CDJ v VAJ

(a) That pursuant to those requirements, neither party may cross examine the other party personally;

(b) That pursuant to those requirements, any cross examination of either party may only be conducted by a legal practitioner acting on behalf of the other party;

(c) As to the availability of the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross Examination of Parties Scheme and the means by which they may apply to that scheme for the provision of a lawyer.

1. I DIRECT the father to contact the Legal Aid NSW Family Advocacy & Support Service on 1800 979 529 for the purpose of completing an application to the Cross Examination Scheme.
2. The time by which the parties are to file and serve documents pursuant to orders 17, 18, 19, 22 of the orders of 28 March 2025 be extended to 15 September 2025.
3. The time by which the parties are to file and, or, serve documents pursuant to orders 27, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 of the orders of 28 March 2025 be extended to 19 September 2025.
4. Leave is granted to the Independent Children's Lawyer to attend the final hearing by Webex noting that counsel briefed will appear in person.

1. The court requests that Legal Aid NSW consider the allocation of a solicitor to the father pursuant to the Cross Examination Scheme with priority given the imminent final hearing.
2. The court notes the father's request, to the extent possible, that his current solicitor, Mrs Hazim of Hazim & Co Lawyers, a solicitor on the Cross-Examination Scheme Panel, be appointed to him pursuant to that Scheme.

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

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

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

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

1. On 28 March 2025, I listed these proceedings for trial for five days commencing on 22 September 2025. I made trial directions to prepare the matter for final hearing in relation to both parenting and property matters.
2. On 30 July 2025, the applicant father ("the father") filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking orders as follows:
   1. That this matter be listed on an urgent short notice basis.
   2. That the final hearing listed on 22-26 September 2025 be vacated.
   3. Any other orders the court sees fit.
3. The father, in support of his application to vacate the final hearing dates, filed an affidavit on the same day, 30 July 2025 ("the father's affidavit").
4. The father's application came before me today, 11 August 2025, for interim hearing, with the respondent mother ("the mother") and the Independent Children's Lawyer ("the ICL") having previously indicated their opposition to the father's application.
5. Prior to the interim hearing, I had indicated to the mother by way of correspondence from chambers, that the hearing could proceed by way of submissions only, should there be no matters about which she desired to place before the court in an affidavit responsive to the father's application.
6. An updated Family Report has been prepared in these proceedings by Court Child Expert Ms C and is dated 16 June 2025 (released under cover of orders dated 23 June 2025) ("the updated family report"). Ms C had previously prepared a Family Report in these proceedings, dated 26 February 2024 (released under cover of orders dated 28 February 2024) ("the family report").
7. I heard submissions on behalf of the father, the mother, and the ICL.

1. There are six children of the parties' marriage: U (aged 17), V (aged 15), W (aged 14), X (aged 12), Y (aged 6), and Z (aged 4).
2. After the parties separated in or around June 2021, the father moved to Melbourne (in early 2022) and commenced living with his now wife, Ms B, and her four children. The mother continued to reside in Sydney and, initially, the children of the parties' marriage remained in her care and spent sporadic time with the father.
3. On 10 July 2023, interim orders were made by consent for U, W, Z, and Y to live with the father in Melbourne and for V and X to live with the mother in Sydney. That arrangement, however, had been in place since February 2023. Those interim orders provided for, at least, monthly contact between the children and the parent with whom they were not residing. Despite this, the sibling group did not spend time together from February 2023 until December 2023, after which, there were only a handful of instances where the sibling group were reunited throughout 2024.
4. The updated family report explains at paragraph 14 that:

In December 2024, [V] and [X] spent several weeks in the care of their father in Melbourne. It is understood that the sibling group was reunited during this time. Mr [Bebic] then travelled to Sydney with all six children in January 2025, so that the children could spend time with Ms [Bebic]. It was agreed that Ms [Bebic] returned the children to the paternal grandparents' home on 20 January 2025, and that [W] flew back to Melbourne, as per [W]'s request. It is understood that Ms [Bebic] collected [U], [V], [X], [Y], and [Z] from the paternal grandparents' home in or around 22 January 2025, and retained the children due to reported allegations of abuse made by the children. Mr [Bebic] asserted that the children in Ms [Bebic]'s care ceased responding to his calls from this date.

1. The father's affidavit outlines these events at paragraphs 16 to 18.
2. Following these events, only W has continued to reside with the father in Melbourne. Interim orders were made by consent to this effect on 28 March 2025, providing for Z, Y, V, and X to live with the mother and for W to live with the father. The father's affidavit at paragraph 20 addresses his stated reasons for agreeing to these interim orders.
3. As for U, the circumstances in relation to her current situation are particularly relevant in respect of the father's application to vacate the final hearing dates. The interim orders of 28 March 2025 note that U has moved out of the father's care and is presently living independently in Melbourne.
4. The updated family report indicates in paragraph 16 that U returned to Melbourne in early 2025 and that she is living independently and is continuing her secondary school studies.

1. The father's affidavit makes clear that he was served with an application and summons for an intervention order relating to U's protection in early 2025. Exhibit 1 is a copy of the interim order and the application made by the Victoria Police for the protection of U. The application sets out the circumstances in which it is alleged that the father had engaged in family violence against U on an unspecified date in June 2023.
2. The father is opposing the making of the Intervention Order on a final basis. That matter has not yet been heard and a further mention is scheduled in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria at Suburb D in late 2025 (Exhibit 2 being the notice of hearing for that court event).
3. The father now seeks to adjourn the final hearing scheduled in this court (commencing on 8 September 2025) to protect his right to silence in those proceedings. In his affidavit, the father had suggested that he also faced criminal charges but it became clear during the hearing that the father had probably misunderstood the nature of the proceedings for Intervention Order. The ICL tendered a letter from Victoria Police dated July 2025 (Exhibit 4) which confirmed that they could find no records of a criminal history or pending criminal charges against the father.
4. The father, through his solicitor, submitted that his conduct of the Intervention Order proceedings would be jeopardised if he was compelled to complete his evidence in these proceedings first (noting that the Victoria proceedings do not have a final hearing date yet but that it will obviously be some time after the mention in late 2025).

Readiness of the property aspect of the proceedings

1. In addition to reliance upon that issue, the father's solicitor also submitted that the final hearing should be vacated in circumstances where the property aspect of the matter may not be ready. It was submitted that the work of the single expert accountant in completing a review of the parties' (or entities associated with them) taxation obligations was not concluded and that there was a real risk that such would not be resolved prior to the final hearing date. It was submitted that substantial uncertainty would still attach to the parties' balance sheet if that was the case. The father's solicitor noted that the quantum of the taxation liabilities was previously in the vicinity of around five or six hundred thousand dollars and that the single expert was hopeful of reducing that obligation to a sum around $60,000.

Father's inability to meet the costs of his lawyers

1. The father also sought to vacate the final hearing as he is unable to meet the costs of his legal representation on a private basis. He deposed to owing his previous solicitors around $100,000 and that he had applied for a grant of legal aid. Exhibit 3 was a letter dated 7 August 2025 to the father's current lawyers from Legal Aid NSW advising that his application for legal aid had been refused.
2. More generally, the father's potential difficulty with respect to his legal representation, or future lack thereof, has not crystallised, and the state of the evidence is such that it does not support an adjournment of the final hearing, consistent with the findings I make regarding the best interests of the children.

1. The father's solicitor also addressed the court with respect to orders being made under section 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act"). I accept that in this matter there are competing serious allegations of family violence being made against each of the parents, including violence alleged by an adult against a child or children. Previous family violence orders may have been in place against the father but I do not understand the evidence to be that there is one in place between the parents at this time.
2. I am persuaded, however, that it would not be appropriate in this matter, if the father was without legal representation, for him to be required to cross examine the mother (both the mother and the father ought to be shielded from that experience). I am satisfied, given the allegations in this matter, that the terms of s 102NA(1)(c)(iv) are met, and I make an order that the requirements of s 102NA(2) of the Act shall apply to cross examination in the proceedings.
3. I note the challenges in securing representation under the s 102NA scheme, as advised by the ICL and given the limited time available before the final hearing. To the extent possible, I will add to the orders my request that the application be given such priority as those managing the scheme are able to afford it.
4. The father's solicitor also noted that neither the father nor the mother had yet complied with the existing filing directions.

1. The mother opposed the father's application and sought that the final dates be preserved. The mother was represented by a solicitor agent who did not have carriage of the matter on behalf of the mother. I was not given an explanation, therefore, as to why the mother had not complied with the filing directions.

THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER'S SUBMISSIONS

1. The ICL, Mr Samuel, sought that the final hearing dates be retained. The ICL noted that the parties had been involved in litigation before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) and more recently, this court, since 2021.
2. Mr Samuel referred me to parts of the father's evidence in which he expressed his own concerns about the impact upon the children of disruptions to their care, which had informed the father's agreement that some of the children would remain in the mother's care, pending the final hearing.
3. Mr Samuel indicated that on his part, the matter was ready to proceed and that he would likely file his case outline document ahead of the scheduled time frame, given that he would later be on leave.

1. The parenting proceedings before the court concern the best interests of the parties' six children. Leaving aside the late filing of the parties' trial affidavits, the family report has been updated and the parties now have the benefit of that report.
2. The matters raised by the Court Child Expert in the updated family report make clear that the children need to have their living arrangements finalised as soon as possible. Among the considerations at play in this matter include that some of the children are separated (the child W lives with the father, and the other children, save for U, live with the mother). There are issues about the extent to which the important relationship the children have with each other is being properly supported in the current circumstances. There are also issues relating to asserted risks the children face in each household (with competing allegations made by each parent against the other).
3. The parenting relationship is very poor and the children have, it appears, not experienced their parents able to properly support the continuation of the relationship with the other parent, as a result of those difficulties.
4. I have regard to the principles set out in Re K [1994] FamCA 21 ("Re K") and, as more recently discussed, in Langley & Tarelli (No 2) [2020] FamCAFC 126 ("Langley & Tarelli"). In Langley & Tarelli, Ryan J observed (with whom Ainslie-Wallace and Aldrige JJ agreed) that the best interests of the child remained a significant factor when considering whether final parenting orders ought to be adjourned or stayed until the completion of criminal proceedings. While the application for an adjournment is not strictly a parenting order, consistent with that authority and the High Court in CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172, the best interests consideration is "a powerful matter to be weighed up against a competing principle..." (as at paragraph 87).
5. The father is not, in fact, facing criminal proceedings at this time. His argument - that he would prefer to avoid expressing his evidence about the alleged events involving the child U, which appear to have informed the family violence application against him, are understandable but they cannot prevail against other considerations which inform the best interests of the children. Having this matter determined, on a final basis, on the currently listed dates, is in the interests of all of the children. I am obliged to have regard to the overarching purpose and the principles for conducting child related proceedings, as set out in section 102NE of the Act. I take into account the benefits to the children of having these proceedings concluded and that consideration weighs heavily in favour of retaining the final hearing dates.
6. The father may elect to seek the protections of section 128 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) in due course. The evidence as to what did or did not occur between the father and U will be relevant to the final proceedings more generally, where there are competing serious allegations of family violence and risk. Consistent with Re K, I do not accept that it is in the best interests of these children to delay the final hearing of the competing parenting applications as sought by the father.
7. There may be other difficulties relating to the preparedness of the financial aspects of the matter for final hearing. There remains some time before the final hearing and the parties may be able to bring clarity to those issues. That uncertainty does not weigh in favour of the final hearing dates being vacated.

1. I will dismiss the application to vacate the final hearing dates.
2. There are opportunities for the parties to consider settlement of the outstanding parenting matters, with the benefit of the updated family report. The parties are encouraged to explore those matters, consistent with the overarching purpose as set out in section 95 of the Act and the duty to act consistently with such (as set out in section 96 of the Act). If, however, the parties cannot reach agreement, the court will hear the matter on the allocated final hearing dates.
3. I will make the orders with respect to section 102NA of the Act with the notations referred to prior.
4. It is necessary to revisit the directions for filing of evidence. I will undertake that process with the parties now and on that basis, the case management hearing currently listed on 20 August 2025 will be vacated.

I certify that the preceding forty-one (41) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Simpson.