Conrad & Foley [2026] FedCFamC1F 91 (2 February 2026)

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

1. This is an application for an adjournment of this resumed hearing. It is brought on the basis that an ethical difficulty has arisen between the father and the solicitors he has instructed, such that they have withdrawn from the proceedings this morning, apparently without leave to do so, leaving senior counsel uninstructed and in an obviously difficult position. Nonetheless, quite properly, senior counsel has done the very best he can in the circumstances to advance the interests of his client.
2. I said this was a resumed hearing. The matter was before the Court on 3 to 6 June 2024 and 10 and 11 October 2024 when some interim orders were made.
3. The position was that the child the subject of the proceedings, who was born in 2017, had not seen the father for about three years because of allegations of sexual assault by him against the child. Those allegations led to the father being charged with a criminal offence, but it did not proceed due to the difficulties with the evidence, particularly involving a young child.
4. On 2 August 2022 an order was made that the child live with the mother and spend no time with the father.
5. Notwithstanding those orders, the father continued to pursue the proceedings seeking, ultimately, some extended time with the child. Fortunately, in the circumstances that occurred, at least according to the experts, the child had no memory of the events that led to the criminal charges and she was in fact curious about her father, thereby opening the way to an introduction of him into her life once again.
6. All this incredibly distressed the mother who gave evidence at the hearing of family violence and the father being adversely affected by drugs and alcohol which made life much more difficult for her. Notwithstanding that, and to her very great credit and fully cognisant of the difficulties it would cause her and, at least in the short term, the child, she was prepared to take steps for the reintroduction of the father to the child. That led to orders being made on 11 October 2024 to facilitate that course.
7. The orders provided that the child would continue to live with the mother who would have sole decision making responsibility for education for the child.
8. Order 3 made on 2 August 2022 preventing the child spending time with the father was discharged.
9. The orders then provided, in great detail, for a scheme of reintroduction.
10. Within seven days the mother was to engage an identified therapist for the child to prepare her to meet the father, including developing an understanding as to why she had not seen him up until now and developing protective behaviour and communication skills to enable her to do so.
11. After three sessions with the therapist, the child was to commence spending supervised time with the father, firstly on one occasion every four weeks and then every three weeks, gradually extending in time. The visits were to take place at a named contact centre, with provision for a backup centre if the named service was not available within two months.
12. The orders required the parties to complete the intake with that contact centre within seven days of the orders.
13. The orders specifically noted that, if possible, a visit as close to Christmas Day in December 2024 was to be arranged.
14. The orders provided for random hair follicle and CDT testing of the father.
15. The orders also provided that in 11 months time, the independent psychologist was to prepare an updated report. That would of course involve the psychologist seeing the child and both parents. The cost of that report would be shared equally between the parties. The evident purpose of those orders was to tread carefully as to a path of reintroduction of the father supported by appropriate therapeutic resources for the child.
16. It is now February 2026. The father has not taken any apparent steps to complete the intake for the contact centre. I will return to what he says about that in a moment.
17. The Independent Children's Lawyer requested a number of hair follicle and CDT tests. Some were complied with, most were not.
18. Steps were taken in June 2025 to organise appointments for the psychologist to prepare a further report and to that end, dates in August 2025 were identified. The mother immediately paid, at the request of the Independent Children's Lawyer, half the costs of the report. The father did not do so and the dates for the report were cancelled.
19. Those failures led to the relisting of the matter on 30 June 2025. The earliest date that the Court had for resuming the matter was unfortunately as far away as today. That was simply due to congestion of the diary and not to any fault of the parties. The parties were directed to serve any affidavits on which they wished to rely on or before 30 November 2025 with each affidavit to be limited to matters that have occurred since the final hearing in October 2024. Case outlines were to be filed by 27 January 2026 and the father was again ordered to pay one half of the psychologist's fees within 14 days. As I have said, that did not occur.
20. The father did not file an affidavit by 30 November 2025, or at all, until apparently this morning. It was not read by senior counsel appearing for him but was tendered by counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer without objection.
21. As to why nothing had occurred in the last 14 months he simply said:
    1. In the adjourned period, I completed urinalysis testing, copies of which are ANNEXED AND MARKED 'A'.
    2. I was of the belief that an application for [B Support Service] supervised contact had been lodged on my behalf by my solicitors.
    3. I recall hand-completing the [B Support Service application]. Having not heard anything from [B Support Service] for some time, I caused my solicitor to chase [B Support Service] via telephone and understand they did not their [sic] call.

1. I do not know whether these paragraphs are the source of the ethical difficulty that arose between the solicitors and the father and I am not prepared to surmise as to what that might be. Accepting that on its face, it hardly explains why nothing was done over 14 months. If the father was as anxious as he says he was to resume a relationship with the child he would not merely complete a form for the contact centre and then sometime later chase it up with his solicitors, or try and explain why they did not return the solicitors call. He does not explain why he did not complete all the CDT tests. He does not explain why he did not comply with the orders of June 2025 and file an affidavit by 30 November 2025. His solicitors remained on the record at all times.
2. Let me assume for the moment that the non-compliance with the drug tests and the enrolment with B Support Service and the engagement with the therapist and the failure to file affidavits as ordered is all in some way the fault of the solicitor. Anyone who was at the hearing and anyone who read the October 2024 orders could be under no misapprehension that this was a tight, well-structured timetable in order to bring events to a stage where further time could be clearly considered by the Court. If the solicitors did nothing, it was up to the father to make sure something happened. Even if they are entirely to blame, he cannot hide behind them, and if, of course, they are not entirely to blame then he has simply sat on his hands.
3. The purpose of parenting proceedings is not to reward or punish people for their misdeeds, however. It is to make orders about the best interests of the child.
4. As I have said, some two years ago the child was curious about meeting her father. The mother has given evidence that at the time of the counselling the child received in November and December 2025 that the child's behaviour was more dysregulated than normal. She was short tempered, had regular meltdowns and sought more physical affection than usual. Currently, according to the mother, she is settled, regulated and content, and doing well in school.
5. There is no evidence that the child is still curious about meeting her father and there is no evidence from the psychologist that it might continue to be in her best interests. It is of course easy to accept that, in a general sense, it is always in the best interests of children if they can have a good relationship with both parents rather than just one. That is a general proposition only but one that I take into account. However, merely because it may have been in the child's best interest 14 months ago to commence this process, I am not sure the same would necessarily be said today. That matter is for a further hearing. It is now well over four years since the child saw the father. Of course, the failure to have an updated expert report is due to the failure of the father to pay his share of the fees.
6. Senior counsel for the father said that if an adjournment was granted for however many weeks the Court would grant, it would give the father the opportunity to re-engage with the contact centre and the therapist. That assumes those orders remain in the child's best interests. It is not an assumption I am prepared to make at this time.
7. Doing the best people can, there seems no reasonable likelihood that the single expert would be able to see the parties and the child in the next two months or so and it could well be three months at least before a report is received even if those dates were available. If time is taken for that to occur, it will be nearly five years since the child has seen the father before the hearing resumes.
8. The father has failed to identify this morning what orders he would seek at any adjourned hearing. As I say, it cannot simply be assumed the appropriate course of action is to start the October 2024 orders again.
9. I accept that the father has suffered a prejudice this morning in not being able to run the case that he wants to, whatever it may be, because of the difficulties that arose between him and his solicitors. However, no explanation is given for the failure to comply with the direction for the affidavits in November last year.
10. The disengagement has been long and persistent. It has worked, it seems to me, for the disadvantage of the child because she engaged in a course of therapy which led nowhere in relation to the father and increased the mother's difficulties and anxieties which again cannot be in the child's best interests.
11. The mother will suffer a distinct financial disadvantage if this case is adjourned because she will waste the legal fees she has paid in relation to today and tomorrow and there is no suggestion by the father that he would indemnify her against those costs. That, of course, is consistent with his behaviour since he is $14,000 or so in arrears with child support. All that creates a rather unfortunate impression.
12. I am not satisfied that in six weeks or 12 weeks this matter will be any significantly further advanced. If there were some obvious point to it, it would be more justification for an adjournment but it has to be recalled that this case is in fact part heard and was adjourned on the specific trial of the specific orders that it was to try facilitate an outcome of the hearing that is in the best interests of the child. Sadly, that did not occur.
13. There are of course factors that point both ways, as is almost always the case on an adjournment application, but ultimately I am not persuaded it is in the best interests of the child for the proceedings to be adjourned. The application for an adjournment is refused and leave is given to senior counsel to withdraw from the proceedings.

I certify that the preceding thirty-four (34) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Aldridge.