2025, paragraph 81(i).

[19] Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd [2011] HCA 11; (2011) 243 CLR 361 at [63].

[20] Updated Family Report, paragraph 64.

[21] Affidavit of Ms Bowens filed 3 November 2025, paragraph 81(l).

[22] Updated Family Report, paragraph 69.

[23] Updated Family Report, paragraphs 83 and 84.

[24] Updated Family Report, paragraph 108.

[25] Updated Family Report, paragraph 83.

[26] Updated Family Report, paragraph 26.

[27] Updated Family Report, paragraph 119.

[28] Updated Family Report, paragraph 107.

[29] Updated Family Report, paragraph 107.

[30] Updated Family Report, paragraph 108.

[31] Updated Family Report, paragraph 110.

[32] Affidavit of Dr K filed 27 October 2025, page 12.

[33] Updated Family Report, paragraph 123.

[34] Affidavit of Dr K filed 27 October 2025, page 9.

[36] Updated Family Report, paragraphs 137 and 138.

[37] Darmadi & Binjori [2023] FedCFamC1A 29; (2023) FLC 94-136 ("Darmadi & Binjori") at [25].

[39] Affidavit of Ms Bowens filed 3 November 2025, paragraph 110(m).

[40] Affidavit of Ms Bowens filed 3 November 2025, paragraph 110(m).

[41] Updated Family Report, paragraph 110.

[42] Updated Family Report, paragraph 118.

[43] Updated Family Report, paragraph 123.

[44] Updated Family Report, paragraph 122.

[45] Affidavit of Mr Cantrell filed 27 October 2025, paragraph 37.

[46] Affidavit of Ms Bowens filed 3 November 2025, paragraph 24.

[48] Affidavit of Mr Cantrell filed 27 October 2025, paragraph 38.

[49] Affidavit of Ms Bowens files 3 November 2025, paragraph 147.

[50] Keane & Keane & Another [2021] FamCAFC 1; (2021) 62 Fam LR 190 at [73] and the cases there cited.

[51] Updated Family Report, paragraph 64.

[52] Updated Family Report, paragraph 65.

[53] Updated Family Report, paragraph 65.

[54] Updated Family Report, paragraph 68.

[55] Updated Family Report, paragraph 75.

[56] Updated Family Report, paragraph 79.

[57] Affidavit of Ms Bowens filed 3 November 2025, paragraph 81(e).

[58] Affidavit of Ms Bowens filed 3 November 2025, paragraph 81(g).

[59] Updated Family Report, paragraph 107.

[60] Updated Family Report, paragraph 108.

[61] Updated Family Report, paragraph 115.

[62] Updated Family Report, paragraph 130.

[63] Updated Family Report, paragraph 86.

[64] Updated Family Report, paragraph 99.

[66] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 60CC(2)(e).

[69] Affidavit of Ms Bowens filed 3 November 2025, paragraph 48.

[70] Affidavit of Ms Bowens filed 3 November 2025, paragraph 53.

[71] Affidavit of Ms Bowens filed 3 November 2025, paragraph 55.

[72] Affidavit of Ms Bowens filed 3 November 2025, paragraph 56.

[73] Affidavit of Mr Cantrell filed 10 November 2025, paragraph 42.

[74] Affidavit of Ms Bowens filed 3 November 2025, paragraph 63.

[75] Updated Family Report, paragraph 135.

[76] Lysons & Lysons [2019] FamCAFC 29; (2019) FLC 93-891 ("Lysons & Lysons") at [22] and the cases there cited.

[77] Lysons & Lysons at [24] and [26] quoting Reagan & Ordton [2016] FamCA 330 at [34].

[78] Affidavit of Ms Bowens filed 3 November 2025, paragraph 150.

[79] Affidavit of Mr Cantrell filed 27 October 2025, paragraph 39.

[80] Miyajima & Mikkelsen (2024) FLC 94-225 ("Miyajima & Mikkelsen") at [18].

[83] Lainhart & Ellinson [2023] FedCFamC1A 200; (2023) FLC 94-166 ("Lainhart & Ellinson") at [34].

[85] Updated Family Report, paragraph 123.

[87] Moose & Moose (2008) FLC 93-375 at [119]; Newett & Newett (No 9) (2023) FLC 94-133 at [121].

[88] Bielen & Kozma [2022] FedCFamC1A 221; (2022) FLC 94-123 at [67]; Barbir & Erickson (2023) FLC 94-168 at [46].

[89] Bant & Clayton [2019] FamCAFC 198; (2019) FLC 93-924 at [53] and [54] and the cases there cited.

[90] Champness & Hanson [2009] FamCAFC 96; (2009) FLC 93-407 at [216]; Lainhart & Ellinson at [36] and the cases there cited.

[92] Affidavit of Mr Cantrell filed 27 October 2025, paragraph 73.

[93] Mr Cantrell's Further Amended Initiating Application filed 27 October 2025, paragraph 13.

[94] Affidavit of Mr Cantrell filed 27 October 2025, paragraph 99.

[95] Keskin & Keskin & Anor [2019] FamCAFC 236; (2019) FLC 93-932 at [31] and the cases there cited.