Curie & Oursler [2025] FedCFamC1F 669 | Case summary

Curie & Oursler [2025] FedCFamC1F 669 | Case summary | Zoe

[34]

The matter before the Court is a parenting dispute regarding the parents' three year old son, X. Both parents depose to events and behaviours of the other that, if accurate, raise serious safety issues for the child and his parents. The allegations comprise significant family violence and mental health concerns, including threats to kill, incidents of alleged self-harm, an incident that occurred on 25 February 2023 during which the mother asserted the father assaulted her with a piece of broken glass ("the glass incident"), and an incident that occurred in March 2024 during which the mother came to have petrol on her body and clothes ("the petrol incident"). It is the mother's evidence that on that occasion, the father deliberately poured or splashed petrol on her and then lit a fire. It is the father's evidence that the mother put the petrol on herself and lit a fire.
However, notwithstanding the seriousness and extreme nature of the allegations and counter allegations, neither parent proposed that the other have supervised time, or even limited time. The mother proposed she be the child's primary carer and he spend alternate weekends, one night in the alternate week and half the school holidays with his father. The father proposed he be the child's primary carer and the child spend alternate weekends and half the holidays with the mother. The parents proposed mutual orders that permitted each parent to travel interstate and internationally with the child.
Considering the seriousness of the allegations, it is difficult to understand the parents' competing proposals other than that neither parent views the child as being at significant risk in the care of the other.
Since September 2024 the child has been in a shared care routine - spending four days with his father and four days with his mother. This was substantially to accommodate the father's work roster as a public servant. The care arrangements have not been without issue - substantially because of the mother preferring a week about arrangement be implemented. She has also been dissatisfied with the arrangements the father made for the child's care when he has worked an overtime night shift during the time the child is with him. In addition, the parents have disagreed over the child's kindergarten days, and issues such as appropriate treatment for the child when he has experienced the usual types of childhood illnesses. However, beyond these concerns, neither parent has deposed to any incident that raises significant concerns regarding the child's safety in the care of the other for almost 12 months.
I substantially agree with the submissions made by the counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer that the child should remain in a shared care arrangement. Although it seems somewhat counter intuitive given the gravity of some of the allegations and counter allegations made by the parents, for the reasons that follow, it is my determination that the child's best interests will be met by him continuing in a shared care arrangement - to be structured in such a way that minimises the interactions between his parents.

[37]

The mother and Dr M were required for cross examination.
The mother is currently 39 years old. She was previously a public servant. The mother has two children from previous relationships - N who is now 15 and O who is six. N and O both live with their respective fathers, and O spends alternate weekends with the mother.
It was the mother's evidence that during her pregnancy the father began to subject her to family violence and coercive control that continued after the child was born. She said this included the father striking her to the head and stomach, holding her by the throat, choking her, pulling her hair, holding her down, forcing her face into a pillow, throwing plates on the floor, slapping her, punching her, locking her outside and repeatedly denigrating and verbally abusing her. Additionally, she said the father subjected her to financial abuse, that he prevented her from leaving the relationship, including that he physically blocked her from leaving the father's home in Suburb P where they were living, and on one occasion when she had returned to a property she owned in Suburb Q, he physically removed her from that property and drove her back to his property. She said that if she proposed ending the relationship, the father threatened to "destroy her".
It was the mother's case that she did not report the physical violence to the police, the parents' couples' counsellor or to her general practitioner as she had hoped to preserve the parents' relationship and did not want to trigger any investigation by the authorities.
In her oral evidence the mother acknowledged the child has a strong bond with his father, and that his father looks after him well. The mother said her primary concerns are what she described as the father's "unaddressed aggression" and that the father leaves the child in the care of other people.
The mother has described a difficult childhood, and fractured relationship with her mother and sister. She does not appear to have any reliable network of support.

[39]

The father was also cross examined.
The father is 46 years old. He works as a public servant. His work roster requires him to work four days on and four days off. The four days on include two days working from 8.00 am to 6.00 pm, and two night shifts from 6.00 pm to 8.00 am. In addition, the father works additional overtime shifts, picking up some day time shifts and some night time shifts. It is his intention to continue working overtime shifts on an ad hoc basis.
The father acknowledged the parents argued with each other, and that included using profanities and denigratory language. However, he denied all allegations of physical violence, financial abuse and coercive control. It was his case that the mother was violent towards him, and that she had kicked and punched him, thrown items and damage property when she became enraged. He also said that she scratched him, causing him to bleed on a number of occasions when they argued. He tendered photographs he said were taken in March, May and October of 2022 showing scratches on his arms, chest, torso and face that he said the mother had caused. The mother did not deny that she had caused the scratches. The father also acknowledged he has restrained the mother on a number of occasions when she attacked him, and on an occasion he said he had to "hold her down to keep her from harming herself" when she "smashed her head repeatedly on the tiled floor". The father admitted he was not supportive of the mother living at her property in Suburb Q with the child, as he said it had mould and other issues that meant it was not suitable accommodation.
In his evidence the father maintained he had concerns about the mother's mental health. He said he considered the child spending alternate weekends and half the holidays with his mother - rather than living primarily with her or in a shared care arrangement - as providing sufficient protection from any risks to the child's wellbeing.
The father similarly appeared to lack familial supports in Australia.

[42]

The parents met in 2020, and commenced cohabitation some time in 2021, living together in the father's home in Suburb P.
The one child of the parties' relationship was born in 2022.
The mother called the police to the home in February 2022 following an argument between the parents. However, she did not report any abuse when the police attended, and the LEAP report records the mother as not being in fear of the father, "just wanting her own space", and that there had been no threats or violence. The mother told the Court the father prevented her from leaving the relationship that day and she did not inform the police of the violence as she did not want the father to "be in trouble". It is difficult to reconcile that with the fact that she called the police to the home. The father denied that he had subjected the mother to any family violence that day.
The mother attended upon her general practitioner in March 2022 and it is recorded she was "no feeling great mood wise" (as per the original), but with no suicidal or homicidal ideas. The mother was provided with information about a psychologist.
In March 2022 the mother audio recorded the father calling her a bitch. She said the father held her down, and hit her face and punched her in the stomach. That was denied by the father.
In May 2022 the mother presented to her General Practitioner reporting she had fallen in the laundry and hurt her head. The mother's evidence to this Court was that the father had assaulted her. However, she did not report that to the doctor. The father said that he recalled the mother rolled off the couch that day and struck her head on the floor two or three times. He said she appeared to be experiencing a significant mental health episode, and she seemed to be "dissociating". He said he tried to put her back on the couch and to stop her from continuing to hurt herself.
In around mid-May 2022 the mother was diagnosed with post-natal depression by her General Practitioner. She was referred to a specialist service and subsequently prescribed antidepressants. The mother disclosed verbal abuse by the father but not physical abuse to the counsellors she attended upon at the social outreach program through T Family Service.
In April 2022 the mother again attended upon her general practitioner. The consultation notes record the mother was feeling more depressed and anxious.
At trial the mother said she had not taken the antidepressant medication in accordance with directions. She had been told to commence with half a tablet daily and gradually increase the dose. However, she said she had wanted "to feel better quicker" so she immediately increased the dose to a whole tablet. She said that did not work, she remained "sad and upset" and so had ceased taking the medication altogether.
The mother attended upon T Family Service for counselling and support in June 2022. The notes from the mother's attendance in June 2022 record that the mother reported "a really bad fortnight. Last week she experienced suicidal ideation", and that her mental health had deteriorated over the past two weeks.
The mother is also recorded to have:

[46]

The audio recording was also tendered. The father can be heard screaming at the mother to the point his voice sounds distorted at times. He sounds utterly enraged, and out of control. The mother can be heard telling the father that she does not want to talk with him, and wants to be left alone, and needs him to stop. He does not stop but becomes further engaged. The mother can be heard repeatedly asking the father to stop yelling in front of their child, to "stop it" and to "calm down". She also sought to leave with the child - which the father prevented - telling her that she could not take their son, and that he did not "give a fuck" about the mother wanting to take him with her.
The father deposed that the mother had been physically attacking him during an earlier argument that triggered his outburst. However, there can be no excuse for the father's behaviour on that day. It was family violence. The father also committed a criminal offence on that day, for which he was later charged, and subsequently pleaded guilty.
It is the mother's evidence that after this incident she decided to leave and "took off" in her car. She left the child in the home with the father. The mother said she kept driving and ended up driving along Region U. She said she felt completely hopeless, concerned the father would kill her and believed the abuse would not stop unless she was dead. She drove to Town V, purchased a bottle of antifreeze with the intention of ingesting it, and paid for a motel room.
The father contacted the police who were able to locate the mother. The father said he did not know where the mother was for the next couple of days.
Initially the City W police were involved. According to the LEAP report, the mother "spoke of relationship issues but did not want to disclose anything". However, the mother subsequently spoke to the police at Town Y and reported the father's violence, including playing for them the recording of the father's threats to kill her.
After a day or so, the mother returned to the Suburb P property and spoke to the father. He encouraged her to seek medical assistance and the Crisis Assessment and Treatment team at H Hospital was contacted. The mother was able to secure a bed at Z Mental Health Service, being the mental health facility associated with H Hospital ("the hospital"). She remained there until mid-2022.
A note of a phone call with the mother on 21 July 2022 records that the mother had recently commenced taking Sertraline, and that she had experienced:

[50]

Child protection closed their case in about September 2022.
There was some reference in the hospital notes to the father having subjected the mother to verbal abuse. The father acknowledged this to the hospital's Men's Practitioner and confirmed he had made the threats in the recording that had been played to the police. Notably, the writer recorded the mother "cannot remember this recording and denies threats being made", and that the mother stated, "the [p]olice have their own agenda to cover themselves". The hospital clearly had some concerns about the mother's safety and referred her to a family violence case manager. They also noted the need to discuss a safety plan with the mother if she returned to the father's home.
Whilst in hospital the mother contacted a friend of the father - a Ms AA. It is apparent from the messages sent by the mother that she believed Ms AA wanted to pursue a relationship with the father, which the mother discouraged. The mother maintained in her affidavit material that Ms AA had "maintained inappropriate contact" during the parents' relationship - without any more specificity.
The mother left the hospital in mid-2022. The father was recorded as having expressed a view that day that the mother should not return to his home unless she had nursing support, as he was concerned that the mother would not take medication as prescribed and her mental health issues would recur. He was advised the mother had been assessed as stable and low risk.
There is another hospital record that suggests the father was dominating the conversation, and described the mother as being quiet and teary and not comfortable to express her thoughts. The father was reported to be "using this forum...to reinforce his position that if [the mother] were to return [to live in his house] there would be conditions in place". Notably the social worker reported the father appeared frustrated about the mother's mental health and her "erratic, impulsive behaviour". The social worker also referred to being aware of the:

[55]

It was the mother's evidence the father continued to subject her to violence following her return to the Suburb P home. She said she wanted to leave the relationship which infuriated the father. That was denied by the father.
In December 2022 the mother sent further abusive text messages to Ms AA, calling her a "pussy", a "bitch" and a "whore". The mother's text messages continued into the evening and the following day, calling Ms AA a "home wrecker" and threatening "You are going to pay bitch...I'm coming to find you", and "if you come between me and [the father] again, I will rip you to shreds now stay away".
The father denied that he had anything other than a strictly platonic relationship with Ms AA.
The father contacted the hospital on two occasions in late 2022 expressing concern as to the mother's mental health state. The referral note dated late 2022 recorded the father as distressed that the mother was becoming mentally unwell, that she had not showered for several days, and that the mother was disorganised, extremely irritable, spending money irrationally and may not be taking medication as prescribed.
On 10 December the referral note described the father as distressed by the mother's behaviour and her threats to kill his friend. The note set out that the father felt "terrorized" by the mother, that she spits on him, and that he believed the mother has "BPD and is manipulating him to remain in r/ship, threatened to kill herself when attempts to end r/ship which is what he wishes to do" (As per the original). He was reported to have said he asked the mother to leave his home, but she had nowhere else to go and no other supports.
By this time, the mother had still not resumed spending any time with O since being admitted to the hospital in mid-2022, other than having a few video calls with her. On 21 December 2022 lawyers acting for O's father wrote to the mother requesting information as to the mother's mental health and confirming that until there was some clarity as to the mother's functioning, there was no agreement for the mother to have face to face time with O.
I am satisfied that the mother's mental health remained poor towards the end of 2022. This is reflected in the father's reports to medical practitioners and in the content of the text messages the mother sent Ms AA. The mother also subsequently admitted to the father on 24 March 2024 that she had been experiencing some side effects "like electricity in my head" from the medication prescribed. She told the father as a result, she took the medication every second day instead of daily as prescribed.
The mother called the police to the home again on [...] February 2023. In her affidavit the mother deposed she had decided at that time to leave the relationship, but the father "became irate" and threatened to "use her mental health problems against her" and she called the police hoping they would assist her to safely leave the home. When the police arrived, the mother informed them there had been no violence. Her evidence was that she wanted help from the police but felt unable to directly ask for assistance.
In late February 2023 the mother again called the police to the home. The father was not present as he had left for work. The police report sets out that the mother told them she and the father had been arguing and that he had pushed her, thrown her and called her names before pushing her over, grabbing her hair and pushing her forehead onto the floor. The LEAP report stated the mother said that a glass jar had been pushed onto the floor during the incident, and smashed and that the father then cut the mother's forearm with a piece of the broken glass a number of times. The LEAP report described the mother having an "egg" on her head. The cuts on the mother's arm were described as "superficial scratches only" and the officers at the scene did not regard them as consistent with the behaviour the mother had described. There was no blood at the scene. The mother declined to make any formal statement.
I note the mother said the incident occurred at 7.30am. She did not call police until around 8.30am.
The mother's trial affidavit is not wholly consistent with the version recorded in the LEAP report. In particular the mother asserted in her affidavit that the father threw her to the floor which resulted in her hitting her head and causing a bruise. She said the father threw a glass bowl onto the floor. At trial she said the police made an error in their report.
The mother left the home that day, with the child. She stayed at her mother's home in Suburb BB.
The father said the relationship was over from that day. The mother asserted the parents spoke about potentially reconciling, and described the relationship as 'on again, off again' for a period in 2023. That was denied by the father. The mother adduced little evidence to support her assertion that the parents attempted any reconciliation. At best, there was evidence the mother stayed at the father's home one night in March 2023.
The mother attended upon a general practitioner in late February 2023. The consultation notes record that the mother reported the father was "very abusive, calling names threatening to kill and hurt". There was no specific reference in the notes to the glass incident which occurred just two days earlier. There was no suggestion in the consultation notes from that appointment that the mother had reported any injury to her head or arms as a result of the alleged assault. The mother's medication was changed to Desvenlafaxine.
Child protection again became involved with the family following the glass incident. At his interview, the father denied having perpetrated family violence towards the mother and described the mother as "manipulative and controlling of him". He expressed no concerns for the child whilst in the mother's care.
At her interview, the mother acknowledged she had experienced a major depressive and psychotic episode in June 2022 which she attributed to having a poor response to medication. She advised she had no thoughts of self-harm, or thoughts to harm the child. She was described as being engaged with supports, including with her general practitioner. She said the relationship with the father had ended and she had no plans to return to the relationship. She advised that the father "is a great father to [the child] and she has no concerns for his parenting". The mother did not assert she or the child had been subjected to or exposed to family violence.
The mother commenced counselling with Dr M in March 2023.
It was the mother's evidence that she drove the child to City B to see his father on three occasions in March 2023 and that the father expressed significant remorse at his behaviour during the relationship.
On 24 March 2023 the mother brought the child to visit the father. It is unclear whether the mother and child had stayed at the father's home on the night of 23 March 2023.
On 24 March 2023 the father covertly recorded a conversation between the mother and himself which lasted for about ninety minutes.
During the recording the father can be heard frequently denigrating and belittling the mother who can be heard crying and in distress for much of the time. The child was present throughout the conversation.
During the exchange - and at the father's prompting - the mother said she had fabricated the events of the glass incident because she had panicked the child would be taken from her and she would not be able to see him. She said the incident occurred following an argument the parents had had on 24 February 2023 regarding the care arrangements for the child. In the recording the mother said she felt desperate and suicidal at the thought of losing the care of the child, that she had fabricated the assault, had thoughts of killing herself, "tried to use the glass to cut [herself]" but "chickened out" and that she injured herself by banging her own head on the floor.
At the conclusion of the conversation the parents discussed care arrangements for the child, and agreed the mother would collect the child the following day. The father reassured the mother that he would support her and wanted her to feel better.
In her affidavit filed 29 April 2025, the mother asserted:

[59]

I am satisfied there was essentially a shared care arrangement in place from around April 2023. To that end, there was a text message exchanged in early May 2023 in which there was a reference to the child coming to his father's and needing clothes for "the week". The report from child protection also refers to the parents at that time having implement a shared care arrangement for the child.
The way the child's equal time was to be divided was an ongoing issue over which the parents conflicted. The text messages exchanged between the parties tendered into evidence from around April 2023 and in June 2023 make it plain that the parental dispute was regarding their different preferences for equal care arrangements for the child - with each making demands on, and name calling, the other. The mother had the father's number saved in her contacts as "Asshole". Curiously, at times the parents engaged in respectful, and even kind communication - referring to each other as "darling" and "babe".
Despite the difficulties in the parental relationship, it is apparent that neither parent regarded the child at that time as being unsafe in the care of the other parent.
In August 2023 the mother sent further abusive text messages to Ms AA, again calling her a bitch, telling her to "LEAVE [THE FATHER] ALONE" and writing "Enjoying my partner you horrible woman? Remember when you find one I ll chase him too I promise" (As per the original).
At trial the mother described herself as a "jealous partner". It is notable that by this time the parents had been separated for about 6 months.
According to the mother's medical records she again ceased taking antidepressants in September 2023.
The parents were able to reach an agreement in September 2023 that the mother would care for the child each Sunday to Friday whilst the father attended a course for his employment. The father then cared for the child on the weekends.
It is the mother's evidence that the parents agreed that in return, the father would care for the child in November full time, for a month so the mother could travel to Country CC. She said despite this agreement, the father changed his mind at the last minute.
I do not accept the mother's evidence that this was a pre-arranged agreement. The mother could not produce any communication between herself and the father that evidenced any agreement about the mother travelling overseas for a month and the child being in the father's care in her absence. To the contrary, the mother's text message to the father dated 21 September 2023 set out "Hope you are sorting October holidays so I can plan mine". There was no reference to her having arranged or planned travel to [Country CC] in October. Similarly, the mother's text messages to the father on 28 September 2023 did not refer to her proposed departure from Australia less than 2 weeks later. Nor did the contemporaneous email the mother sent refer to her imminent departure. Rather, that email restated the mother's position that the parents should share the child's care on a week about basis, commencing with the child being in his father's care for a week commencing 29 October. In addition, I note the father's email dated 4 October 2023 in which he referred to the parents not yet having reached an agreement about the care arrangements for the child in October and his proposals for effectively a week about arrangement to be in place in October 2023.
The mother did not respond to that email until 2.53 am on 5 October 2023. In that correspondence the mother informed the father she had left the country, having slept in her car the night before she left so that if the father attended at her home to return the child, he could not locate her. She said she would return on 31 October 2023.
However, the mother remained in Country CC until 6 November 2023. At that time, the child was an infant. It is common ground that the mother did not seek to have communication with the child at any time during her absence of over the four weeks. The mother's evidence was that she initially planned to be away for three weeks as she undertook a yoga and meditation course. However, she 'needed a break' at the end of those courses and decided to remain in Country CC for an additional week. At trial the mother confirmed she was confident in the father's capacity to provide care for the child over this extended period. As already noted, the mother had ceased taking antidepressants prior to her departure for Country CC.
It is extraordinary that neither parent considered the impact on the child of his mother's extended absence, and no efforts were made even for electronic communication to occur.
There was then a disagreement about what care arrangements would be in place for the child once the mother returned to Australia.
In a letter from the father's solicitors to the mother dated 10 November 2023 the father proposed the child spend a week with his mother commencing on 12 November at noon, and thereafter the parties implement a four-day rotating arrangement. The letter requested the mother provide confirmation as to her mental health being stable and that she was compliant with medication. However, this was not a condition precedent to the proposal that a shared care arrangement immediately resume. The letter records that the father:

[67]

The father responded that the child 'needed his mother'. The mother responded "Fuck off you horrible pig. Don't you fucking contact me". She sent further text messages accusing the father of bullying her and subjecting her to family violence.
The mother's explanation as to why she responded as she did included:
- she was "shocked" the father was using her mental health "as a tool to obtain care arrangements that suited him"; and
- she refused to see the child "as I did not believe that [the father] was able to consistently care for [the child] ...he would struggle to maintain [the child's] care, and that [the child] would be returned to me".
I do not regard the mother's assertions as reasonable or compelling.
It was apparent that the focus of each parent at that time was about what would be convenient from the perspective of the parents and their respective schedules, with little consideration given to the impact of the situation on the child.
In her trial affidavit the mother referred to the father as continuing to "withhold" the child at this time and that the letter of 10 November 2023 stated the father was "withholding" the child due to concerns about the mother's mental health. These statements are obviously incorrect and raise concerns about the accuracy of the mother's evidence.
The mother's affidavit filed 29 November 2023 was tendered into evidence. Some of the matters in that affidavit cause me to have some further concerns regarding the weight I can give to the mother's evidence. For instance, she deposed in that affidavit that the father had "threatened to harm" the child at that time. This is a complaint she did not repeat in her trial affidavit - and it was not a matter put to the father. The mother also deposed that the father had "kidnapped" the child at that time and that the father was using the child "as a pawn" to gain control over the mother. Again, that characterisation is plainly incorrect.
According to a letter from the mother's general practitioner dated November 2023 the mother was assessed as currently having "no mental health issue".
The mother issued applications in the Magistrates' Court in late 2023. It appears the mother sought an Intervention Order and a Recovery Order. She asserted the father was coercing her into agreeing to the father's preferred arrangement as a condition of seeing the child.
In late 2023 the parents attended the Magistrates Court. Orders were made by consent for the child to live in a shared care arrangement, spending four nights with his father and four nights with his mother. The consent orders also provided that this arrangement would progress to week about in mid-January 2024. The matter was otherwise transferred to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
In late 2023, Ms AA obtained an Intervention Order against the mother from the courts in Western Australia. That order was for two years.
The mother withdrew her application for an Intervention Order against the father in early 2024.
It was the mother's evidence that despite the consent orders made in December 2023, the father did not adjust his work commitments to ensure he cared for the child when he had him. Instead, the father sought assistance from his mother and from other carers, including young au pairs he sourced through Facebook. The mother regarded these carers as unsuitable and complained the father did not provide the details of those providing care for the child as was required under the interim orders.
I understand that in around February or March 2024 the mother determined she would seek the primary care of the child at the next court hearing. It was the mother's evidence that the father was infuriated by that proposal and this led to angry confrontations between them.
On [...] March 2024 the petrol incident occurred at the mother's home. The parents give different narratives. Essentially, it was the mother's evidence at trial that the parents were in her garage arguing about the child's care and the father became angry. She pushed him away and he grabbed her, then picked up a jerry can with petrol that she had in her garage and splashed it on her and around the garage. She threw off her bathrobe which had petrol on it and ran inside the house to call 000. She said the father followed her inside, filming her.
At some point some small items in the garage were set alight. The mother does not depose how this fire started.
Police and firefighters arrived shortly after they were called. The mother said the father spoke to those responders before she did. She believes they were people he knew, and that they wrongly accepted the father's version that the mother had put the petrol on herself.
The father's evidence was that he arrived at the home, and the mother was inside the garage, with the roller door open. She wanted to talk to the father in the garage and told him not to bring his phone. He said he sat down in the garage and spoke with the mother for about half an hour during which time they discussed the child's ongoing care, with the mother wanting primary care and father not agreeing to other than a shared care arrangement. He said the mother told him she had sent him an email and insisted he get his phone from the car and look at the email. He left the garage to collect his phone. When he turned back to the garage, he saw the roller door was pulled down. He tried to open it but it was locked from the inside. He said he saw smoke coming out of the garage and then went to the side gate to gain access to the garage through the side door. He saw the mother, naked and screaming "there's a fire". He said she looked wet. He picked up a garden hose and hosed the mother as she ran into the house. He then went into the garage and hosed the items in there that were on fire. He started filming when he was putting out the fire. Once he extinguished the flames, he went into the house and saw the mother on the phone. He said the mother told him to get away from her, but he walked past her and into the child's room and took him outside.
The fire brigade and police arrived shortly after. They identified that a cushion, a blanket (or a pink robe) and a yoga mat had been set on fire. There was petrol on the floor of the garage and a shattered bottle of wine on the ground.
It is the father's belief that the mother put the petrol on herself and started the fire in the time he was retrieving his phone from the car.
The police had significant concerns as to the mother's mental health. They transported her to hospital under the Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic).
The father also took the child for medical attention. Neither the police nor the hospital staff who attended upon the father and child assessed the father as posing any risk to the child.
A family violence safety notice was issued with the father and the child as protected persons and listing the mother as the respondent.
The mother was released from hospital the following day. At that time the mother had been assessed by the social work team at the hospital, who concluded that the mother was likely the victim on [...] March 2024.
According to the DFFH report, on [...] March 2024 the mother raised concerns she had been misidentified as the respondent. However, she refused to provide a statement to the police. She did eventually agree to police taking photographs of bruises she had on her arm and thigh. The mother said these were sustained "in a grabbing context" but did not provide further specifics. The police informed DFFH that the mother appeared to have no fear of the father when they attended the home.
On [...] March 2024 mutual interim Intervention Orders were made protecting the parents from each other and both naming the child as a protected person.
On [...] April 2024 the father was interviewed by police about the petrol incident.
On 17 April 2024 orders were made by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Division 2 for the child to remain with his father, on the basis that the paternal grandmother be in substantial attendance. Further orders were made for the child to spend supervised time with his mother.
According to the DFFH report dated [...] May 2024, the police investigation suggested there was a:

[69]

The DFFH report recorded that the interviews with all three of the fathers of the mother's three children raised concerns about the mother's mental health, including her struggles with anxiety and depression, her erratic behaviour and her attempts to manipulate. It is unclear to me whether it was the police or child protection who conducted the interviewed the fathers of the mother's older children.
DFFH also noted in their report that the police held concerns that the mother had fabricated assaults.
At a further interview with DFFH on [...] April 2024 the child was described as happy and comfortable in his father's care. The father acknowledged having previously made a threat to kill the mother which he recognised was wrong.
Further orders were made by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Division 2 on 14 May 2024 pursuant to which the child's time with the mother was extended, still on a supervised basis.
On [...] May 2024 the mother made a statement to police regarding the father's threats to kill her on 19 July 2022.
In May 2024, the mother was charged with breaching the Intervention Order in place for the father's protection. She had contacted the father on several occasions during the period she was not seeing the child, asking to see him. Those charges were struck out in about July or August 2024.
In June 2024 the police determined they would not be taking any action against the father in relation to the petrol incident. They determined there was a lack of evidence to substantiate that the father had put the petrol on the mother or taken any other criminal action that day and formed the view that it was most likely that the mother had put the petrol on herself.
On 6 September 2024 further orders were made for the child's care by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Division 2. Those orders provided for the child to spend four nights with his father and four nights with his mother, over an eight-night period. Those orders were not by consent. The orders also required the father to advise the mother of who he engaged to help him care for the child. The father was also to undertake a Men's Behaviour Change program, which he has not done due to conflicts with his work roster. However, he said he has engaged in several individual sessions of family violence education. The mother was to continue with her psychologist.
The child has remained in a shared care arrangement since that time.
Both parents agreed to mutual, final Intervention Orders in September 2024, without admission.
It is the mother's case that the father has not complied with the orders requiring him to keep her informed as to who he has engaged to assist him in the care of the child. She said the father continued to seek young au pairs online via Facebook which she deemed inappropriate. The mother determined to retain the child in her care in early 2025 for about six weeks on that basis.
I am not satisfied this was an appropriate basis to retain the child and deprive him of the opportunity to spend time with his father. The father's evidence was that he has never actually engaged an au pair and has only used registered childcare providers to assist him, or the paternal grandmother when she was present in Australia.
The mother also said the child is now becoming resistant to transferring into his father's care. The father agreed he has also noticed the child struggling more with transitioning between his parents. Given the level of animosity between them, this is unsurprising. It is troubling that the mother has begun recording the child when he has become distressed.
The father pleaded guilty to the charge of threats to kill. The matter was finalised in March 2025. The father was fined $1,000 without conviction.
The parents have continued to argue about the child's care. The three main areas of disagreement beyond how the child's care is to be divided between them, have been broadly as follows:

[70]

(a) where and when the child should attend childcare. It was the mother's evidence that prior to September 2024 the child was enrolled at a childcare in Suburb Q. The mother did not depose whether that was a jointly made decision or one she unilaterally made. In August 2024 the father enrolled the child at C Family Service. In addition, the father engaged DD Family Service who provide, inter alia, overnight and weekend care for children of shift workers. Earlier this year the parents were unable to agree whether the child should attend fixed days at C Family Service - with the father wanting the child's two or three kindergarten days to fit in with his roster, and with the mother preferring there be fixed days. The father did not initially include the mother as an emergency contact when he enrolled the child with C Family Service. Whilst he said this was because she was at that time spending supervised time only with the child, he did not immediately rectify the situation after the September 2024 orders were made for shared care. I understand the mother was only added as an emergency contact in late January 2025.

(b) whether the father has engaged suitable carers to assist him when he undertakes a work shift when he otherwise has the child in his care. As already set out the mother does not regard the father as engaging suitably qualified or appropriate carers. The father's evidence is that since his mother returned to New Zealand, the only arrangements he has made for the child's care when he is at work has been with C Family Service or DD Family Service - both being registered childcares; and

(c) health care issues for the child. It was the mother's evidence that the father has at times been dismissive when the child has experienced poor health or sustained scratches or bruises. The mother deposed that the father "often disregards professional advice and will seek out multiple professionals until he finds one whose opinion aligns with his own views". However, the mother did not provide evidence to support that assertion. The father's evidence was that on occasion the mother had not sought appropriate care and that on other occasions she had unnecessarily engaged medical professionals. There was no substantial evidence to support that allegation either. The mother also suggested that the father did not necessarily follow medical advice suggesting that the father may not have given the child antibiotics as prescribed. She conceded this was only her speculation and that the father had assured her the child had taken the full course.

[81]

The mother commenced seeing Dr M in March 2023 and has attended regularly since then. Dr M has provided the mother with cognitive behavioural therapy.
In her report dated 23 March 2025 Dr M described that the mother "initially presented as low in mood, anxious and in grief over multiple issues, including the breakdown of her relationship with [the father]". She said the mother demonstrated "significant and observable improvements in her mental state" over several months. Dr M noted that immediately after the petrol incident the mother "displayed and reported symptoms of trauma and elevated anxiety and depression" which had "stabilised and improved over time".
Dr M concluded the mother did not reach the diagnostic criteria for any psychological disorder, for any personality disorders or any other mental health diagnosis. Nor did she report any current suicidal ideation or intention. Dr M observed the mother's past episodes of ill mental health "appear to be situationally based" particularly in the context of the relationship between the parents. She said there was nothing from a psychological perspective that would impact negatively on the mother's parenting ability.
Dr M was cross examined by counsel for the father and counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer. Dr M impressed as an engaged and insightful treating practitioner.
Dr M described that postpartum depression usually resolves within a year of a child's birth. She said the mother's symptoms at the start of her engagement were tied more to issues arising from the breakdown of the relationship and the conflictual nature of that relationship rather than ongoing postpartum depression.
Dr M identified the mother's complaints about violence focussed on psychological intimidation and verbal abuse and not physical violence save in relation to the petrol incident. For instance, the mother did not apparently report to Dr M that the father had choked her. She also did not report the father having assaulted her with a glass shard. Dr M said that sometimes significant issues "can get missed along the way", or the mother may not have trusted her to tell her.
In response to questions from counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer, Dr M acknowledged that gaps in the mother's memory could be consistent with trauma and that memory fragmentation is a symptom of post-traumatic stress.
Dr M also acknowledged that a person experiencing a high degree of abuse could engage in a-typical behaviour, where the person becomes overwhelmed, experiences "fight or flight" and cannot think logically.

[101]

Accordingly, not every disputed fact must be determined before I can be satisfied as to what orders will promote the child's best interest. I am required only to resolve those disputed facts where the findings will "authentically influence the outcome".
This is not, in my view, a case where I can assess one of the parents as a witness of truth whose version of events is to be accepted over the version proffered by the other when those accounts differ. I did not form an impression from either parent that they were deliberately being untruthful, or that they deliberately sought to obfuscate. I am very mindful that adverse credit findings can, in parenting matters, provide one parent feeling they have "won", and rather than ending long-standing conflict, such findings "may be embraced as vindication for the pursuit of further conflict in the future": Carlson & Fluvium [2012] FamCA 32 [165] - [169]. Having said that, there were aspects of the mother's evidence that were not correct. For instance, she could not adduce any evidence that supported her assertion that the parents had agreed to the mother travelling to Country CC for a month in 2023. Similarly, the mother described the father as "withholding" the child upon her return from Country CC notwithstanding his offers for her to have him in her care for a week and thereafter on a shared care basis which she declined. I note also the mother's own statements to the father in March 2023 in which she admitted to having fabricated the events of 25 February 2023.
I am also of the view that the father has at times minimised the role he has played in the conflict between the parents and the impact his behaviour has had on the mother's mental health. For instance, the father denied all allegations of family violence to the Family Report writer and did not refer to his threats to kill her. The father has also been prepared to expose the child to the parental conflict on at least 19 July 2022 and 24 March 2023 - including the child hearing his father screaming at his mother and threatening to harm her in July 2022 and denigrating her repeatedly in the recording made in March 2023.
The impression that I formed was that each parent hoped to be vindicated through this trial process, and that the father sought the mother be labelled a manipulative liar. The reality is they both need to reflect on their own behaviours and responses rather than blaming the other.

[102]

On one view, where there is no assertion of unacceptable risk, it is difficult to see in the extant case how a resolution of the disputed facts as to what occurred on [...] March 2024 can be characterised as central to the case any of the parties have run. I received limited assistance from counsel as to how my determination as to the events of that day will assist me in determining whether the child's best interests are met by spending time with his parents during school terms three nights/eleven nights in favour of the father, or four nights/ten nights in favour of the mother.
However, the events of [...] March 2024 are significant and cannot be overlooked, and I am satisfied that I must at least determine whether the mother has established her version of what occurred that day. This is because notwithstanding the way the mother ran her case, I could not make orders as proposed by her if I was satisfied the father had poured petrol on the mother that day, tried to or threatened to set fire to her and then set fire to items in the garage. If I accepted the mother's version of the events that day, I would have very grave concerns as to the safety of both the mother and the child such that orders for no time or communication would need to be considered.
The father's version of events that day has remained consistent - in his description to authorities and in his affidavit material and oral evidence. The police records state that the father was interviewed in April 2024 and his account was consistent with what he told police on the day and the version he provided to the child protection.
The mother's version has not been consistent. To the police at the scene, it is recorded she said the father had pushed and shoved her, then poured petrol on her, tried to set her on fire and threatened to kill her. According to the informant - whose account must have been based on information provided by the mother - the parents argued, the father grabbed the mother's arms with both hands and squeezed her, before spinning her around and holding her in a bear hug. He then pushed her away and she fell and hit a nearby desk. The mother and father then pushed and shoved each other before the father picked up the jerry can and threw petrol around. The mother took her robe off and ran inside.
The mother gave a different version when interviewed in March 2024, asserting she ran inside after the father threw petrol on her, but returned to the garage to get her phone and saw the father was filming her. She did not at that interview refer to any threats to kill, or say the father attempted to start a fire.
In her affidavit material the mother referred to the father having grabbed her and that he then splashed petrol around the garage and on herself. She said she then ran inside and he followed her. She does not depose to him having tried to set her on fire or threatening to kill her. She does not provide any details of a physical struggle between them, or of being held in a bear hug and pushed over, hitting a desk.
At trial the mother said she cannot recall what she told the police. She said she did not see him starting or attempting to start a fire.
I accept that trauma can impact a person's ability to recollect. Memories can be fragmented and may not be recalled all at once. However, the mother's evidence as deposed is inconsistent with the fact that the father videoed himself putting out the fire in the garage with the hose. He did not follow her inside until after he had extinguished the fire. The police records set out that the mother's assertion in her interview in March 2024 that the father recorded her on the phone when she returned to the garage to collect her phone is also not consistent with the video footage obtained from the father.
I note also the reference in the police records to the fire appearing to have been started in the garage "with a pink robe", which is the robe the mother had thrown off herself. If the father set the robe alight, that must have been after the mother took it off, as the mother's evidence is she did not see the father attempting to light a fire. It would make no sense that the father would set the robe alight after the mother had taken it off. Additionally, the police recorded that the mother "was happy for their child to go with [the father] and had no concerns for the child's well-being". At trial the mother denied that was accurate.
Once at the hospital the mother asserted she was not being believed by the police, however, she continued to refuse to provide any statement "because she didn't want to get [the father] in trouble or have the statement used against her". It is difficult to reconcile the mother's version of events with her non-cooperation with the police regarding making a statement, particularly in circumstances where she said she was concerned about the child's safety in his father's care.
I also note that whilst the mother had bruises a few days later, the police assessed that there were no injuries on either parent that would be consistent with the struggle.
In her oral evidence Dr M said she highly doubted that the mother had fabricated the incident. However, Dr M has not had the opportunity of seeing the father giving evidence, nor has she challenged the mother's version as has occurred during cross examination.
Taking all the evidence into account, I am not satisfied to the requisite standard as to the mother's version of events on that occasion.
That must mean that the mother put petrol on herself and set those small items alight.
I am not satisfied that the mother did this with forward planning or any deliberate intention to 'frame' the father. Rather, it seems more likely this was an impulsive action in the context of heightened stress over care arrangements for the child - including that the mother was concerned about the father potentially engaging au pairs to assist him to care for the child. Additionally, the maternal grandmother was returning to Country EE and the mother had at that time also recently returned to full time employment. These factors may have added to the mother's stress at that time.
I am also not satisfied that the mother is deliberately lying about her recollection of the events that day. It may be that the incident was so traumatic that her memory is unreliable.

[105]

I have also listened to the recording of 24 March 2023. I accept the mother's statements in the recording made that day were truthful - and that the assault had not occurred and she had banged her own head on the floor.
In the recording the mother explained she had panicked at the thought of losing care of the child as her relationship with the father was at an end, and this made her very frightened and desperate. She was worried the father would 'band together' with the fathers of her other children. She was ruminating on the lack of a relationship she then had with O. The mother also told the father she felt lonely, that she felt like she was dying and that she "couldn't get through" to him. She said she had been trying to talk to him "every day...telling you that I'm lonely. I wasn't okay". At another point she asks him to understand that she was experiencing a mental health issue. She also referred to him making her feel that she is "nothing".
The mother said she was "panicked about the threats [the father] made the night before" regarding care arrangements for the child. The father denied he made threats, to which the mother responded, "There is no point...You won't understand my side at all".
The mother also said that she considered self-harming with the glass shard. When she did not go through with that action, she then panicked that "you would take [the child] away if you saw everything. I don't want to lose my kids". She described feeling like "everything caved in on me. You know how much it hurts not seeing [O]".
I do not accept the mother's explanation proffered only under cross examination - that she was telling the father 'what he wanted to hear' on that day. Her statements on the recording appeared to be candid, and honest, and reflected a significant degree of sadness and an overwhelming sense of hopelessness. Additionally, she referred to having experienced negative side effects from her medication, to taking it only on alternate days, and she subsequently had the medication changed. There is some corroboration with the medical records that report her medication was changed in February 2023.
I do not regard the mother as being calculated or manipulative when she made the report to the police on [...] February 2023. A more plausible explanation is that she was struggling emotionally at the end of her relationship with the father, and that she perceived her role in the child's life was under threat.

[106]

I do have concerns about the mother's mental health. At times it has been extremely poor, to the extent she has considered self-harm. That includes in June and July 2022, as well as February 2023 and possibly in March 2024. I am satisfied the mother has at times minimised her psychiatric symptoms. That raises significant safety concerns for the mother and for the child. It does appear that the periods when the mother's mental health has declined have coincided with external factors including:
- post-natal depression, which has apparently now resolved;
- a reaction to medication or not being compliant with her medication; and
- experiencing conflict with the father.
I continue to have some concerns as to whether the mother has some underlying borderline traits as articulated by Dr R, which could contribute to the mother feeling powerless and could predispose her to acting impulsively and self-destructively.
The glass incident and the petrol incident in particular are deeply troubling. However, having made the findings that I have in relation to those incidents, it does not follow that the child's time with his mother should be reduced to alternate weekends, and half holidays, on the basis that this will better protect the child.
These events occurred at a time the parents were conflicting about parental arrangements. The glass incident occurred when the mother believed her ability to provide care for the child was under significant threat. In relation to the petrol incident, in addition to the parents continuing to conflict about the child's care arrangements, the mother was also facing the permanent departure of the maternal grandmother from Australia. As Dr R noted that impending loss may well have been another stressor in the mother's mind. A plausible explanation is that the mother felt overwhelmed at these times and acted a-typically and impulsively.
There are other incidents which suggest the mother has poor impulse control. For instance, the mother's unpleasant exchanges with Ms AA. During the trial, the mother also admitted to having scratched the father on his face, chest and abdomen during arguments, and that she had been verbally abusive to him. She acknowledged that she could have broken the television by throwing the remote control, but she was not sure if she caused that particular damage, as "lots of things were thrown" during their arguments. She also told the Family Report writer that she had thrown things at the father "in anger".
However, I am comforted by Dr R' assessment that the mother was functioning without any significant level of impairment when he assessed her, and he described her prognosis as good. I am also comforted by the mother's consistent engagement with her psychologist who has described the mother as stable. I understand the mother intends to continue to attend upon Dr M. Importantly, Dr M also does not regard the mother as posing any risk to herself or the child - although she did agree that her confidence in the mother's ability to provide care would be impacted if the Court determined the 'petrol incident' had been fabricated by the mother.
I also take into account that the mother did not experience suicidal ideation prior to the relationship with the father, which did not commence until she was over 30 years old. She is also functioning well outside the relationship. She has previously been engaged as a public servant and intends to return to that work.
In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the mother's mental health is being well managed such that the risk to the child's safety whilst in her care are ameliorated.

[107]

I also have some concerns about the father's reactivity, volatility and his inability at times to self-regulate. His behaviour in July 2022 was appalling. He sounded quite out of control. His behaviour would have been frightening to the mother and to the child.
However, I note that the father promptly admitted to his behaviour in a phone call with H Hospital on [in mid-] 2022 - in which he was described as being remorseful. He also acknowledged the verbal abuse to the family violence practitioner at H Hospital in mid-2022, and to a counsellor in March 2023. Additionally, he expressed remorse at trial before me.
Notwithstanding his contrition for the verbal abuse, I am concerned the father continues to subject the mother to verbal abuse.
During the recording made by the father on 24 March 2023 the father berated and harangued the mother for close to 90 minutes about her mental health, referring to her as a liar, "psychotic" that she "manipulated the system", "wrecked his birthday", "ruined" their child's birthday, that "everything that comes out your mouth is bullshit". He said "you're a terrorist. A family terrorist", called her "a psychopath", "calculated" and "controlling", said she "never listened to anyone", that he knew she was "going to fuck everything", and told her "you need to get a learning from this". The mother was plainly distressed and upset. The child was present throughout the interaction.
The father's disrespectful language towards the mother has also been observed in public settings. For instance, in early 2024 the child was unwell, and the mother brought him to hospital. The father arrived shortly afterwards. The father was described as "acting in an abrasive manner and using disrespectful language towards the mother". The staff felt the need to speak privately to the mother about the father's behaviour. The father was recorded by staff as calling the mother "incompetent", becoming agitated, and telling staff "you have been manipulated by her". He was asked by several staff members to use more respectful language. At trial the father said the nurses were responding to the mother's incorrect report that he had been verbally abusive. However, he did acknowledge he was frustrated that the mother had not sought medical treatment for the child sooner, that he had said the hospital was being manipulated by the mother and that he was agitated at times.
I am satisfied the father has engaged in physical altercations with the mother on at least two occasions. For instance, he would not leave her alone in 2021 when she was pregnant, despite her repeatedly requesting that he do so. He said - directly into the phone camera which the mother was using to record the incident - "she's really manipulative" and then stood up. He told her to stop recording and when she refused, he attempted to wrestle her phone away from her.
Additionally on 14 March 2022 the mother recorded another altercation. The camera was obstructed but the father can be heard saying "you want to do this? I'll do it bitch", and "I've had enough". It sounds as if the parents then engage in some sort of physical altercation and the mother screams.
I note the mother's repeated explanation for not fully disclosing the level of abuse she now asserts was because she remained hopeful for the parents' relationship to continue, and she did not want to see the authorities involved. There is some plausibility to that explanation given that the mother minimised the father's threats to kill and refused to co-operate with police following the incident in July 2022. However, I did gain the impression that the mother had also exaggerated some allegations to this Court. For instance, the mother deposed she suffered "internal bleeding" following the incident on [...] March 2022. I do not know how the mother came to that conclusion. There was no medical evidence adduced to support that assertion and no evidence the mother even sought medical assistance at that time.
It is also notable that the mother did not include allegations that the father choked her, pinned her against the wall by her neck or punched her in the first two affidavits she filed in these proceedings on 29 November 2023 or 21 February 2024, or in the Notice of Risk filed on 28 March 2024. She only deposed to those matters in later filed affidavits. Similarly, in his report Dr R referred to the mother's affidavits filed in March 2024 in which the mother asserted she received injuries of bruising, swelling and black eyes. Again, these allegations were not contained in the mother's earlier filed affidavits.
There was no real explanation as to why such significant allegations were omitted from the mother's first two affidavits and her Notice of Risk.
I also note that the mother did not report being subjected to physical violence when she commenced seeing Dr M in early 2023, which was after the parents' separation. She did not provide a police statement after the glass incident.
Taking the evidence as a whole, I am not satisfied I can form a view that the father subjected the mother to coercive and controlling behaviour or the level of family violence that she now deposes.
Concerns have also been raised regarding the father's level of alcohol consumption. He completed a hair follicle test ("HFT") in early 2024 which confirmed the father was in the three months prior, consuming alcohol to excess. Dr R expressed some concern that the father had limited insight into his level of alcohol consumption and the potential impact it could have.
At trial the father confirmed he did not believe he had an issue with his alcohol consumption, but in circumstances where the test said he was drinking to excess, he thought it would be "wise" to not drink alcohol at least during the court proceedings. Accordingly, after receiving the HFT result, the father deposed that he stopped drinking alcohol altogether in June 2024.
The father has adduced a further HFT test for a sample taken [...] August 2025 and a carbohydrate deficient transferrin test for a sample collected [...] August 2025. Those results confirm the father's evidence that he has stopped drinking. At trial the father said some very positive things had come from him being abstinent. He said he does not have plans to resume drinking, and he will not drink excessively if he has a drink in the future.
There is no evidence the father has any drink driving offences. Nor has his past alcohol use impacted his employment. The father has attended one session at FF Health Service for drug and alcohol counselling.
In all the circumstances, I am not satisfied this issue raises any safety concerns. However, the father should ensure he does not drink to the point he would be unable to drive a vehicle at any time the child is in his care.

[127]

I am satisfied that the child's best interests will be met with him continuing to live in a shared care regime with his parents.
There have been periods of time since the parents' separation in early 2023 that they implemented a shared care regime by consent. The orders made in September 2024 also provide for shared care. Those orders have been in place for almost 12 months. There is no independent evidence that the child is not well settled in this arrangement. In fact, there was remarkably little ventilated in Court at all about the progress and development of the child at the centre of the dispute.
The orders proposed by each of the parents would result in the child spending considerably less time with one parent than he has enjoyed for a protracted period. This would likely be confusing and upsetting for him given the very positive nature of the relationships he has with both of them.
Given the level of animosity and distrust, I also have some concern that if the child lived primarily with one parent, it may be difficult for the primary carer to actively and positively support the child's relationship with the other.
Additionally, neither parent has significant supports available to assist them in the care of the child. The father relies on child carers to provide care when he is at work. His mother resides in New Zealand. I am not aware of any other family or close friends upon whom he could rely for assistance. Accordingly, if the child primarily lived with the father, he would spend significant time in most weeks in childcare.
The mother did not outline who she will engage to assist her to care for the child when she is otherwise unavailable. As already noted, she does not have close relationships with her family. She did not advise as to any friends upon whom she is able to call for assistance. The parents' mutual lack of support systems militates against either being the child's primary carer.
I am not of the view that the current four-night rotating arrangement should remain in place until 2027 as proposed by the Independent Children's Lawyer. This regime makes it difficult for the parents to quickly determine well in advance who will have the care of the child on any given day. It would be even more difficult for the child to understand who he will be with and when.
The constantly changing days has caused the parents to conflict regarding arranging the child's attendance at childcare, with there being a degree of reluctance on behalf of the father to commit to set days each week. The constantly changing days also make it difficult for the parents to arrange extra curricula or social activities - and to know well in advance who will be taking the child to what lessons, appointments or social activities. They would need a greater degree of cooperation and communication than they currently have to make a four/four regime work for the child as his kindergarten, extra curricula and social engagements increase. The parents do not, in my view, have anything close to an ability to work cooperatively to make such an arrangement work into the future.
I am also of the view that changeovers between homes should be minimised to reduce the child's distress. It is easy to see that each parent will blame the other for any upset or reluctance the child exhibits in relation to communications or changeover - and use it as an excuse not to facilitate time - rather than reflecting on what they themselves can do to ease the burden on their son. That much is plain in the text messages exchanged on 7 February 2025. In those messages, the mother reported the child is "very distressed not wanting to talk to you", that he "goes into hiding and crying" when she picks up her phone, screaming "don't want daddy" and suggested they "try again tomorrow" rather than facilitating communication that day. The father immediately said "he is clearly being influenced by external factors" and "do you honestly expect me or anyone to believe this!" This in turn instituted correspondence between lawyers.
Accordingly orders that provide for fewer changeovers will reduce the opportunities for the child to be exposed to the parental dispute.
My orders provide for a week about arrangement to commence at the start of the year in 2026. That arrangement will give the child a degree of certainty and stability. It will enable each of the parents to know well in advance when they are to have him in their care. It will reduce the number of changeovers for the child between his parents' homes and minimise the necessity for the parents to liaise with each other - and enable them effectively to parallel parent.
I accept this arrangement may cause the father some difficulties with his work roster. I note further that the mother's evidence is that she has struggled to return to work as the current rotating roster makes it difficult for her to do so. However, the interests of neither the mother nor the father are my primary consideration. I take into account that the parents in December 2023 agreed to implement a week about arrangement from January 2024. That gives me some comfort that the father will be able to manage his work commitments moving forward. He will have several months to make the necessary changes and/or alternate arrangements before the week about time arrangements commence.

[129]

I am not prepared to make an order that the father must give the mother the option to provide care in the event he works any day or night shift when he has the care of the child.
I do not accept the father has engaged inappropriate carers to assist him with the child's care. Nothing adduced by the mother indicated the father had engaged or would engage any person who would pose a risk to the child.
I accept that ideally a young child should be cared for by either parent. Ordinarily where one parent works night shift, it might be expected that the other parent would assist and provide the overnight care. However, in the circumstances of this case it would not be in the child's best interests for the mother to have first right of refusal. An order to that effect would likely lead to additional conflict. The mother may not believe what the father tells her about his work roster - which could lead to further conflict and possibly litigation. Moreover, requiring the child to changeover over would require the parents to come into physical contact with each other, which for the reasons I have already set out at length is to be avoided as much as possible. It could also be potentially more disruptive to the child's routine - with him moving more frequently between houses than is necessary.
I am satisfied the father is able to arrange safe and appropriate carers. That could include a nanny, the paternal grandmother coming to stay again, or at some point in the future the father may cohabit with his new partner. DD Family Service is also able to assist the father (and other shift workers) in providing overnight and weekend care for children. If the father does employ an au pair he said he would ensure that person was properly vetted by him, including undertaking police and working with children checks, before he would allow them to care for the child. I accept his evidence. The parents agree to an order to that effect and that they will provide that information to the other.
Accordingly, it will be a matter for the father to make arrangements for the child's care when he works night shift whether they are his regular night shifts or overtime night shifts.

Curie & Oursler [2025] FedCFamC1F 669 (24 September 2025)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (134 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (1)