Cowling v Cowling

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. This judgment concerns the applicant mother's Application for Review filed 2 October 2025 seeking to review interim parenting orders made on 25 September 2025 by a Senior Judicial Registrar ("SJR"). Those interim orders, which are detailed below, removed the parties' 10-year-old child from the mother's primary care due to serious concerns about the mother's mental health and its impact on the child's welfare. For the reasons that follow, the Application for Review is dismissed.

1. The child of these proceedings was born in 2015 and is currently aged ten years old. Since the parties' separation in late 2023, and until interim orders were made by the SJR, the child lived primarily with the mother and spent regular time with the father each alternate weekend and some holidays.
2. The father is aged 44 years old. He is employed in the health industry in City B. He lives alone in City B but has a new relationship with a woman who has two teenage daughters. The father has a history of mental health issues including anxiety, depression and past suicidal ideation. He is currently on antidepressant medication and is engaged in psychotherapy (Child Impact Report by Ms C, 10 June 2025, paragraph 37).
3. The mother is aged 46 years old. She currently lives in an inner-city suburb of City B, is not in a new relationship, and has not been employed since November 2024. She relies on a single parenting payment, child support, and some financial assistance from her family in Sydney. She has a history of mental health issues, including post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"), Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder ("ADHD"), a developmental disorder and is engaged in ongoing counselling and therapy (Child Impact Report by Ms C, 10 June 2025, paragraph 38).
4. In the period following separation, both parents have alleged that the other parent poses a risk to the child. The mother has accused the father of coercive control and emotional abuse (Transcript 15 October 2025, p 28, line 45), while the father has become increasingly concerned that the mother's mental health was destabilising and causing harm to the child (Affidavit of Respondent affirmed 16 September 2025, paragraph 6).

1. A Court Child Expert (the "CCE") prepared a Child Impact Report (the "CIR") after interviewing the family in June 2025. The report records, at paragraph 22, that the child views both parents as "safe and nice" and enjoys his time with each. However, the child expressed that he has felt "scared" as a result of the parental conflict (Child Impact Report by Ms C, 10 June 2025, paragraph 18)
2. In that respect, the CCE, at pages 5-6 of the report, recorded that:

[X] was described by his parents as a highly sensitive, kind and caring boy, who has been emotionally impacted by previous conflict in their relationship, and continues to be impacted by the post separation issues with respect to his parenting and living arrangements.

...reported that [X] had previously demonstrated dysregulated behaviours at [D School] prior to her and [Mr Kuroda] separating, such as banging his head on a door, punching himself, demonstrating shame, and self‑isolating. Additionally, she reported he was fearful of making mistakes and could not tolerate loud noises or shouting. She considered this was resultant of his exposure to and experience of family violence in their home.

1. The CCE reported, at paragraph 18 of her report, that the child recalled that his parents' arguments upset him 'a lot'. It was noted that X did not recall observing any physical violence between his parents but said that he had felt "scared and anxious when they argued" (Child Impact Report by Ms C, 10 June 2025, paragraph 18). The child further stated that, if he were granted a wish about his family, he would wish for "there to be some peace between them (his parents); that they try to sort things out between them" (Child Impact Report by Ms C, 10 June 2025, paragraph 23).
2. By way of summary, at pages 11 and 12 of the report, the CCE opined that:

[X] is a 10‑year‑old boy with vulnerabilities associated with neurodiversity, who articulated that he had been emotionally impacted by his parents' conflict and experienced bullying at school during that period... If [X] experienced family violence, then the impact on him of this was likely to be far‑reaching... This is understood to have far‑reaching consequences for children; detrimentally impacting their physical and emotional development, their neurological development, their academic progress, their mental health and their capacity to form safe and healthy relationships.

1. The CCE observed that the mother's experiences of the parties' relationship continued to impact her emotional well-being and that she held a "perception of ongoing psychological threat" in respect of the father (Child Impact Report by Ms C, 10 June 2025, paragraph 31). The father appeared concerned about the mother's mental state and indicated that the child would benefit from extended periods of stability in his living and school arrangements (Child Impact Report by Ms C, 10 June 2025, paragraph 46).
2. The report highlighted the need to consider both parents' mental health as a significant factor in the child's well-being (Child Impact Report by Ms C, 10 June 2025, paragraph 49). The report identified that ongoing conflict and any psychological instability, in either parent, could adversely affect the child.
3. In that respect, at paragraph 52 of the report, the CCE recommended that both parents provide the Court with up-to-date psychological assessments, including:
   • Current diagnoses;
   • Medications; and
   • Treatment plans.
4. The report further recommended that both parents remain engaged with their counsellors and therapists and that the child should continue attending weekly play therapy sessions. In respect of the child, the report recommended that the child should participate in any further assessments for neurodiversity (Autism Spectrum Disorder ("ASD")/ADHD) and other developmental conditions as required (Child Impact Report by Ms C, 10 June 2025, paragraph 52).

Father's Application (September 2025) and Supporting Evidence:

1. On 16 September 2025, the father filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking to change the child's primary residence to him; citing new evidence that the mother's mental health had seriously deteriorated. The catalyst for the filing of that application was a letter from the mother's own solicitors dated 9 September 2025, which was addressed to the Court. The solicitors, who shortly thereafter ceased acting for her, therein indicated concerns about the mother's capacity to provide instructions and to comply with court orders. The father annexed this letter to his affidavit affirmed on 16 September 2025 and deposed that its contents made him "extremely concerned" for the child's safety in the mother's care (Affidavit of Respondent affirmed 16 September 2025, paragraph 5).
2. Additionally, material produced in these proceedings by the Department of Territory Families, Housing and Communities ("the Department") recorded several notifications between July and September 2025 which raised concerns about the mother's behaviour and mental state during that period. The material, which included notifications from the child's school and a domestic violence support service, also contained reports that the mother appeared "paranoid and not herself" (Department of Territory Families, Housing and Communities s 67ZBE material produced 23 September 2025, p 39).
3. Specific incidents of concern include, for example, a report made by the mother that she found a "tracking device" in the child's schoolbag and accusations that the father was engaging in covert surveillance (Department of Territory Families, Housing and Communities s 67ZBE material produced 23 September 2025, p 40). The material also documents the mother's fear that the father was hacking her electronics, had possibly entered her home to harm her pet, and was plotting to take full custody of the child by portraying the mother as mentally unstable (Department of Territory Families, Housing and Communities s 67ZBE material produced 23 September 2025, p 20).
4. Counsel for the father referred to instances in which the police had conducted welfare checks on the child, while in the father's care, at the request of the mother (Transcript 15 October 2025, p 73-74). These incidents, documented in police file notes on two occasions in late 2025, record that the child was "safe, well and content to be in his father's care" and that police were "satisfied with his welfare and left him in [Mr Kuroda's] [the father's] care" (Northern Territory Police s 67ZBE material, p 11).
5. In respect of the mother, the police file note in late2025 indicated that the mother may be experiencing "some underlying undiagnosed mental health issues" (Northern Territory Police s 67ZBE material, p 20). While the mother submitted that she is engaged with mental health services - drawing the Court's attention to material produced by E Mental Health Services which evidenced her contact with the service as recently as [...] September 2025 (Transcript 15 October 2025, p 20) - Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer noted that:

Having now reviewed the [F Mental Health Services] material, and the [G Family Services] material, yes the mother has remained engaged, but there have been circumstances in which - instances, particularly in late August, early September [2025], in which the mother was struggling, in my submission, and ...there are references in the material [to] difficulties she was having managing her emotions, and managing her behaviour at the time.

(Transcript 15 October 2025, p 39)

1. Comparatively, the father has voluntarily undergone psychological and psychiatric evaluations, copies of which are annexed to his Affidavit affirmed 12 August 2025, which evidenced nil concerns by treaters in respect of the father's parenting capacity or current mental health state.

1. As earlier indicated, on 25 September 2025, the SJR made findings that there was a serious risk that the mother's mental stability had deteriorated; giving rise to an unacceptable risk to the child if he were to remain in the mother's unsupervised care. Accordingly, interim parenting orders were made which substantially changed X's living arrangements. In summary, those orders provided for:
   • A change in the child's primary residence so that the child would commence living with the father effective immediately;
   • Arrangements for the mother to spend time with the child on a supervised basis only - specifically, for two hours every alternate weekend at [G Family Services] Northern Territory; and
   • A single expert psychiatrist to be appointed to conduct a psychiatric assessment of the mother and report on her mental health and parenting capacity (with the parties to equally share the costs).

1. The mother's Application for Review seeks to set aside the orders of 25 September 2025 and reinstate a regime in which the child lives with her (and potentially relocates interstate with her) and spends little or no time with the father pending the Final Hearing.
2. The mother's case on review is that the interim orders were an overreaction and based on an inaccurate picture of her mental health. The mother has consistently denied that she is mentally unwell in any way which would impair her parenting capacity. In her affidavits filed 17 September 2025, the mother acknowledges that she has ASD and ADHD but asserts that she is a "pretty smart person" (Transcript 15 October 2025, p 30, line 20) and a capable parent; arguing that any suggestion her neurodivergence impedes her parenting is discriminatory (Transcript 15 October 2025, p 80, line 7-15).
3. In that respect, the mother relied on a letter from her treating psychiatrist, Dr H, dated 14 August 2025, which stated that she has no "recurrent mental health diagnoses" apart from ADHD/ASD. The mother contends that this letter proves she does not have a mental illness and that the father's concerns are baseless and even malicious. She also submitted that she voluntarily agreed to undergo a fresh mental health assessment in October 2025 and provide the results to the Court; noting her expressed expectation that the report would vindicate her from the father's allegations in respect of her mental health (Transcript, 15 October 2025, p 35).
4. The mother alleges that the father has seized on her neurodivergence and created a false narrative of her being delusional in order to obtain orders for a change of the child's residence. The mother contends that the father is an emotionally abusive parent and that she has been actively protecting the child from risks posed by him (Transcript, 15 October 2025, p 23).

1. These proceedings are in the nature of a review of interim orders made by a Registrar under r 14.05 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth). The Review Hearing is conducted by considering the relevant application "de novo". Accordingly, I am considering the application for interim parenting orders afresh.
2. It is well-established that, at an interim hearing, the Court's task is to decide what temporary orders will best promote the child's welfare pending a final determination. The process is necessarily abridged and the Court is unable to fully explore complex factual disputes or make conclusive findings on contested allegations (see Cowling v Cowling [1998] FamCA 19; (1998) FLC 92-801 at [18]; Iphostrou & Iphostrou [2011] FamCA 20 at [44]).
3. However, the Court is not relieved of its duty to consider the child's best interests and any evidence of risk, even if the facts are in dispute. As the Full Court noted in SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13 at [100], an interim decision may require the Court "to weigh the probabilities of competing claims and the likely impact on the child in the event that a controversial assertion is acted upon or rejected", because "it is not always feasible ... simply to ignore an assertion because its accuracy has been put in issue".
4. If there are credible allegations of potential harm to a child, the Court must err on the side of caution. In that context authorities suggest a conservative approach should be taken in interim parenting cases where risk to the child is alleged - one that is "likely to avoid harm to a child" (see Marvel v Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101; (2010) 240 FLR 367 at [120]).
5. In doing so, the Court should focus on the issues that require immediate resolution for the child's welfare, rather than all possible issues. The Full Court in Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36; (2015) FLC 93-637 at [48]-[50] recommended a common-sense, pragmatic approach stating that if certain s 60CC considerations under the _Family Law Act 1975 (_Cth) ("the Act") are clearly decisive of the interim outcome, the Court need not exhaustively traverse every factor. I have approached this review in light of those principles.

1. The paramount consideration is the best interests of the child (s 60CA of the Act). Section 60CC of the Act (as amended from 6 May 2024) sets out those factors that the Court must consider in determining a child's best interests. In summary, these include:

2 (a) what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of:

(i) the child; and

(ii) each person who has care of the child (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for the child);

(b) any views expressed by the child;

(c) the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child;

(d) the capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child to provide for the child's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs;

(e) the benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child's parents, and other people who are significant to the child, where it is safe to do so;

(f) anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child.

1. In considering the matter of safety in paragraph (2)(a), the Court must specifically have regard to any history of family violence or abuse and any relevant family violence orders (s 60CC(2A)).
2. The 2024 amendments to s 60CC removed the former distinction between "primary" and "additional" considerations, but it is notable that safety is now the first-listed factor. As noted by the Full court in Pierce & Pierce (No [2025] FedCFamC1A 162; 2)(2025) FLC 94-271 (Aldridge, Campton and Christie JJ) at [31]:

[the] construction of Pt VII of the Act subsequent to the 2024 amendments places a consideration of the safety of a child or another person as a focused starting point in the considerations being weighed in determining a parenting regime that best promotes the best interests of the child.

1. I have taken all of the s 60CC factors into account; however, on the evidence in this case, the decisive considerations are: the child's safety, including his psychological safety; the parents' respective capacities to meet his needs; and the benefit of his relationship with each parent insofar as that can occur safely.

1. A critical development between the Senior Judicial Registrar's decision on 25 September 2025 and the Review Hearing on 15 October 2025 was the production of subpoenaed records from the mother's treating professionals. The father, with support from the Independent Children's Lawyer, had subpoenaed the mother's F Mental Health Services file ("[Dr H's] notes") and her G Family Services Northern Territory counselling records ("[G Family Services] records"), among others.
2. The mother objected to these subpoenas on grounds of confidentiality (protected confidences) and relevance; leading to a Subpoena Objection Hearing before a Judicial Registrar on 9 October 2025. The Registrar considered the factors outlined in s 102AE and s 102BE of the Act, which govern release of therapeutic records, and, in applying those provisions, was guided by authorities such as Benson & Jeffreys (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 537. In so doing, the Registrar found that the public interest, in the Court having all relevant evidence about the mother's mental health available to it, outweighed any harm which may be caused to mother from disclosing her counselling notes. The mother's objections were therefore dismissed and the records were released to the parties on or around 9 October 2025.
3. At the Review Hearing, I had the benefit of these records. The mother, at the commencement of the hearing, indicated that she had not yet reviewed the documents in circumstances where she was self-represented and did not have time to arrange an appointment with registry to inspect the material. Accordingly, the Court offered a short adjournment of several hours to allow time for the mother to travel to the court registry and inspect the material.
4. After the adjournment, the mother confirmed that she had briefly inspected the records and had tabbed certain pages which she intended to rely upon for the purposes of the hearing. The pages were then forwarded to my Chambers by the court registry and were subsequently admitted into evidence.
5. It is noteworthy that the authors of the documents admitted into evidence have not given sworn evidence nor have they been cross-examined in these proceedings. Accordingly, for the reasons earlier explained, it is not possible for me to make definitive findings of fact in respect to the current state of the mother's mental health. However, adopting a cautious approach, the evidence satisfies me that the child is at an unacceptable risk of emotional harm in the mother's unsupervised care. The evidence that I have considered in forming that opinion is, by way of summary, set out immediately below.

1. Dr H is the mother's treating psychiatrist at F Mental Health Services. His clinical notes from the period July-September 2025 - produced in response to a subpoena issued by the father on 17 September 2025 - identify the mother as patient under considerable stress. The notes record that the mother reported to Dr H that she was experiencing severe anxiety; triggered by the family law proceedings and her belief that the father was conducting cyber-attacks upon her. She described incidents of finding "hacking" on her devices and feeling unsafe. While Dr H acknowledged that the mother maintained high intellectual functioning, as of August 2025, that she had no active mood or psychotic disorder, his notes do not suggest he gave her a clean bill of mental health. Rather, the material acknowledged her fixated concerns around surveillance and advised that she remain engaged in therapy.
2. In summary, the Dr H's records confirm the mother's diagnoses (ASD, ADHD, and that she in remission from PTSD) and also document her persistent ideation about the father.

1. The counselling notes produced by G Family Services -in response to the subpoena issued by the father on 17 September 2025 - are significant in that they indicate that, throughout the months of August and September 2025, the mother met with counsellors who noted her escalating fear and fixation on being victimised by the father. The records indicate that the mother advised the counsellors about her finding a tracking device in her child's bag and other random events which she interpreted as threats. For example, the notes record that the mother believed the father had joined the child's school committee solely to spy on her. The mother's records also reveal that she spoke of feeling watched and described the elaborate precautions she was taking. This included, for example, withdrawing cash, changing phones, scanning the child's belongings (at p 40). In several instances, the notes record that the mother was emotionally "heightened" and stuck in a loop of trying to prove the father's malfeasance (Subpoena material produced by G Family Services, p 24 and p 33).
2. Case notes from September 2025 further records the service provider holding "genuine concerns for the childs [sic] wellbeing and mental health concerns of mother" (p 16) and that these safety concerns may be "overlooked with mention of [Ms Naaji's] variable abilities at masking, not typical presentation" (p 13).
3. There is no question that the mother undoubtedly loves her child and is devoted to him. However, the notes suggest the mother had a tenuous grip on reality in this period. The mother's belief that others are conspiring against her has, unfortunately, created a situation where she has difficulty heeding the advice of professionals. This includes, for example, the mother refusing a referral to a certain psychologist, suspecting that the person was compromised, and discontinuing her engagement with some support services out of mistrust (p 27). The mother's engagement with the Court, during the course of these proceedings, was rational but problematic in that she was quite belligerent on occasions. That propensity to belligerence may of course be related to the stress of self-representing in highly emotional proceedings. But, equally, it may be reflective of the observed reluctance of the mother to engage with and heed the advice of appropriately qualified professionals.

Absence of adequately documented evidence from the mother treating therapists

1. Aside from her own assertions, the mother did not produce independent evidence to allay the concerns raised by the father and the Independent Children's Lawyer by reference to the documentation to which I have referred. The mother has not provided a comprehensive report from her treating mental health professionals and, while she advised the Court that she will undergo a fresh assessment scheduled for October 2025, there were, self-evidently, no results available by the time of decision.
2. I observe that the Court has available some evidence as to the mother's mental health, in the form of clinical notes and a letter written by Dr H, as contained in the subpoenaed records. However, those records are relatively cursory. In the absence of Dr H being requested to provide a comprehensive report addressing the mother's historical and current mental health, ongoing treatment regime and monitoring, and a prognosis in light of those measures, the Court has no confidence that the documented, and concerning, mental health presentations of the mother have been addressed.

1. Crucially, the subpoenaed material reinforces the Court's view that the child is being adversely affected by the mother's current mental state. The mother's own accounts to professionals indicate that the child was "non-verbal" at times and displaying anxiety behaviours (Subpoena material produced by G Family Services on 1 October 2025, p 5). It appears the child was aware of the mother's fears, arising from the fact that she had discussed the alleged hacking of her electronics and other threats in his presence, as noted in subpoena material produced by the child's school, J School on 1 October 2025:

[X] expressed some concern recently around he and his mum being locked in their house and people breaking into their house to steal things. He also expressed concern around people hacking into his mum's technology. This raised a concern for school staff around his emotional and mental wellbeing.

1. In that context, one can reasonably infer that the child, who is described by both parents as a "highly sensitive" and vulnerable child with some special needs of his own (including possible neurodivergence), was absorbing the mother's anxiety (fight (Child Impact Report by Ms C, 10 June 2025, paragraph 8)
2. Further, the material produced by the Department on 23 September 2025, in response to s 67ZBE orders made in these proceedings, record concerns that the child was at risk of "psychological harm" due to the mother's mental state and the chaotic environment (p 7). For example, after one mandatory report, a caseworker from the Department recorded that while the mother's love for X was evident, her mental health problems were causing instability and that X might be experiencing emotional neglect (p 39 - 40). This concern of neglect was not due to lack of love, but rather by the mother's ability to care for the child being overshadowed by her current mental health crisis. Although the Department did not remove the child from the mother's care, the s 67ZBE material reflects that officers of the Department held serious concerns about the child's welfare in his mother's care.

1. It must be stressed that I have not found the mother to be a physical threat to the child or that she is uncaring. Nothing in the records produced to the Court suggests that the mother has ever intentionally harmed the child or that she would do so. There is also no indication of physical abuse of the child by her. The unacceptable risk arises in the context of evidence suggesting that the mother was mentally unwell, at least during the period covered by the clinical notes and departmental documentation. This occurrence of mental ill-health has the potential to result in emotional harm to the child arising from the mother's impaired judgment, delusional beliefs, and resultant erratic behaviour.

1. In contrast to the mother, the father's circumstances are comparatively stable and low-risk on the evidence currently before the Court. The father is employed in the health industry, has secured appropriate housing - in which he has been caring for the child since late September 2025- and has the family support of his new partner (Child Impact Report by Ms C, 10 June 2025, paragraph 37).
2. The father has no criminal history, no substance abuse issues, and, importantly, no recent incidents indicating mental instability. In that respect, the father's historical mental health issues, including depression and an incident of self-harm several years ago, appear to have been effectively treated.
3. It is noteworthy that, by August 2025, the father had obtained and produced a report from a psychiatrist, for the purposes of these parenting proceedings, which indicated that he did not have any acute psychiatric illnesses and that he was fit to parent. The Child Impact Report dated 10 June 2025 also noted that the child felt safe in the father's care and enjoyed his time at the father's house; so much so that the child advised the report-writer, at paragraph 19, that he:

wanted to spend more time with his father than the current arrangement allows for, and that sometimes he felt upset at the end of time with his father because it was 'too short'

1. After the child began living with the father full-time, that is, from 25 September 2025 onwards, the reports from the Independent Children's Lawyer and school have been positive. There is evidence that the child has settled in the father's home and does not exhibit the high anxiety that he experienced when with residing with the mother.
2. In short, the evidence available to the Court, at this time, suggests the child is doing well in the father's care and that there are no indication of harm or risk in that environment. It is generally accepted that, if a child is well settled and in a safe environment at the stage of an Interim Hearing, the Court will be reluctant to disturb that arrangement unless there is evidence to suggest that the child's welfare is better served by an alternative care arrangement (Goode & (2006) FLC 93-286)

1. Under the amended s 60CC(2)(a) of the Act, the Court must first consider what arrangements promote the safety of the child and of each caregiver. The focus, in this case, is on ensuring safety from psychological harm. I have found that, as at the date of hearing on 15 October 2025, there were significant, unresolved concerns about the mother's mental health such that leaving the child in her unsupervised care posed an unacceptable risk of harm.
2. By contrast, while the father has unquestionably had his own mental health challenges, there is no evidence of any risk of harm to the child in the father's care at this time. Indeed, removing the child from the father, after the child came into the father's care on 12 September 2025 in accordance with orders dated 26 August 2025 - and has since experienced relative stability - itself would create further emotional turmoil for the child.
3. Therefore, promoting the child's safety strongly favours him remaining with in the father's primary care.

1. I have also considered the child's views (s 60CC(2)(b)), although, at his young age and given the interim context, his views were not directly ascertained for the purposes of this hearing. However, the Child Impact Report of 10 June 2025 indicated that the child wished for peace and that he was not firmly against spending time with either parent. There is no suggestion that the child does not want to see his mother; to the contrary, the child and the mother clearly have a close relationship. However, given his young age, the Court must place greater weight on protecting him from harm than on immediately fulfilling any wish to return to his mother's household, if doing so would place him at risk.
2. In terms of the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child, as set out in s 60CC(2)(c) of the Act, I am satisfied that the father is presently better able to meet the child's needs for a consistent and stable environment. In that context, there is an unacceptable risk that, until her mental health stabilises, the mother may, unintentionally, project fear and instability onto the child and undermine those needs.
3. In terms of the capacity of both parents to provide for the child's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs per s 60CC(2)(d) of the Act, at this interim stage, I find that the father is currently capable of providing a safe, routine environment. Whereas, I find that the mother's current parenting capacity is compromised by her mental health challenges.
4. Importantly, I am mindful of the benefit of X having a relationship with both parents (s 60CC(2)(e) of the Act). The interim orders do not severe the child's relationship with the mother but rather preserve it in the context of supervised time. I acknowledge that ongoing supervision is less than ideal for the child in terms of normal interactions - but it enables the child to continue seeing his mother regularly in a setting that assures his emotional and physical safety. This is a far better outcome than no contact between the mother and the child.
5. The question of whether ongoing supervision is necessary and, if so, the nature and extent of that supervision, can - and in my opinion should - be revisited once more information is available; specifically, in the form of a single expert report regarding the mother's mental health.

1. Taking a cautious approach in the context of these interim proceedings, I am satisfied that the child's best interests are served by dismissing the mother's Application for Review filed 2 October 2025 and leaving the 25 September 2025 interim orders in place.
2. This is in circumstances where, while admittedly untested, the evidence that is available at this stage in the proceedings, satisfies me that there is an unacceptable risk of emotional harm to the child if he were to spend unsupervised time with his mother, given the evidence regarding her current mental health challenges.
3. The information before the Court is not such that, at this stage, I am in a position to determine whether there should be any variation to the amount of time and the nature of supervision. As I have noted, the question of whether there is a need for ongoing supervision and, if so, the nature and form of that supervision, is better addressed when there is an updated singe expert report available to the parties and to the Court.
4. Accordingly, the orders I make are that, firstly, the mother's Application for Review filed 2 October 2025 be dismissed and, secondly, that an order be made granting the mother liberty to file an Application in a Proceeding seeking a variation of the interim parenting orders upon the provision of an updated single expert report regarding her mental health.

I certify that the preceding sixty-seven (67) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Deputy Chief Justice McClelland.