Cowling v Cowling

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 relates to a review under s 28 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) and r 14.05 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law Rules) Rules 2021 (Cth) of an interim parenting decision made by a Senior Judicial Registrar ("the registrar") on 12 September 2025 in respect of the parties' only child, X, born 2018 ("the child"). The applicant mother, Ms Leppins, ("the mother") seeks to set aside the registrar's orders and reinstate the operative final parenting orders of 20 April 2021 which have been suspended by the registrar ("suspended final orders"). The suspended final orders provided for, inter alia, the child to live with the mother and spend time half of the school holidays with the father, and for the mother to have sole parental responsibility in respect of the child, subject to certain conditions. The respondent father, Mr Leppins, ("the father") opposes the Application for Review and contends that the registrar's interim orders should remain operative. The Independent Children's Lawyer ("ICL") supports the position of the father.
2. The orders of 12 September 2025, which placed the parties' seven-year-old child in the father's primary care, were precipitated by the father filing an urgent Application in a Proceeding on 21 July 2025 following the mother's mental health crisis in mid-2025. In her Application for Review, the mother applies for those interim orders to be set aside and replaced with the suspended final orders.
3. I have dismissed the mother's Application for Review filed 3 October 2025 in circumstances where I have found that it is in the child's best interest for the current interim arrangements to be maintained. In that respect, I have found that the father's care is stable and safe. Comparatively, while acknowledging the significant progress and steps taken by the mother to improve her mental health, the evidence satisfies me that mother's mental health remains fragile and liable to be adversely impacted by stressful events.
4. As a result, there is, currently, an unacceptable risk that the child will suffer emotional harm if he were returned to the mother's primary care and exposed to a situation where the mother suffers an acute mental health episode. It is therefore in the child's best interests to preserve the status quo and to allow more time to monitor the steps taken by the mother to improve her mental health and the progress made as a result of those efforts.

1. Final parenting orders in respect to the parties' only child were made by Judge Boyle, as she then was, on 20 April 2021 after a contested Final Hearing. By way of summary, those final orders provided that, in effect, the child's primary home was to be with the mother, and that the father would enjoy substantial time with the child.
2. After the 2021 final orders were made, the family returned to Court a number of times due to concerns about the mother's mental health and the father withholding the child contrary to the orders.
3. Specifically, the father has, on several prior occasions, withheld the child in his care as a result of concerns held by him for the child's safety in the mother's care. On each of those occasions, orders were made requiring the father to return the child to the mother.

1. It is not disputed that the mother experienced significant mental health episodes in late 2022 and again in mid-2024. In late 2022, she attempted self-harm and was hospitalised at B Hospital; receiving a diagnosis of psychotic depression. In mid-2024, she was again admitted, this time to C Hospital, for approximately three weeks for psychiatric treatment and monitoring after exhibiting paranoid delusions.
2. The child was cared for by the father during the mother's hospitalisations. Each time, the mother recovered and the child was subsequently returned to her primary care.
3. Most recently, in early June 2025, the mother suffered another serious lapse in her mental health. On [...] June 2025 at 4:07am, the mother sent the father a text message stating she wanted to bring the child to him that morning and apologising, saying "hopefully you will be able to forget the past" (father's affidavit filed 15 October 2025 at paragraph 20). This correspondence, in the context of the circumstances in which it was sent, led the father to suspect that the mother was suffering a mental health crisis. Consequently, the father requested a police welfare check of the mother and the child. Police attended and found the mother and child physically safe; although the report of the attendance includes a note that the mother was "saying some weird things" (father's affidavit filed 15 October 2025 at paragraph 22).
4. On [...] June 2025, a child protection caseworker from the New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice ("DCJ") attended the mother's home (DCJ material filed 19 September 2025 at p 77 - 81) and consequently implemented a Safety Plan by which the child was temporarily placed in the father's care. On [...] June 2025, the mother was formally admitted to hospital as an involuntary psychiatric inpatient. She remained in hospital and was discharged some weeks later in 2025 under a community mental health treatment order. Upon discharge, she was prescribed antipsychotic medication (paliperidone by injection and lurasidone orally) with which she was required to comply under a Community Treatment Order which remains in force until March 2027 (Annexure "A" of mother's affidavit affirmed 15 October 2025).

1. On 21 July 2025, the father filed an urgent Application in a Proceeding seeking to vary the final parenting orders. He sought orders for the child live with him, that the mother's time be supervised or otherwise restricted, and that he be permitted to change the child's school (among other interim relief). An Interim Defended Hearing took place before the Senior Judicial Registrar on 12 September 2025. The mother opposed the father's application.
2. After considering the evidence and submissions, the registrar made interim orders that, by way of summary:
   • suspended the operative parts of the April 2021 final orders (orders 2-7 and 15-17 thereof);
   • provided that the child continues living with the father pending further order;
   • restricted the mother's time to short daytime contact initially for 4 weeks (Saturdays 10am-3pm), then increasing to each Sunday 10am-5pm thereafter;
   • permitted the father to enrol the child in a new school (D School, nearer to the father's new residence) and directed both parents to ensure the child's attendance at school; and
   • imposed injunctive conditions and monitoring requirements, including that the mother continue treatment as directed by her doctors, attend all appointments and comply with her Community Treatment Order, and irrevocably authorise her treating psychiatrist to report any non-compliance to the ICL and the father.
3. The orders also requested that DCJ to intervene in the proceedings under s 91B of the Family Law Act 1975 ("the Act").

1. On 3 October 2025, the mother filed an Application for Review in respect of the registrar's interim orders of 12 September 2025. She seeks, in substance, a return to the prior status quo through the reinstatement of the suspended final orders. In her Application for Review and supporting affidavit, the mother submits that her mental health crisis, which precipitated the Interim Defended Hearing at which the reviewed interim orders were made, has now abated. In that respect, the mother refers to evidence of her compliance with treatment since her discharge. That evidence includes a letter from her treating psychiatrist, Dr H, stating that, as of late August 2025, the mother's mental state was stable, with "clear reality-based thinking" and "excellent insight" into her condition (Annexure "B" of mother's affidavit affirmed 15 October 2025).
2. The mother contends it would be in the child's best interests to resume living with her under the regime of the original final orders. She disputes that the father's care should continue to be the primary arrangement, asserting that the risk to the child in her household is being overstated and can be managed by her ongoing treatment. Accordingly, in her Application for Review, the mother applies for the Court to set aside the interim orders of 12 September 2025 (particularly orders 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16 and 17 of the orders) and to reinstate the suspended operative orders of 20 April 2021 orders; possibly with some variation but which places the child in her primary care.

1. A review of a registrar's exercise of power in family law proceedings is conducted by way of rehearing (s 28(1) of the Act; r 14.14 of the Family Law Rules). In effect, I must therefore consider the matter afresh. In so doing, I am not bound by any findings or reasons of the registrar. I must make my own determination of the interim parenting arrangements that will best promote the child's best interests, applying the principles set out in governing provisions of Part VII of the Act.

Parties' Submissions (Review Hearing 16 October 2025)

1. The review was heard by me on 16 October 2025 via video conference (Webex). Prior to the hearing, each party filed updated evidence and made oral submissions at the hearing.
2. By way of broad summary, the mother pressed for the child's return to her primary care (or, in the alternative, for significantly increased time) on the basis that her mental health had stabilised under a new treatment regime and that she was complying fully with a Community Treatment Order.
3. The father opposed any change to the interim parenting orders; arguing that the mother's history of relapse necessitates caution and that the child is now settled and thriving in his care.
4. The ICL supported maintaining the interim status quo; submitting that it would be premature and potentially unsafe to disrupt the current arrangements until independent psychiatric evidence is obtained and the mother's stability is proven over a longer period.

DETERMING THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD IN INTERIM PROCEEDINGS

1. 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 (Cowling v Cowling [1998] FamCA 19; (1998) FLC 92-801 at [18]; Iphostrou & Iphostrou [2011] FamCA 20 at [44]).
2. 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".
3. 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 - that is, an approach which is "likely to avoid harm to a child" (see Marvel v Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101; (2010) 240 FLR 367 at [120]).
4. In doing so, the Court should focus on those issues which 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] took a common-sense approach, stating that if certain of the best interests considerations set out in s 60CC of 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. In an interim parenting decision, as at trial, the Court's 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. When considering the matter of safety in accordance with 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. While the 2024 amendments to s 60CC removed the former distinction between "primary" and "additional" considerations, it is notable that safety is now the first-listed factor. As noted by the Full court in Pierce & Pierce (No 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. The Court has taken all of the s 60CC factors into account; however, on the evidence currently before the Court 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. The Mother relied on:
   • Case Outline filed on 11 September 2025.
   • Minute of Order sought for the purposes of today's Review Hearing.
   • Consolidated Affidavit affirmed on 15 October 2025.
   • Family Report dated 9 July 2025 (specifically paragraphs 37 and 40 regarding the child's views).
   • Letter from the mother's treating psychiatrist Dr H dated 22 September 2025 (Annexure "I", at 69 of mother's affidavit affirmed 15 October 2025)
   • Community Treatment Order (Annexure "C" of mother's affidavit affirmed 15 October 2025).
2. The Father relied on:
   • Affidavit filed on 15 October 2025 (same as previously filed on 10 September).
   • Updated Case Outline filed on 15 October 2025.
   • Tender Bundle filed on 15 October 2025, including:
     • Summary of mother's mental health history (page 3)
     • Details of recent admission (pages 4 and 20),
     • Collateral history from maternal grandmother (page 17)
     • Notes on diagnostic uncertainty (pages 14 and 20).
     • Progress notes from 16 July 2025, two days before discharge, (page 37).
   • Family Report dated 9 July 2025 (specifically, paragraphs 39, 46, 48).
3. The Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) relied on:
   • Case Outline filed on 14 August 2025 (emailed to chambers on the day of hearing).
   • Family Report dated 9 July 2025 (quoted extensively in submissions).
   • History of proceedings and previous orders.

1. In considering this matter, it is of concern that the mother did not attend her scheduled interview with the Court Child Expert, Ms E, for the purposes of preparing a Family Report. Rather, the mother cancelled the interview on short notice due to illness and did not complete any interview with Ms E prior to the time at which the report was due. Accordingly, as noted by the report writer, a limitation of the Family Report dated 2 July 2025 is that it was prepared without the mother's direct input. Ms E was, however, able to interview the father and observe him with the child. Further, Ms E spoke with the father's new wife - the child's step-mother - and spoke with the child alone. She also reviewed extensive subpoena material, including medical and police records, concerning the mother's psychiatric history. I therefore give some weight to the Family Report.

1. The evidence, as summarised in the Family Report and affidavit material - together with documents produced from the father's tender bundle - satisfies me that the mother has experienced recurring episodes of serious mental illness. These episodes have included psychotic features, such as paranoia, delusional beliefs, and severe depressive thoughts, and have necessitated several hospital admissions.
2. The mother's diagnoses have been described as psychotic depression and/or a delusional disorder, and she has been treated with antipsychotic and antidepressant medications (father's tender bundle at 37). After each discharge, the mother initially responded well to medication. However, there is evidence that she has struggled with side-effects and, at times, discontinued treatment against medical advice. This has, unfortunately, lead to relapses.
3. The mother, to her credit, does not deny her past mental health struggles. In her affidavit affirmed on 15 October 2025 at paragraph 20, she acknowledges having "suffered three lapses" in her mental health over four years. The mother explains that each instance occurred under acute life stress and when she had stopped taking medication. The mother states that her recent hospital admission has given her greater insight into managing her condition and that she is now committed to strict compliance with her treatment regime; including monthly paliperidone injections and daily lurasidone oral medication. In considering this matter, I have had regard to a letter from the mother's treating psychiatrist, Dr H, dated 27 August 2025 which confirms the mother "has remained compliant with appointments and medication" since discharge condition (Annexure "B" of mother's affidavit affirmed 15 October 2025).
4. I also note the treating psychiatrist states that "her mental state is now stable, and she presents with clear reality-based thinking," and that "she demonstrates excellent insight into her condition and is motivated to maintain her wellbeing" (Annexure "I" of mother's affidavit affirmed 15 October 2025). I accept this evidence. It indicates the mother is currently engaged in appropriate treatment and monitoring of her mental health.
5. However, in considering the safety of the child, as I am required to do by s60CC(2)(a) of the Act, I can not overlook the demonstrated pattern of mental health relapses experienced by the mother up to September 2025. That pattern is one of repeated decompensation in the face of stressors; resulting in the mother becoming acutely unwell. I am satisfied that the mother's ability to properly care for the child has been adversely affected during those periods of compromised mental health. I am also satisfied that the child's experience of the mother's behaviour during those periods has been distressing for him (father's affidavit filed 15 October 2025 at paragraph 38).
6. In assessing the nature and extent of risk to this child, I can not ignore evidence which suggests that, on at least some occasions, the mother has been unaware of her own deterioration until a crisis point has been reached. For example, in March-April 2024, the mother began expressing irrational beliefs; which included blaming herself for an asbestos hazard alert and believing strangers were stalking her (father's affidavit filed 15 October 2025 at paragraph 80 and 78 respectively). On another occasion the mother posted on a school WhatsApp group that she caused the children not to have homework "because of the bad things I did in the past" (father's Tender Bundle filed on 15 October 2025 at page 59). This prompted concern from other parents and the father. Clinical notes record the mother telling police and mental health workers that the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") was stalking her and that she had caused the COVID-19 pandemic as punishment for her sins (father's Tender Bundle filed on 15 October 2025 at page 46 and 53 respectively; Family Report by Ms E dated 2 July 2025 at paragraph 30). This led to her hospital admission in mid-2024.
7. Even in the context of these interim proceedings, the evidence satisfies me, that during such episodes, the mother's perceptions of reality are impaired. The father attests that just before the late 2022 mental health episode - which resulted in self-harming behaviour and, ultimately, the mother's admission - the mother was understating her mental health challenges and it was only later, during treatment, that the mother acknowledged experiencing psychotic depression (mother's affidavit affirmed 15 October 2025 at paragraph 22)
8. While I accept that the mother's mental health challenges are episodic, this past pattern of failing to recognise a deterioration in her mental health before a point of crisis and third-party intervention presents an unacceptable risk that the child would be adversely affected if he were left in the predominant care of the mother. Dr H's letter, while positive, stops short of declaring that the mother is unlikely to have another mental health relapse. In finding the existence of that risk, I note that the mother remains under a Community Treatment Order for a period of approximately 18 months. This reflects that psychiatric authorities consider mandated supervision of the mother's mental health status necessary to ensure her mental health stability.
9. As earlier noted, the potential for the mother to experience an acute mental health episode is a significant risk to the child who is only is seven years old. The evidence shows that the child has been exposed to aspects of the mother's mental illness and that this has affected him. For instance, the Family Report notes that, during the mother's decline in mental health in mid-2024, the child exhibited behaviours such as "hypervigilance, distractedness, nightmares [and] anxiety" (Family Report by Ms E dated 2 July 2025 at paragraph 48). Ms E opined that this experience "could be reflective of [X] having had adverse experiences in his mother's care" during her mental health episodes (Family Report by Ms E dated 2 July 2025 at paragraph 48). When interviewed in June 2025, the child told the Family Consultant that his mother "had become sad and worried and that this made him feel sad and worried too, but that before this she used to be happy" Family Report by Ms E dated 2 July 2025 at paragraph 39). He also remarked that he "sees things that aren't there - just like how mum is," which suggests the child may have, unfortunately experienced his mother's hallucinations or other delusional behaviour (father's affidavit filed 15 October 2025 at paragraph 38). In this context, the child's comments indicate that the child has perceived his mother's episodes of mental ill-health and fluctuations in mood and has been concerned by this.
10. In considering the safety of the child, I find that -at this point in time and until there is evidence of a sustained improvement in the mother's mental health - if the child were to live with the mother full-time at a time when she suffers a serious relapse, he would be at risk of emotional harm and, potentially, neglect. In so finding, I have had regard to the opinion of the Court Child Expert, Ms E, who stated at paragraph 48 that:

Living with a parent who is experiencing a serious mental health decline can have adverse effects on children. Parents can be less responsive to their children... distracted by intrusive thoughts or worries, [and] behave unpredictably... and transmit paranoia and fearfulness to their children. Children can feel the need to be caretakers for their parents and worry about them excessively. ... If parents become acutely unwell and experience suicidality and/or psychotic delusions, as would appear to have been the case for [Ms Leppins], children can be at immediate risk of harm in their care.

1. That opinion is consistent with other evidence before the court and, ultimately, satisfies me that when the mother's mental health has deteriorated in the past, it has adversely impacted the child in so far as his school attendance has suffered, he has lost routine, and he became emotionally distressed (Family Report by Ms E dated 2 July 2025 at paragraph 48). This includes during the mother's most recent breakdown in June 2025.
2. It is to the mother's credit that she does not minimize the seriousness of June 2025 events and that she consented to the safety plan for the child to move into his father's care during the period (mother's affidavit affirmed 15 October 2025 at paragraph 10).
3. In terms of considering any impact of orders that may be made, the child has now been living in the father's primary care since early June 2025. It appears that he is doing well in his father's care. The father has shown that he is focussed on the child's needs. This includes moving from the city to a home in a region closer to the child's paternal grandparents who are able to provide additional support for the child (father's affidavit filed 15 October 2025 at paragraph 117 and 121). The father has also changed X's school to one near his new residence as permitted by the registrar's orders. The child was enrolled at D School at the start of Term 4 and, according to the father, the child has settled in and made new friends. To her credit, during the Review Hearing, the mother conceded that, in the circumstances, the child should continue at D School rather than disrupting him again by returning him to his former school in Suburb F.
4. In considering the ability of the father to care for the child, I note that the father works full-time but has some job flexibility and has the support of his wife and family in caring for the child (father's affidavit filed 15 October 2025 at paragraph 120-121). There is no suggestion that the father cannot meet the child's day-to-day needs.
5. Significantly, the father has facilitated ongoing contact between the child and the mother under the interim regime. The September 2025 orders allow the mother to spend time with the child every weekend on either Saturday or Sunday. The father stated, through his solicitor at the hearing, that these visits have been going smoothly. Additionally, the father asserts he has facilitated the mother and child having daily telephone calls in the evenings.
6. The ICL, who is a highly experienced and respected by the Court, has spoken to the child and states that the child enjoys seeing and speaking with his mother. Furthermore, the ICL contends that the gradual increase in time to a full day on Sunday has been positive.
7. The ICL -whose responsibility is to present submissions to the Court as to what orders he considers to be in the child's best interests - supports the interim orders made by the Senior Judicial Registrar remaining in place. In that respect, Counsel for the ICL submits that the child's best interests, at present, lie in maintaining the stable care arrangement provided by the father while the mother continues to demonstrate her recovery and commitment to treatment.
8. The ICL points to the recommendations contained in the Family Report that the mother undergo a thorough psychological assessment and continue to engage with support services before any substantial increase in unsupervised time (Family Report by Ms E dated 2 July 2025 at paragraph 56). Appropriately, the registrar put these steps in train. The interim orders included a proposal for a funded psychiatric evaluation of the mother. At the Review Hearing, the Independent Children's Lawyer informed the Court that an application for Legal Aid to cover the cost of this assessment had been lodged and was currently awaiting approval
9. Taking an appropriately cautious approach in the context of interim proceedings, the ICL contends that it would be premature and potentially unsafe to revert the child's living arrangements to those outlines in the suspended final orders before that independent assessment is obtained and before there has been a longer period during which the mother has demonstrated stable mental health.
10. The Department of Communities and Justice, while not a party, has indicated through correspondence that it does not recommend the child be returned to the mother's sole care at the present time due to the recency of her hospitalisation and the need for sustained compliance with treatment (Annexure "B" of father's affidavit filed 15 October 2025). In that respect, the DCJ letter of August 2025 notes that several factors are still of concern. This includes the fact that the child had missed significant schooling during the mother's unwell periods.

1. In considering the mother's application, I have predominantly focussed on the issue of risk to the safety of the child as a result of the mother's mental health challenges. Specifically, in terms of s60CC(2)(a) of the Act, I have considered what arrangements would promote the safety of the child; including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm.
2. As earlier noted, even in the context of the truncated process of an interim hearing, the evidence demonstrates that the mother has experienced multiple serious episodes of mental ill--health - including psychotic depression and delusional disorder - which have at times impaired her capacity to care for the child safely. During these episodes, the child was exposed to erratic behaviour, missed schooling, and experienced emotional distress. The most recent episode in June 2025 resulted in DCJ implementing a safety plan and for the mother's involuntary hospitalisation. While the mother has since stabilised and is compliant with her treatment regime, the risk of relapse remains.
3. Comparatively, the father's household has provided consistent care and stability since June 2025 and there is no evidence of risk to the child or to the father in that environment. Accordingly, I find that the current arrangement, where the child resides with the father and spends supervised time with the mother, best promotes the safety of the child.

1. The child has expressed that he misses his mother and would like to see her more (Family Report by Ms E dated 2 July 2025 at paragraph 40). He also reported that his father is "a happy person, and he likes spending time with him at his house" (Family Report by Ms E dated 2 July 2025 at paragraph 38).
2. While his views are not determinative given his age, they are relevant and have been considered. The current regime allows for regular contact with the mother, and the gradual increase in time (from Saturday to full-day Sunday visits) reflects a child-focused approach which respects the child's expressed wishes while safeguarding his safety and welfare.

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

1. The child's developmental and emotional needs are currently being met in the father's care. He has returned to regular school attendance, is reportedly doing well, and has adjusted well to his new environment. I am satisfied that the father's household provides routine, emotional stability, and access to extended family support.
2. The mother was born in Country G and migrated to Australia several years ago. She identifies as having strong ties to her Country G heritage. This is reflected in the mother's proposal to relocate the child, to Country G to be closer to the maternal family who reside there (Family Report by Ms E dated 2 July 2025 at paragraph 21). The mother's cultural background and heritage remain important, and her continued contact with the child supports his cultural identity. However, the desirability of promoting that cultural connection are displaced by the mother's mental health episodes which have impacted the child's care and psychological wellbeing. I am satisfied that the current arrangement allows for gradual re-engagement with the mother while maintaining the child's safety.

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

1. The father has demonstrated a consistent capacity to meet the child's needs as contemplated by s 60CC(2)(d) of the Act and has reorganised his work and living arrangements to both support the child and facilitate contact with the mother. The mother, when well, has been a loving and capable parent. However, her capacity remains contingent on her mental health stability. While her current compliance with appropriate treatment and monitoring is commendable, it is appropriate to take a cautious approach in the context of these interim proceedings. In that respect, I have earlier referred to her history of relapse. At this interim stage, I am satisfied that the father's capacity to attend to the child's needs is more reliably and safely established.

(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:

1. It is clear that the child has a strong and loving bond with both parents. The current arrangement allows him to maintain those relationships. This includes by way of daily phone calls and weekend visits with the mother. To his credit, the father has supported these interactions. The mother's relationship with the child is being maintained and can be expanded as her mental health stability continues. I am satisfied that the interim orders made by the Senior Judicial Registrar balance the child's need for connection with both parents while ensuring safety.

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

1. The matter is progressing toward a final hearing and further expert evidence is anticipated; including a psychiatric assessment of the mother. The Court notes that both parties are legally aided and funding for the mother's assessment is pending. The interim orders provide a stable framework that can be adjusted as new evidence emerges. The interim orders made by the Senior Judicial Registrar are not a final determination of the mater. The orders reflect an appropriately cautious approach at this stage of the proceedings.
2. The Court encourages the mother to continue her recovery and engagement with treatment, and I acknowledge her commendable effort to date.

1. In summary and conclusion, having regard to all the matters to which I have referred, I am satisfied that the Senior Judicial Registrar's orders of 12 September 2025 were appropriate and remain necessary to ensure the child's safety and welfare. The mother's Application for Review is therefore dismissed. The interim orders made on 12 September 2025, as slightly adjusted by agreement between the parties since, shall continue to operate. The effect of this judgement is that the child shall continue to live with the father; and spend time with the mother in accordance with the current schedule; for the time specified each weekend supplemented by nightly phone calls. The mother shall continue to comply with all treatment and therapeutic recommendations and the other conditions in the interim orders.

I certify that the preceding sixty-three (65) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Deputy Chief Justice McCelland.