Conner & Conner (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1A 235 (16 December 2025)

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 Conner & Conner has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. By Application in an Appeal filed 28 November 2025 the appellant seeks to expedite her appeal against interim parenting orders.
2. In support of the application, the appellant relies upon her affidavit sworn 28 November 2025, Written Submissions and Further Written Submissions.
3. These reasons explain why the application will be dismissed.

1. The parties are engaged in highly conflictual proceedings pursuant to Pt VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") in relation to their only child. Some insight to the extent to which those proceedings are conflictual is exemplified by the numerous applications before the primary judge and this the third appeal brought by the appellant against interim orders.
2. On 21 November 2025, the primary judge discharged orders made in April 2024, February 2025 and May 2025 and ordered the child live with the respondent father and for him to have sole decision-making responsibility. His Honour's judgment (Conner & Conner (No 4) [2025] FedCFamC1F 879) identifies in clear terms his reasons for the making of the orders.
3. The primary judge recorded a background as follows:
   1. The parties began living together in 2017, and they married in 2019. They separated in March of 2022 when [X] was only 10 months old. Initially, post-separation, [X]'s time with the father occurred via video calls and then supervised time at a Contact Centre commenced in September 2022, and unsupervised time between the father and [X] commenced in June of 2023. This information can be found in the Family Report, which is Exhibit 2 in this interim application. That report was prepared by [the report writer]. The report was released to the parties on 1 August 2024. The report shows that the child enjoyed close relationships with both the mother and the father. I note in particular, paragraph 55 and paragraph 54, where it was stated, amongst other things, that:

"54. [X] is a delightful, confident, and bright toddler. Information from the parents combined with observations suggest [X] is meeting her developmental milestones and, as she celebrates her 3rd birthday this month [...], is becoming more independent as she develops control over her environment. [X] demonstrated confident and secure behaviour in each parent's care and any subtle shifts in temperament and interaction can be easily attributed to the differing self-reported styles of parenting of Mr [Conner] and Ms [Conner] and the way this influences [X]'s relationship with each parent. There were no issues for [X] transitioning between the care of her mother and father, with no uncertainty or hesitation evident and an easy, comfortable, and positive attachment was observed in both interactions

1. It is evident that [X] enjoys close relationships with both Ms [Conner] and Mr [Conner]. Ms [Conner] and Mr [Conner] are committed to actively parenting [X] and want to see her thrive as she grows, however, each has different experiences of and approaches to parenting, as well as differing views on what arrangements are best for [X]."

(emphasis added)

"56. Arguably, the parents are in agreement that [X]'s primary relationship is with her mother but that time with her father to develop her relationship with him is also crucial, albeit currently achieved through limited blocks of time spent in somewhat artificial settings."

1. At the time of the Family Report both parents, including the mother, were in agreement that [X]'s time with her father was crucial. The recommendation of that report writer at that particular time allowed for an increase of [X]'s time with her father. In particular, in paragraph 89, the recommendation was that:

"89. That, after [X] turns 3.5 years of age, and upon Mr [Conner] obtaining suitable accommodation which affords [X] her own provide space, Mr [Conner]'s time with [X] be extended to overnight time, commencing Friday and concluding Sunday."

1. It is apparent from that report, and it is indeed the case, that at that stage [X] had not spent overnight time with her father after separation, and still today, [X] has not yet spent any overnight time with her father since the separation.

2. That report, Exhibit 2, was released in August 2024. Before that report was prepared, the father had instituted parenting proceedings. The matter went before Senior Judicial Registrar Norrington on 18 April 2024. I can only assume that Senior Judicial Registrar Norrington was in Darwin at the time, but the parents probably appeared by video link. The orders were made by consent. The Orders provided that:

"c. Upon the child attaining the age of three and a half (3 ½) years as follows:-

1. In week one from 9:00am AEST to 5:00pm AEST on Friday and Sunday;

2. In week two from 1.30pm AEST Friday to 11:00am AEST Saturday."

3. Furthermore, Order 4, in accordance with the consent order, provided that:

"4. That all changeovers take place through the [K] Children's Contact Centre and to this end each parent will continue to meet their own changeover membership fees for the Centre."

1. A restraint was imposed upon the father to restrain him from consuming alcohol at all times the child is in his care and for 24 hours prior to [X] coming into his care. Another restraint was placed upon the father preventing the father from bringing the child into contact with the paternal grandfather, [Mr Q], or permitting others to do so.
2. These interim parenting proceedings (as is the case with all interim applications) were conducted in a truncated manner. Only two hours today was allocated for this, but already about five or six hours today has been spent on the matter. The mother has attended today by video link. The mother had the benefit of a [Courtney E] interpreter until the mother informed the Court very clearly in English that she preferred to make her submissions herself in English. Mr [R] of Counsel appears on behalf of the father, and Ms [O], the Independent Children's Lawyer appears. Both Mr [R] and Ms [O] are in attendance in the courtroom here in Brisbane. The mother, I apprehend, is present in [City F].
3. The mother sought an adjournment of the hearing, but the adjournment application was dismissed, and I provided reasons at the time.
4. The father's interim application was filed on 6 August 2025, and the significant and most important order sought by the father was an interim change of the residence of the child whereby the child would move from the mother's primary care to the father's primary care. The father did amend the orders that he seeks on 18 November 2025 and to that end there was an Amended Application in a Proceeding filed, but it remains the case that the single most important issue raised by the father in the Application in a Proceeding filed in August and the Amended Application in a Proceeding filed in November is that the father seeks an interim change of the child's residence from the mother to the father.
5. The mother opposes that order. The mother informed the Court that she did not wish to pursue her Application in a Proceeding that she had filed on 4 August 2025. During the course of the morning, and indeed, early on, the mother informed the Court that what she was pursuing today by way of orders were the orders that were contained in her Amended Response to an Application in a Proceeding filed on 20 November 2025.
6. The father's Application in a Proceeding, the original one that was set down for today, was filed 6 August 2025. The mother's original Application in a Proceeding was filed on 4 August 2025. In order, therefore, to ensure that the record is correct, the mother indicated she did not wish to pursue the Application in a Proceeding which she filed on 4 August 2025 and, as I have said, she sought to rely on the Amended Response to an Application in a Proceeding that she filed on 20 November. Hence, the mother's Application in a Proceeding that was filed on 4 August 2025 will be dismissed.
7. This matter has been in my docket now for approximately one year. The parents have appeared before me, whether in person or by video link, on numerous occasions.

...

1. The [K] Children's Contact Centre was the place for changeovers as ordered by the Court. On 30 July 2025, the Contact Centre wrote an email to Ms [Conner], and it was signed by the manager of that centre, Ms [T]. Amongst other things, the email says to the mother:

"...Given the concerns raised against our organisation, we believe it is no longer appropriate to provide any further services to your family and our service is now withdrawn.

Following this letter, we will be putting all parties on notice of our withdrawal of services, including the Independent Children's Lawyer."

1. It may not have been correct to characterise the mother's email to the Contact Centre as a threat to sue but it was obviously an email which implicitly amounted to a threat to the Contact Centre that the mother would take further steps - including a possible step whereby she would complain, I can only presume to the Police, that the Contact Centre had perverted the course of justice and had committed a breach of section 140 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld). It is no wonder that the [K] Children's Contact Centre withdrew their services.
2. That left this family with no place for changeovers to occur because the only other place in [City F] that does permit these changeovers in a supervised way is the same organisation where [...] the Family Report Writer, runs her practice, and that organisation concluded that their involvement would amount to a conflict of interest and declined to provide a service to this family. Hence, the family was left with no Contact Centre in [City F].
3. The mother has indicated that she is not able to drive anywhere else in Queensland to another Contact Centre. [City V] was ventilated in this Court on more than one occasion. But the mother asserts an inability to drive. Indeed, the mother had, at an earlier time, been ordered by this Court to attend Court in person, but consistently failed to do so. The mother provided to the Court one excuse after another. One excuse related to a car accident that the mother said had occurred on the morning of a hearing. In any event, the Court eventually, and in order to try to ensure this litigation moved forward, commenced giving the mother leave to attend by video link.
4. The effect of the mother's long email to the [K] Children's Contact Centre was to effectively frustrate the Orders made by this Court for changeovers to take place at that centre. This Court has not been provided with one iota of evidence from the mother of anything done (or not done) by the [K] Children's Contact Centre which would constitute some negligence or failure to provide a duty of care or, commission of a criminal offence. Not one iota of evidence has been provided by the mother to support the allegations that she put in writing to that Contact Centre, which now form part of Exhibit 4, and which the mother did her utmost to prevent the Court from viewing by filing an objection to the subpoena. I have made reference to that earlier.
5. This explains very clearly why it is that this little one, [X], has not seen her father since 1 August 2025. It coincides with the mother frustrating the Orders, leading to the withdrawal of the Contact Centre services. I have already made it clear that it is not as though the mother came up with any viable alternative in relation to a supervised changeover arrangement.

...

1. What the mother's conduct has effectively done is to cease the father's relationship with the child by effectively stopping that time, by frustrating the Order concerning the use of the Contact Centre. The Contact Centre withdrew their services. The only other available place in [City F] was conflicted out, and the mother will not travel anywhere else to effect a changeover.
2. In terms of the question of allegations of family violence, the Court has received assistance from the Independent Children's Lawyer, and I note the documents that have been put before the Court, including Exhibit 5, Exhibit 6 and all the way up through to Exhibit 15.
3. Exhibit 5 is about the paternal grandfather. I do not need to refer to the paternal grandfather, [Mr Q], any further.
4. Exhibit 6 is a history of the father's criminal offending, which is at least 17 or 18 years ago. Some of the matters are as long as 21 years ago. These all relate to, it seems, making a public nuisance of himself, and I infer from the document and from other evidence that they are related to alcohol consumption. In that regard, the Independent Children's Lawyer helpfully points out, and my attention is now focused on Exhibit 7, which is a pathology report which shows that the Independent Children's Lawyer has been requesting from the father blood tests to monitor his consumption of alcohol. The Independent Children's Lawyer says, and Exhibit 7 confirms, that there is no indication of recent or ongoing excessive alcohol use by the father. That is the upshot of the documents that comprise Exhibit 7.
5. So far as the consumption of alcohol is concerned - it amounts to a very low risk only.
6. Exhibit 8 is from Police records dated December 2024. I have had regard to it. There is nothing in there that concerns me in terms of risk from the father's perspective. Exhibit 9 is another Police document dated 4 January 2025. I have had regard to it. There is nothing in there that concerns the Court in terms of the father posing any risk to the child with the child in the father's unsupervised care.
7. Exhibit 10 is an Application to Vary a Domestic Violence Order, and that relates to a Domestic Violence Order that had been made in March 2022. It is a five-year Order. The mother is the aggrieved, the child is mentioned as a child of the aggrieved, and contact was prohibited except for the purpose of compliance with orders of the Court.
8. The Order was made on the allegations of the mother. It is not clear whether the father consented without admissions or whether he consented or not. It was submitted that he did Consent, but I cannot quite tell that from the Order. If Ms [O] can draw that to my attention at the conclusion, I will amend these Reasons.
9. There was an Application filed to Vary a Domestic Violence Order, which I understand was filed by the Police on [...] 2025 - it is Exhibit 10. Exhibit 11 shows that that Application to Vary was withdrawn by the Police on 5 November 2025.
10. In relation to the documents so far as they relate to allegations of domestic violence, there is nothing contained therein which would concern the Court to such an extent that the father's time would have to be supervised. There is nothing in there that would prevent the Court from making an order, or convince the Court not to make an order on best interests grounds, for the child to spend overnight time or indeed live with the father.
11. To the extent that the mother alleges family violence against the father, the mother makes broad-ranging assertions of coercive control which she says was perpetrated by the father, without descending into particulars. My attention has not been drawn to any evidence that would convince me that the Court would not make an order for the child to live with the father on an interim basis on the grounds of family violence concerns. This is borne out by the fact that the mother consented in 2024 to an order for unsupervised time between the child and the father, including an order for overnight time.
12. I have had regard to the documents from the Department of Child Safety, which are Exhibit 12. There is nothing contained therein which is of concern. On 16 May 2025, the conclusion which is on page 42 of Exhibit 12, is that:

"There is no indication at this time that [X] is at a probable risk of future harm or has sustained a significant harm."

1. That conclusion is in relation to complaints made that the father would be a risk of harm to the child.

...

1. My attention was drawn to a number of other matters, including the psychiatric assessment conducted by Dr [C], and I have had regard to that. I note that Dr [C] says, amongst other things, at paragraph number 7 on page 66 of 114 pages, as part of a summary, that:

"7. I am of the opinion that Ms [Conner] has impaired capacity to be a sole parent and will require support to co-parent effectively in the best interest of her child."

1. At paragraph 62, which is at page 80 of 114, the opinion of the expert was that:

"62. Ms [Conner] was assessed as having an impairment in personality function that manifests in her self-functioning, both identity and self-direction, and interpersonal functioning with the presence of significant compulsive, turbulent and schizoid pathological personality traits."

1. I only make reference to those items. That particular expert has not been the subject of cross-examination. I provide some weight to the opinions, but I do not rely upon those opinions to any significant degree whatsoever, and my judgment today rests upon other matters and the orders that will be made would have been made whether or not I had any regard whatsoever to the report of Dr [C].

2. My attention was drawn to the mother's affidavit filed yesterday, 20 November 2025 at paragraph 41. Paragraph 41 of the mother's affidavit states:

"41. I respectfully submit that there an abunce of evidence before the Cort of my Court abiding approach to these proceedings and to the rules stated the Family Lae Act 1975 (Cth), cooperation, flexibility and unwavering support for the child to have meaningful relationship with her father (e.g. supporting the child's request to spend more time with the Father than the Court Ordres actually allowed)."

(as per original)

1. The mother said that she respectfully submits that there is an abundance of evidence before the Court of her court-abiding approach to these proceedings. That has actually not been borne out by the evidence. The evidence is that the mother has conducted herself in such a way that the orders have been frustrated by the mother without any proper justification on her part.

1. The appellant's affidavit and submissions in support of this application repeat the matters advanced by her to the primary judge as to the risk posed by the respondent, the asserted history of family violence including coercive and controlling conduct, and the asserted absence of any expressed concern on the part of mental health experts reflecting adversely upon the appellant's capacity to care for the child. These matters were addressed extensively by the primary judge in his reasons. Such history needs to be seen in the context of the appellant's prior consent to orders providing for unsupervised time between the child and the respondent, the reintroduction of time by the primary judge that resulted in the orders which were the subject of the appellant's first unsuccessful appeal, and the subsequent frustration of that time.
2. The appellant's Notice of Appeal contends jurisdictional, factual, and discretionary error as well as a complaint of a denial of procedural fairness.
3. The appellant sought that the application be determined in chambers without the necessity for an interim hearing in accordance with r 13.38 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

1. In Villa & Villa [2025] FedCFamC1A 214 Austin J conveniently summarised the principles applicable to applications of this type. In that respect, his Honour observed as follows:
   1. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) ("the Rules") prescribe time periods for the orderly conduct of appeals (rr 13.03, 13.05, 13.08, 13.09 and 13.14), though provision is made for time periods to be extended or shortened as the exigencies of the situation require (r 15.06).
   2. Unlike the former Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth), the Rules do not govern the discretionary considerations which influence the determination of expedition applications, so the following statement of relevant principles by Aldridge J in Gallea & Gallea [2020] FamCAFC 322 is now adopted and applied:
      1. Section 94(2D)(j) of [the Act] provides that an order can be made to expedite an appeal. Whilst there are no rules that govern the expedition of appeals, commonly a Court considering such an application will look to r 12.10A of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) ("the Rules") as a helpful list of the factors to be considered. The factors to be taken into account include: whether the applicant has acted reasonably and without delay in the conduct of the case, whether the application has been made without delay, whether expedition will cause any prejudice to the respondent, and whether there are any other relevant circumstances which suggest that the matter should be given priority to the possible detriment of other cases. The ultimate task for the Court to decide is whether the appeal the subject of the application should be heard before and in priority to other appeals which have already been filed and await hearing.

1. I accept the appellant has moved promptly. The orders were made on 21 November 2025, the Notice of Appeal was filed 25 November 2025, and this application was filed 28 November 2025.
2. In circumstances where the appeal has been listed for hearing before the Full Court in February 2026 the question becomes whether this appeal should have precedence over that of others who would also rightly contend that there is urgency to the disposition of their appeal.
3. The appellant's contentions for expedition rest upon her assertions that the child is at a risk of harm in the care of the respondent and by separation from her albeit she has in the past consented to interim orders providing for unsupervised time and unsuccessfully appealed orders confirming the continuation of that unsupervised regime. Her contentions were addressed by the primary judge and inform some of the grounds.
4. There is nothing in the appellant's affidavit or submissions that is so compelling as to call for this appeal to be heard in preference to that of others. In circumstances where the appeal will be heard in the February sittings of the Full Court; the appeal will be heard in a little over two months such that it effectively amounts to expedition.
5. The Application in an Appeal will be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding fifteen (15) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Schonell.