Dalal & Goradia [2025] FedCFamC2F 943 (17 July 2025)

(a) the mother keep the Applicant father informed of any major health issues relating to either of the children;

(b) the mother provide the father with not less than 28 days' notice of any proposed major long-term decision she intends to make for the children;

(c) the father, within 14 days of receipt of the mother's proposal, provide any response or comments he may have to the mother; and

(d) in the event the parties do not agree, the mother make the final decision and inform the father of same as soon as possible.

1. The children spend time with their father as follows:

(a) For the next 16 months:

(i) During the 4 months after the date of these orders, each alternate Saturday from 10:00 am to 2:00 pm [until November 2025];

(ii) During the next 3 months, each alternate Saturday from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm [until February 2026];

(iii) During the next 3 months, each alternate Saturday and Sunday from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm [until May 2026];

(iv) During the next 3 months, each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school or 3:00 pm on Friday to 3:00 pm Saturday [until August 2026];

(v) During the next 3 months, each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school or 3:00 pm on Friday to 10:00 am on Sunday [until November 2026];

(vi) At any other times as agreed between the parties in writing.

(b) Thereafter, during school terms:

(i) Each alternate weekend from after school or 3:00 pm on Friday to 5:00 pm on Sunday; and

(ii) At any other times as agreed between the parties in writing.

(c) During the summer school holiday period at the end of Term 4, 2026:

(i) Three block periods of 4 nights, as agreed, or failing agreement from 10:00 am on the first, third and fifth Saturday of the school holiday period to 10:00 am on the following Wednesday.

(d) During the school term holiday periods commencing at the end of Term 1, 2027 and thereafter:

(i) As agreed, or failing agreement from 10:00 am on the first Saturday of the school holiday period to 10:00 am on the following Saturday (7 consecutive nights);

(e) During the school term holiday period at the end of Term 4, 2027 and thereafter:

(i) Three block periods of 7 nights, as agreed, or failing agreement from 10:00 am on the first, third and fifth Saturday of the school holiday period to 10:00 am on the following Saturday.

1. Unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing, all handovers shall take place at the children's school on a school day and at B Contact Centre on a non-school day (and any costs are to be shared equally).

1. Notwithstanding these Orders, if the children are not already in his care, the children will spend time with their father on Father's Day from 10:00 am to 2:00 pm.
2. Notwithstanding these Orders, if the children are not already in her care, the children will spend time with their mother on Mother's Day from 10:00 am to 2:00 pm.
3. On either of the children's birthdays, unless the children are travelling interstate or internationally, the children spend time with the parent whose care they are not already in, as follows:

(a) if the birthday is on a school day, from the conclusion of school until 6:00 pm;

(b) if on a non-school day, for four hours at times to be agreed and failing agreement, from 10:00 am until 2:00 pm.

1. That both the father and mother shall communicate about the children in writing by email or via an agreed messaging service, such as WhatsApp.

1. That each parent is restrained from denigrating or saying unpleasant things to the other parent, including making disparaging comments about the other parent to or in the presence of the children, or allowing anyone else to do so.

1. For the avoidance of doubt, Order 1 providing for the mother to have sole decision-making responsibility for major long-term issues includes the mother being permitted to:

(a) Obtain or renew any Australian travel document or international travel document without the consent of the father; and

(b) Take or send the children to a place outside of Australia; and

(c) Authorise another person to take or send the children outside of Australia.

1. If the mother intends to take or send the children outside of Australia then she is to provide the father with at least 28 days' notice of the dates and destinations of travel.
2. For the avoidance of doubt, the parties may agree in writing for the children to travel with the other parent during a time which the children would otherwise not be in that parent's care pursuant to these orders.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: This copy of the Court's Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. The father was born in India and moved to Australia in 2002 as a student. He obtained his post-graduate qualifications and works as a professional . The father met the mother about three months prior to their arranged marriage in India in 2008. The mother moved to Australia six months later.
2. Their son X was born in 2011.
3. Their son Y was born in 2019.
4. Between periods of maternity leave, the mother trained and worked in the technology industry.
5. The mother deposed:

6. During the relationship [Mr Dalal] was physically, verbally and emotionally abusive towards me and [X]. Although [Mr Dalal] did not directly abuse [Y], [Mr Dalal]'s conduct occurred in the presence of both children. Eventually I gathered the courage to apply for a Family Violence Order. An Interim Order was granted [in mid] 2021 ("the Interim FVO") and [Mr Dalal] was escorted out of the family home by the Australian Federal Police a few hours later. This is when we separated on a final basis. A final order was made by consent [in early] 2022 for a period of 2 years ("the Final FVO"). ... The children and I were named as protected persons under the Interim and Final FVOs.[1]

1. The maternal grandmother lived with the family:

(a) From May 2011 for nearly 12 months to April 2012; and

(b) From May 2018 for 11 months to April 2019; and

(c) From February 2020 (noting the father moved out in July 2021) to April 2023 when her visa expired. The mother helped her get another visa for another five years and she moved back to live with the mother and the children in August 2023.

39. During the relationship we did have small arguments from time to time, usually in relation to financial issues. ...

40. In the 6 months prior to our separation, our relationship deteriorated. We started having more arguments, again, usually about finances. Although the arguments became more frequent, I never sensed that our relationship was coming to an end. I recall, at the time, [Ms Goradia]'s mother was living with us in the household. This also created some pressures on our relationship as [Ms Goradia]'s mother was overbearing and would regularly complain about me and my parenting.

44. At the date of separation, [Ms Goradia] obtained a Family Violence Order (FVO), which resulted in me leaving the family home. The interim order included the children. Since that Order has been made, I could no longer live at the [Suburb C] property and [Ms Goradia] has remained there with both children. I understand that her mother continues to live with her.[2]

1. On 1 February 2023, the father commenced proceedings.
2. As provided for in interim orders made by consent in March 2023, in August 2023 the father commenced spending time with the children for three hours each alternate Saturday, professionally supervised at B Contact Centre. Only one occasion since then has been missed when the children were sick. The mother cancelled visits if she was unavailable but on those occasions make-up time was arranged.
3. On 29 July 2023, the father assaulted a male friend of his then girlfriend in or near the suburb of Suburb D in the Sydney area where he was living at that time. On 16 October 2023, the matter was heard and dealt with by way of an order for the father to undergo mental health treatment which he did between October 2023 and August 2024, whereafter the charges were dismissed.
4. The father was interviewed by the Family Consultant in June 2024, where he made no mention of the Suburb D incident or anything that flowed from it, including the sentencing outcome and his mental health treatment. The father intentionally chose not to disclose it to the mother, or to the Court, and it only came to light when the mother was told about it otherwise and records were obtained from NSW police in January 2025.
5. Property settlement orders were made by consent on 28 August 2024 which included the mother obtaining sole title to the former family home in Suburb C, and the father obtaining title to what was an investment property relatively close by in Suburb E in which he now lives.
6. As to his current circumstances, the father deposed:

81. The [Suburb E] property is a 5 bedroom house with all the usual amenities.

82. I am employed as a Contractor based in Canberra. I work for [a government authority]. I am a [professional]. I work 9.00am to 5.00pm. I have flexible work hours and most of the time I work from home. I am available to care for the children, including collecting the children from school at 3.00pm. I am also able to take leave to care for the children during holiday periods.

83. I am not currently in a relationship, and I do not have a partner. My parents arranged a marriage for me to a woman named [Ms F]. I travelled to India in [early] 2024 and met [Ms F] for the first time. We then married in India one week after we met. [Ms F] travelled back to Australia with me on a tourist visa in [early] 2024 and stayed in Australia for one month. She then returned and we separated permanently from that date. We had very little in common and we both decided that the marriage would not work. I no longer have any contact with her. We will be filing for a Divorce in India after 12 months have expired.

84. I currently pay child support as assessed by the Child Support Agency. The current assessment is $2,700 per month and there are no arrears. I have been paying child support to [Ms Goradia] since September 2021.[3]

1. As to her current circumstances, the mother deposed:

93. I am currently living in our family home in [Suburb C] with the children. I work full time. My mum lives with us.

94. I am trained as a [professional] but I have not worked in that capacity since around late 2018 due to my pregnancy and homemaking responsibilities, shortly prior to [Y]'s birth.

95. I make sure to attend both of their major assemblies, school events, birthday parties, and regular meetings with their teachers. I attend to their medical appointments with them, take time off to look after them when they are sick, and go to regular dental checks for them.[4]

1. It is now four years since separation. X was then 10 and is now 14 years old. Y was then 2 and is now 6 years old. They had no contact with their father for nearly two years after separation. For nearly two years now, they have had time with their father for three hours every two weeks, professionally supervised.

1. Central to the determination of this case are findings with respect to the parties polarised positions about the history of conflict and family violence between the parents and thereafter what issues of risk present.
2. Ultimately, the disputes requiring judicial determination by way of final orders are:

(a) Where it is agreed that the mother is to have sole responsibility for making decisions about major long-term issues, the father seeks to be consulted prior to any decision and to be informed of decisions, which the mother does not want to do; and

(b) Whether:

(i) The children should spend supervised or unsupervised time with the father, and

(ii) When and how any progressions of the children's time with the father should occur.

1. By his Outline of Case Document filed on 24 January 2025, the father seeks final orders including that:

(a) The mother have sole responsibility for making decisions about major long-term issues concerning the children provided that she first informs the father of any proposed decision in order for the father to provide his comments.

(b) The children spend time with him during school terms:

(i) For 4 months, alternate Saturdays from 10 am to 2 pm;

(ii) For 3 months, alternate Saturdays from 9 am to 3 pm;

(iii) For 3 months, alternate Saturdays and Sundays from 9 am to 3 pm;

(iv) For 3 months, alternate weekends from after school or 3 pm Friday to 10 am Sunday;

(v) Thereafter, alternate weekends from after school or 3 pm Friday to 5 pm Sunday;

(c) During school holiday periods:

(i) For the first time, for 4 consecutive nights;

(ii) Thereafter for mid-year term holidays thereafter, for 7 consecutive nights;

(iii) For the first summer school holiday period, three block periods of 4 consecutive nights;

(iv) Thereafter, for the summer school holiday period, three block periods of 7 consecutive nights.

(a) The parties engaged in verbally abusive arguments with one another during the relationship but contends that the mother has contrived the allegations of violence and financial abuse to reach a narrative of coercion and control.

(b) The orders sought by the mother do not sufficiently support the children developing a meaningful relationship with him.

1. By closing submissions, counsel for the father reiterated these same submissions.

1. By Amended Minute of Orders Sought filed on 24 January 2025, the mother sought final orders including that:

(a) The mother have sole parental responsibility and sole responsibility for making decisions about major long-term issues concerning the children.

(b) The children spend professionally supervised time with the father:

(i) For 12 months, every 4 weeks for 3 hours; thereafter

(ii) Once every 3 months for 3 hours.

1. Her rationale for a decrease in time with the father was limitations on the service provider providing long-term supervised contact along with the anticipated disinclination of the children as they mature.
2. By her Outline of Case Document, the mother contended that:

(a) The father has subjected her to controlling coercive type family violence, outbursts of anger, verbal abuse and at times physical abuse. This has been triggered by minor domestic arguments, has been in the presence of the children, and at times directed at the children themselves, in particular X.

(b) The father has minimised his behaviours and their impacts.

(c) Until the father has undertaken therapy, taken responsibility for his behaviours, and change in him can be observed, it is doubtful the Court can be satisfied that it is in the children's best interests for the father's time to be unsupervised.

(d) The Court will need to assess whether or not the father is a safe parent for the children in an unsupervised setting. If the Court's assessment is that he is, the mother has accepted the consultant's recommendations.

(e) If the Court finds that he is not yet safe the Court ought to make an order for supervised time on a final basis, leaving it to the father to apply again in future when significant change has occurred.

1. By closing submissions, counsel for the mother reiterated these same submissions and further contended:

(a) With respect to family violence, the issue of financial abuse was relatively peripheral. The issue of risk was with respect to the father losing his temper, becoming angry and directing abuse, threats and possibly physical assaults at the children; and

(b) It is up to the Court to make the assessment if it is safe for the children to come out of the professionally supervised arrangements; and

(c) It has been the mother's consistent position that if the children were safe in the care of the father, then she is ok with the time proposed by the Family Consultant; but:

(d) If the court accepts the mother's allegations of family violence, and the mother's contention that the father has failed to demonstrate change, then the father, unsupervised, remains unsafe, and therefore:

(e) Time should not proceed and it would be up to the father in due course to bring an application to reconsider the orders if there is a significant change in circumstances in the future.

1. A Family Report was prepared which arrived at the recommendations that following the successful completion of recommended programs and courses by the father, the children spend time with the father:

(a) For four months, each alternate Saturday from 10 am to 2 pm, unsupervised and in a public setting;

(b) Thereafter, each alternate Saturday from 9 am to 3 pm, unsupervised; and

(c) There be a review in 6 months via a child inclusive mediatory process, an updated Family Report, or both, to reassess the family dynamics and arrangements.

1. By her Outline of Case Document filed on 23 January 2025, the ICL contended that:

(a) The nature of the incident of violence which occurred in July 2023 [the 'Suburb D incident' considered in detail later in these reasons], the resultant charges and the father's initial non-disclosure - and later minimisation - of that incident will concern the Court and likely means that the risk of the children being exposed to violence in the father's care remains significant.

(b) In the event the Court determines that the father poses an ongoing, unacceptable risk to the children in terms of exposure to incidents of violence or family violence, the Court may consider the children's safety can only be assured if time with the father remains professionally supervised. Given the limitations on B Contact Centre in providing long-term supervised contact, the frequency of such contact may need to reduce.

(c) If the father has adequately addressed the issues of conflict and violence in the psychological counselling he undertook pursuant to a court order and in the behavioural change course he suggests he has undertaken, the Court may consider the recommendations made by the Family Consultant to be appropriate, being a move from professional supervision to short periods (4 hours) of unsupervised time in a public setting for a period of 4-months (and there being no incidents of concern occurring), a further progression to 6 hours of unsupervised time, without restrictions as to where that might occur.

1. Between the close of evidence and final submissions, the ICL circulated a proposed minute of final orders which was largely in the terms sought by the father.

1. These are child-related proceedings under Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975. Section 60CA of the Act provides that in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, I must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.
2. Pursuant to s 60CC of the Act, in determining what is in a child's best interests, I must consider:

(a) What arrangements would promote the safety of the children and their parents (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm); and

(b) Any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the children or their parents and

(c) Any family violence order that applies or has applied to the children or their parents.

(a) Any views expressed by the children;

(b) The developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the children;

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

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

(e) Anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the children.

1. Section 4AB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) defines family violence as violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family, or causes the family member to be fearful. Section 4 defines abuse in relation to a child.
2. Section 43(1)(ca) mandates courts to ensure protection from family violence. Section 60CG(1)(b) emphasizes that court orders must not expose individuals to an unacceptable risk of family violence.
3. Section 60B(a) provides that an objective of Pt VII of the Act is to ensure children's safety. Sections 60CC(2)(a) and 60CC(2A) compels the court to consider what arrangements would promote safety including any history of family violence, abuse or neglect and any family violence orders.
4. I purposely do not attempt here to set out or summarise judicial interpretation and case law on family violence. The trial Judge's role is to apply the law, not recite it. For the purpose of illuminating the pathway of reasoning in this case, I have had particular regard to the reasons for judgment in:

(a) Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249 - primarily the propositions that: parental conflict and family violence are not one and the same thing [94]; and, a trial judge may not be obliged to resolve all disputed allegations of historical violence between parties, where the resolution of such disputes could not bear on the ultimate disposition [80]; together with

(b) Friseal & Friseal [2025] FedCFamC1A 102 - primarily the propositions that: while not all historical allegations need to be resolved, their resolution becomes essential when they are central to the case or bear on the safety of children or other parties [25], and, Judges must not dismiss serious allegations of family violence globally or rely solely on the demeanour of the alleged victim [31]; and

(c) Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97 - primarily the proposition that: the assessment of risk is an evidence-based conclusion and it is not discretionary. The finding about whether an unacceptable risk exists, based on known facts and circumstances, is either open on the evidence or it is not. It is only the overall judgment, expressed in the form of orders made in the children's best interest, which entail an exercise of discretion [85];

1. In this case, the mother alleges that the father has perpetrated physical, verbal and emotional abuse, subjected her to coercive and controlling behaviour, and has caused her to be fearful. The father agrees there was conflict but denies the mother's allegations as to family violence and says that that is a narrative contrived by the mother. The parties' respective cases are polarised and they each rely completely on their respective positions. Therefore, resolution of the allegations, as far as is possible on the available evidence, is essential.
2. With respect to resolution of the allegations of both abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour, I proceed in accordance with the pathway set out in Pickford at [48]:

When determining an allegation that a person has engaged in behaviour that coerces or controls a family member, a trial judge will undertake a forensic examination of all relevant evidence to:

(a) identify the behaviour about which complaint is made;

(b) identify the full context of the behaviour including any explanation that may be given by the alleged perpetrator;

(c) identify the impact of the behaviour on the alleged victim (mere assertion by the alleged victim that they feel coerced or controlled is insufficient);

(d) make all relevant factual findings; and

(e) explain why the behaviour in question is or is not family violence that coerces or controls the family member and if the alleged behaviour does not entail a course or pattern of conduct, explain how the behaviour can nevertheless be characterised as behaviour that coerces or controls, if so found.

6. During the relationship [Mr Dalal] was physically, verbally and emotionally abusive towards me and [X]. Although [Mr Dalal] did not directly abuse [Y], [Mr Dalal]'s conduct occurred in the presence of both children. ...

36. I remain fearful of [Mr Dalal]. I am scared that he will commit further family violence towards me, and the children, following final orders being made. The reason for this fear is due to the long history of family violence. I set out below descriptions and examples of [Mr Dalal]'s conduct which has caused me to fear [Mr Dalal]. [Mr Dalal] has engaged in conduct of this nature towards me on countless occasions and the incidents set out herein are not an exhaustive account.[5]

1. With respect to this evidence, I proceed on the basis that:

(a) That the mother may subjectively feel coerced or controlled is not enough. The coercion or control must be an objective actuality.[6]

(b) The mother's sensation of fear may be established at trial either by accepting her evidence of experiencing it or by inferring it from the surrounding facts and circumstances.[7]

(c) In the same way that I must not dismiss allegations of family violence globally, I should not accept allegations of family violence globally; and

(d) The mother is clearly a capable and intelligent person who has thoroughly engaged with these proceedings including the marshalling of evidence in support of the orders that she seeks. As a matter of common sense and human experience, I consider that the instances of behaviour which the mother has chosen to identify and particularise include the most serious.

1. It is convenient at this point to recognise that the same approach is taken to the following evidence given by the maternal grandmother where she deposed:

8. When I was living with [Ms Goradia] and [Mr Dalal], I witnessed regular and constant emotional, verbal and physical abuse perpetrated by [Mr Dalal] against [Ms Goradia]. In the period leading up to the Interim FVO being made, I saw these kinds of incidents on a weekly to daily basis.

9. In this Affidavit I have deposed to some, but not all, of the abuse that I witnessed throughout [Ms Goradia] and [Mr Dalal]'s relationship in the times that I was living with them.[8]

1. It is also convenient at this point to deal with the evidence of the maternal grandmother. She deposed an affidavit in English and gave oral evidence via an interpreter. It is clear and obvious that she did not compose her affidavit herself. That of course is not remarkable when litigants are represented. However, in this case it is problematic where the grandmother is clearly and understandably aligned with the mother and where the competing versions of what was said between the conflicting parents is not really resolved by the evidence of the grandmother. She may or may not have been present and may or may not have been relying on representations of the mother. It is right and proper that she was called by the mother in her case, and I draw no adverse inference against the grandmother, but her evidence is not particularly helpful.
2. The behaviour about which the mother complains is primarily at paragraphs 36-85 of her affidavit. The majority of the allegations are verbal abuse. There are three allegations of physical abuse. There are allegations of financial abuse. I understand that the cumulative effect of these abuses seeds the allegation of emotional abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour. They are considered chronologically in order to best identify any patterns of behaviour and the context in which they occurred.
3. The mother alleges that early in the relationship (2008-9) the father called her derogatory names on at least three occasions because she did not call his parents in India often enough.[9]
4. The father arranged for the mother to attend an English speaking course.[10]
5. From 2008, the mother says she heard the father telling his friends over the phone that she refused to go to parties, which she says she did not.[11]
6. When she moved to Australia (2009) the mother alleges on at least five occasions the father said he would divorce her.[12]
7. By 2009, the mother had started working and had made some friends at her work.[13]
8. Within a few months of moving to Australia, on one occasion he shouted at her for cooking without his consent, berated her, called her stupid and he "left the room and came back holding a bottle of toilet cleaner and said, 'Stop talking. I will drink this right now and commit suicide if you don't stop talking'."[14]
9. In September 2009, the mother says the father rebuked her for wanting to buy a gift for her own mother.[15] Throughout the relationship they had a joint NAB account which both of their incomes were deposited into.[16]
10. From approximately 2011, the mother says the father made remarks discouraging her spending time with her friends and listened to her phone conversations and asked questions of her afterwards.[17]
11. In 2011, the father yelled at the mother when he was giving her driving lessons (which he did twice a week).[18] The father says he never yelled at the mother when he was teaching her to drive, that the mother would get anxiety attacks and was very stressed when she was driving. She would become very agitated and yell at him when he tried to teach her.[19]
12. After X was born and the mother returned to work in 2012, the mother says her colleagues used to come over for dinner but after four or five occasions they stopped coming because the father became progressively rude.[20] "On the other hand, when [Mr Dalal]'s friends or colleagues came over, [Mr Dalal] was enthusiastic in his conversations, and asked me to cook several dishes to impress them. He also asked me to engage in conversations with them and entertain them each time they came over, and I obliged." [21]
13. Between 2009 and 2013, the parents bought a house and land package and together completed the process of building a house. They built another house together in Suburb C which became the family home.
14. In 2013, the wife set up the husband's superannuation account.[22]
15. The first allegation of physical abuse was that in January 2016 the mother presented to hospital with a bleeding nose. The mother said it was a result of the father punching her with his left fist without warning and unexpectedly whilst driving after an innocuous comment from her. Both of the children were in the back seat. She says the father was with her the entire time at the hospital and he told them she tripped over a chair and she was too scared to correct him.[23] The father deposed that the mother accidentally fell over and hit her nose on the edge of the chair and he took her to the hospital and stayed with her the entire time. [24] Under cross-exanimation, he said the mother went in with the doctor, he was outside minding the kids and didn't go in until he was called later. The hospital report records "[Ms Goradia] presents to the ED after she reports tripping and falling to the ground striking her nasal bridge on the edge of a chair." There is no mention of the father in the report[25]. If anything, it supports the father's version, but it is not conclusive of either version.
16. In 2016, the mother obtained a bank account in her sole name.[26] However she deposed:

I did have one account in my sole name, but that was not treated as my personal transaction account - it was set up purely to pay annual fees for a security lock box for our jewellery and to manage our investment property's rental income and expenses. We both treated that account as our joint account and each had access. We did not use the funds on personal expenses.[27]

1. In December 2018, they were preparing the house to host guests. The mother sat down for a rest. The mother says the father slapped her face with an open palm hard enough to leave a red mark. [28] The father says he asked the maternal grandmother to help them which caused the mother to get very angry and start screaming at him. He said they exchanged heated words but there was no physical abuse involved.[29]
2. As to the third incident of alleged physical abuse, the mother deposed:

54. In April 2020, [Mr Dalal] and I were having an argument because I had told him I wasn't getting enough help from him around the house. I walked away from him and into our bedroom. [Mr Dalal] then came into the bedroom yelling. I don't remember the words he said, I just remember that his expression was angry in that his face was scrunched up, his jaw was clenched and his breathing was quick, and that I was scared. He walked up to me, grabbed my arm and twisted it, so as to cause me pain. I then pushed him away with my other arm and he walked out of the room.[30]

1. In each case, and consistent throughout his evidence, the father contends that there was two-way argument but there was never physical abuse or threats of physical abuse.
2. As to the three allegations of physical violence:

(a) It is a fundamental principle that a party who asserts facts bears the evidentiary onus or burden of proving them to the requisite standard. Sahrawi & Hadrami [2018] FamCAFC 170; (2018) FLC 93-857 at [39]. The mother has failed to do that on the evidence with respect to each of the three alleged incidents.

(b) Further, in the context of other evidence, the allegations do not ring true even after taking into account the cautions with respect to evidence from victims of family violence. Such as they might not report contemporaneously, they may not behave in stereotypical ways and they may not give wholly consistent versions. I find that a particularly cogent aspect in this case which undermines the mother's evidence is that she failed to provide any account whatsoever of any physical abuse:

(i) To DVCS when she first contacted them in January 2021;[31]

(ii) To the Women's Legal Centre who assisted preparation of her application for an FVO in July 2021;

(iii) And in particular to her own lawyers based on their letter to the father in October 2021 that the allegations were as set out in the FVO application which did not include any physical abuse.

(c) Lastly, there is an absence of evidence of any noticeable change in the mother's behaviour or demeanour either soon or long after the alleged incidents which might otherwise call for the mother's evidence to be considered as infected by trauma.

1. The mother says on approximately three or four occasions between 2018 and 2020 the father threw plates of food on the floor in anger.[32]
2. In late September 2020, the father yelled at the maternal grandmother, the mother and the children about how it was unfair they were eating fresh food when he didn't get fresh food.[33] The father says he remembers this incident but it didn't happen as described by the mother and he never threw food.
3. Throughout their relationship, they both agreed to have the same passcodes on their phones.[34] The mother alleges that from about 2018 the father would scroll through her phone about once a month. Under cross-examination, the father agreed that they shared each other's passwords, but he never scrolled through the mother's phone. The mother deposed:

In January 2021, I decided to put a passcode on my WhatsApp account because I was using it to communicate with my friends about matters I wanted to keep private from [Mr Dalal], including [Mr Dalal]'s behaviour against me. I needed an avenue to vent. [35]

1. In January 2021, an argument commenced about whether or not the mother should tell the father if she is applying for jobs. It escalated and the maternal grandmother became involved. The mother says the father was yelling at her and the grandmother, became enraged and threw a pizza onto the floor. She says he demanded they leave the house but instead he left the house and didn't return until it was dark. The children were present throughout the argument.
2. The mother deposed:

... I decided to call the Domestic Violence Support Centre (DVSC) to tell them about what had happened. They offered support and advised me to apply for a Family Violence Order (FVO), but at that point, I wasn't ready, as I didn't have a job or the financial means to support myself.[36]

1. In January and February 2021, the mother describes two separate incidents at a store where she says the father became irate, abusive and threatening in public towards her and X. The father says disagreements occurred but there was no yelling and the mother's version was "over dramatically created."[37] X reported to the Family Consultant a sad memory of the father yelling at him in a store.[38]
2. In February 2021, the mother travelled to India and moved gold jewellery (worth $50,000 on the father's unchallenged evidence) from the father's mother's bank locker in India to her own mother's locker.
3. Between January 2021 and June 2021, the mother was in contact with DVCS who told her to record anything related to safety. The mother taught the grandmother how to record incidents in case the father became aggressive or used derogatory language.[39] Under cross-examination, the mother conceded that is how the recording of the 25 July 2021 incident (discussed below) came into being.
4. The mother deposed:

70. In March 2021, I opened my own [G Bank]] bank account with the help of a friend. My friend gave me $1,600 as an initial deposit, though I didn't ask her for money. From then I deposited 30% of my salary each month into that account when I got Job in April 2021 in [...]. I told [Mr Dalal] I would be doing this.

71. In or around July 2021, [Mr Dalal] said, "Why do you keep transferring money into your own account every month?" I responded "I told you I am doing this. I want to save some money for myself for when I go to India or want to buy something for myself without having to ask you. " He yelled at me "You had better stop it. If you don't, you will suffer." I then stopped transferring money out to avoid a fight.[40]

1. The mother had the bank statements posted her friend's address. By 23 July 2021, the account already had a balance of $8,494.[41]
2. Other than the two shopping incidents, the extent of the mother's allegations with respect to X are:

85. On or around 22 July 2021, [X] came to me crying saying, "Daddy beat me, he said I was on the iPad for too long". I consoled [X] and this was one of the incidents that triggered me to end the relationship. I did not raise it with [Mr Dalal] at the time as I was afraid of how he would react. [X] has also witnessed most of the abuse described herein perpetrated by [Mr Dalal] against me. [X] frequently experienced [Mr Dalal] calling me a "whore" or "bitch" in our native language, or saying to him "I wish your mother would die". On several of the occasions when I ended up crying after an altercation with [Mr Dalal], [X]came to me afterwards, stroked my arm and said to me "Don't cry mummy, it will be okay."[42]

43. There is no truth to this incident. I have never engaged in any form of physical abuse towards [X]. As a parent, I did set boundaries, providing guidance but I deny being verbally or physically abusive. Physical abuse has no place in a loving and nurturing parent-child relationship, and I have always strived to provide a safe and supportive environment for [X]'s growth.[43]

1. On 25 July 2021 there was the incident which precipitated separation. The father had bought groceries which the children were intolerant to. The mother deposed:

41. ... In my annoyance, I said to myself under my breath that I should throw it all in the bin. [Mr Dalal] must have heard me from our bedroom because he immediately came into the kitchen yelling at me in [Indian language]. Amongst other things, [Mr Dalal] said to me "I will stab you", "I will hit you until you bleed' and "You will die in my hands if you talk to me". I responded to him in a soft tone and volume "I'm talking normally. Why are you so angry? What is the cause?" He responded "You're not listening to me. You keep yelling at me. You both need to get out of the house. You don't need to look after my things, cook for me, wash or dry my clothes, you don't need to do anything for me. Don't talk to me. You don't respect me. Whenever I talk to you, you are always irritated by my actions and create disagreements." My mother started recording the conversation midway through [Mr Dalal] yelling at me. I was not aware at the time that my mother had recorded the conversation, she only informed me later.[44]

1. This particular incident was the subject of much cross-examination.
2. The mother's position was that she was calm and reasonable throughout. The mother would not accept, unreasonably in my view, that that may not have been the case, where on her own evidence whatever she said "under her breath" was heard by the father from the bedroom, and there must have been some basis to the father saying, "you're not listening to me, you keep yelling at me."
3. The father deposed that the incident was initiated by the mother unnecessarily throwing away food. He deposed:

While I was explaining my concern about food waste, [Ms Goradia] began yelling at me purposefully. I observed [Ms Goradia] nod her head towards her mother. I later discovered that her mother then started recording. I say this recording was selectively edited to include only my voice, completely omitting her words. In the weeks leading up to this incident, both her mother and [Ms Goradia] had been targeting me, frequently shouting and trying to provoke me in order to record my reaction. Despite this, I remained patient and consistently communicated with both of them about the importance of maintaining respectful and peaceful communication within the household. Her mother often used swear words against me in front of my children, despite my repeated requests to stop. Notably, these conversations were not recorded. I say the audio clip submitted as evidence for the Family Violence Order (FVO) are falsified. [Ms Goradia] and her mother deliberately removed [Ms Goradia]'s voice and inserted recordings of my children crying giving the false impression that the children were involved in the argument.[45]

1. Under cross-examination he said there were heated arguments and horrible things said to each other in a private context, not throughout the marriage but more at the end of the marriage.[46] It was also put to the mother that the threats about stabbing and bleeding and dying were local Indian idioms - that is, Indian phrases whose meaning cannot be understood from the literal translation. Under cross-examination, the mother did not accept this. Remarkably, the mother then gave evidence for the first time that the father opened a drawer and showed her a knife.[47] The mother agreed that she had given accounts of this incident throughout these proceedings none of which included this objectively very serious component. She gave no reason as to why. Nor was it in her account of the incident in her application for a family violence order prepared only two days after the incident[48]. My impression is that it did not happen. Rather, it is something that the mother spontaneously felt compelled to include at hearing to try and prove her point which was reasonably challenged.
2. There was a translation of the recording which was objected to on the grounds that it was not able to be verified as authentic or accurate. It was not pressed and not adduced. The recording was potentially cogent evidence that was in the possession and control of the mother at all relevant times. If it was as damning as the mother suggests, there is an absence of reasons why the mother did not take the necessary steps to make it admissible. I accept the submission of counsel for the mother that it also operates unfavourably for the mother that at no time did she deny that the recording had been edited.
3. The events of 25 July 2021 was a particularly serious incident, in that it precipitated the mother's decision to apply for a family violence order, and on her evidence, caused her to fear for her life that day and the following three days.[49] There are three aspects to the evidence which are unfavourable to the mother being - her unwillingness to accept that she too was arguing which is inconsistent with her own account in chief, her seemingly spontaneous addition of an objectively serious feature to her version of events, and her failure to adduce (or explain) potentially cogent evidence in her possession or control.
4. In July 2021, with the assistance of the Women's Legal Centre, the mother applied for and obtained an Interim Family Violence Order. Consequences of which were the father having to leave the former family home immediately and cease any direct contact with the mother and the children.
5. Immediately after the father was served with the FVO, the mother withdrew $158,000 from the joint account and deposited it into an account in her name leaving the balance of the joint account at $5.67[50] or $2,781[51].
6. By 21 October 2021, the mother had instructed lawyers to write to the father which, with respect to family violence, referred to the July 2021 FVO application which did not include any allegation of physical violence.
7. That letter also claimed that that the father had "sole control of the parties' savings." However, under cross-examination the mother conceded:

(a) That the mother had and retained sole control of the NAB account opened in her own name in 2016. Despite her evidence in chief that it was not her personal transaction account, when presented with statements she conceded it included such transactions;[52]

(b) She had sole control and access to G Bank account opened unilaterally by her in March 2021 which by July 2021 already had nearly $8,500 in it;

(c) The mother had unilaterally moved $158,000 from the joint account to her own CBA account[53].

(d) Historically:

(i) There was a business H Bank account in a company name of which she was the director which paid each of them a salary of about $13,000 a month out of income derived by the husband's contracting work.

(ii) There was a J Bank account she opened in her sole name originally to put the parental leave into[54].

1. It effectively left the husband with $5.67 or $2,781 in the joint account at that time. The mother stopped her own income from going into the joint account and instead had it deposited into her own account.
2. Further, the mother did not agree to take steps to end the tenancy of their investment property in order for the father to live in it unless he agreed to solely meet all of the mortgage payments. In the meantime, the mother and the children remained living in the Suburb C property which was unencumbered.
3. Eventually, the father had access to his contractor income and about two months after separation drew down $60,000 from the offset account on the investment property. The mother conceded that her financial position at separation was secure.[55]
4. After conceding under cross-examination that she essentially had access to all of the account passwords and account cards and performed the business and personal transactions, the mother added, for the first time, that she only ever did anything under the specific direction of the father sitting beside her and she was fearful to do anything otherwise. I do not accept that was the case. Rather, it was another feature spontaneously added at hearing to try to prove her point which was reasonably challenged.

Findings as to whether the behaviour in question is or is not family violence

1. I do not find that the father engaged in financial abuse of the mother. Rather, I find that counsel for the mother's submissions that the mother's case in this regard has 'spectacularly failed' to be apt.
2. As to the impact of the father's behaviour on the mother, I have already made the observation that there is an absence of evidence of any noticeable change in the mother's behaviour or demeanour either soon or long after the alleged incidents of physical abuse. I make the same observations with respect to the allegations of verbal abuse, emotional abuse and financial abuse.
3. Despite her unhappiness in her marriage, she enjoyed the live-in support of her mother for significant periods of the marriage. Her language skills, professional skills and social network developed and expanded over the years. Together, the parties were financially successful and the mother was relatively easily able to engineer her circumstances over the course of about six months to ensure that she was financially secure when she unilaterally chose to separate - especially vis-à-vis the father.
4. Under cross-examination, the ICL referenced part of the Child Impact Report as far back as July 2023 that:

It is suggested that the mother access counselling to provide her with an outlet to process her experiences of the father's alleged violence without exposing the children to adult issues.[56]

1. The mother conceded that she had not sought to access any counselling. Essentially, she was of the view that once she had her mother back living with her (since August 2023) then that is all the support that she needed. She eventually conceded that it may be of benefit and that she would "try to do some counselling."[57]
2. To begin with, the father was in a superior position in that he was educated, employed, resident in Australia and knew both he and the mother were aware of their cultural expectations to make the marriage work. However, the dynamic soon equalised as the mother too secured her residency, had capacity to earn, became fluent in English, was able to drive, took primary care of the children, their health and their schooling and essentially was able to operate independently of the husband in every aspect. The mother's progress in this regard was not only in the knowledge of the husband, but it was encouraged and supported by him. He encouraged her to be trained and working, he wanted her to speak English and taught her to drive. He supported her operating their joint accounts, knew she had her own accounts and whatever enquiries he made of her with respect to the financial transactions she performed were well within the bounds of mutual, marital financial interests. None of that is consistent with coercive or controlling behaviour. There is certainly no identifiable pattern in the father's behaviour consistent with a purpose of exerting power over the mother or ongoing intimidation of her.
3. The only clear and obvious pattern is that there was conflict and disagreement between the parents from the beginning which presented as verbal argument. Parental conflict and family violence are not one and the same thing. What the mother alleges was verbal abuse I find to be verbal argument and ongoing disagreement. The evidence does not rise to support the mother's allegations that the father physically abused her. The father was never in a position to have financially abused the mother. The emotional abuse alleged by the mother seems to me is the culmination of the effect on her of the other alleged abuses which have not borne out.
4. The surrounding facts and circumstances do not support a finding that the mother experienced fear attributable to the father's behaviour. The impact of the ongoing conflict on her behaviour was that she was motivated and analytical in charting a pathway out of the relationship in a manner that maximised her position relative to the husband. It did not have the impact of her losing or questioning her own perspective or disentitling her of agency.

What arrangements would promote the safety of the children and their parents

1. The history of family violence and alleged abuse involving the parents has been thoroughly analysed above. I have considered the family violence order that was made ex-parte in July 2021 and then by consent and without admissions by the father from 1 February 2022 for two years. It expired without incident which the mother and the Family Consultant regarded as a positive.
2. Thereafter, consideration of this matter calls for assessment of risk.
3. I find that neither parent is vulnerable and both have moved on since their separation to the extent that neither of them is a risk to the other of causing physical or psychological harm.
4. I do not find that the father used direct physical violence on the children and I do not consider that this is a plausible concern into the future. Whilst I have determined that the father did not engage in abusive or coercive or controlling behaviour, it is clear that the children were exposed to the intense and ongoing conflict and X at least has some fearful and anxious memories about that.
5. It is unfortunate that the mother told X that she had separated from the father because of "domestic abuse" which was reported by X to the Court Child Expert.[58] I accept the mother's evidence that she did not understand the inappropriateness of telling these things to X soon after separation but she learned otherwise after the Child Impact Report and ceased doing so. Nevertheless, it is difficult to assess the differences between X's later representations as being his own recollections or seeded by the mother.
6. Nevertheless, the relationship between the father and both children was significantly disrupted and consequently they do not have a safe and secure attachment with their father.[59] Arrangements going forward will need to take into account the children's emotional safety in this regard which is what is sought to be done by gradual increases in time and breadth of experiences as recommended by the Family Consultant and sought by the father and the ICL.
7. There is a significant incident and consequential circumstances which requires analysing, findings and reconciliation against the findings so far - the Suburb D incident.

1. The Suburb D incident is considered in this section of these reasons concerning what risk the father poses as opposed to the section dealing with allegations of family violence because it occurred well after separation and neither the mother nor the children were involved.
2. Records produced by the NSW Police indicate that:

(a) In July 2023, the father was involved in an incident of violence. The victim was a friend of the father's partner at that time. The father was accused of kicking the victim, forcibly removing him from a car and punching him to the head multiple times causing unconsciousness[60] and then destroying the father's partner's phone;

(b) In mid-2023, the father was charged with Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, Common Assault and Destroy or Damage Property and was made the subject of an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order ('ADVO');

(c) In late 2023, the father's charges were heard and the charges of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm and Destroy or Damage Property were dealt with pursuant to section 14(1) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) and the charge of Common Assault withdrawn.

1. He engaged in ten sessions of psychological therapy for chronic depression from October 2023 to August 2024,[61] and completed a men's behaviour change program whereafter the charges were dismissed.
2. There are two relevant aspects to the Suburb D incident. Firstly, the father's behaviour and what in fact occurred, and secondly, his failure to disclose it in the proceedings.
3. As to what happened, it was of course deplorable behaviour amounting to an offence of personal violence. The context in which the incident occurred includes that the father had been forced out of his home, he was abusing alcohol, he was essentially couch surfing in Sydney, he had no contact with his children. The reality is that he was mentally unwell at the time which was recognised by the sentencing court.
4. The father failed to disclose the incident to the mother, the family report writer and to the court in his subsequent affidavits. In June 2024, part way through his ten sessions, he described his mental health to the Family Consultant as "stable, though it was initially impacted by the parenting dispute."[62]
5. Under cross-examination, he admitted that the only way it came to light was because his subsequent wife Ms F told the mother about it who then sought NSW police records under subpoena.[63] Under cross-examination by the ICL, he admitted that he didn't mention it, or the fact that he had been married and separated again to the family report writer, because he thought it would negatively impact his case.[64]
6. The mother (and the ICL originally) considered that this is demonstrative of the father's lack of responsibility and accountability and supportive of preferring the mother's allegations of historical family violence over the father's denials. The father says that is not so, and that there is no connection between his behaviour during the relationship and that incident.
7. Having found that the father did not engage in family violence by way of coercive and controlling behaviour during the relationship, then the Suburb D incident cannot by definition be a furtherance of any such behaviour. I do not find that it is informative of the mother's allegations with respect to historical conflict as between them. More than anything else, the behaviour was attributable to the father's relatively dire circumstances at the time. The father's failure to disclose it was an incredibly poor and potentially catastrophic forensic decision. Nevertheless, I accept that it is not demonstrative of an ongoing or overwhelming inability or unwillingness to recognise and be responsible for his own behaviour that translates to a risk of harm to the children. It is not an example or another instance of a tendency or pattern of behaviour deployed or reverted to by the father from which the children need to be protected by indefinite, professional supervision.
8. Notwithstanding the Suburb D incident, my assessment is that the father does not present as a risk of physical or psychological harm to the children or the mother, with the one proviso being that any increases in time and experiences with the children are gradual.
9. Counsel for the mother in closing submissions confirmed that the mother's case with respect to ongoing supervision did not contend an adverse impact on her otherwise, such as distress or anxiety, so as to affect her parenting capacity. [65]

1. Exhibit A8 is an email sent by X to the father unprompted on 1 August 2022, when he was 11 years old:

Hi Dad

Today marks 1 year since I last saw you. I just wanted to let you know I really miss you and want to see you again. At least online in a video call.

We could even go on a trip someday!

Speaking of which, do you want to go somewhere like the [Region K]? We can have so much fun there!

Regards.?

Your son, [X] [happy face emoji]

1. With respect to X, the Family Consultant reported:

69. [X] shared remembering the parents' relationship as 'pretty normal', although [Mr Dalal] used to become angry over small things. [X]exampled an occasion when he was looking at a pair of shoes in a store and asked [Mr Dalal] if he could read the label, and [Mr Dalal] yelled at him to the notice of other people. This experience made [X]feel sad.

70. [X] understood why his parents separated, given that [Mr Dalal] would at times become so angry that he would hit [Ms Goradia], making [X]scared and sad. He expressed feeling sad at the length of time post-separation without contact with his father, though was also conflicted by his sense of relief as he no longer felt fearful.

71. [X] has been enjoying his time with [Mr Dalal] at [B Contact Centre]. He expressed an interest in increased time and potentially outside of the contact centre setting. However, [X] was uncertain about time occurring at [Mr Dalal]'s residence or overnight time, as he indicated he felt apprehensive of [Mr Dalal]'s aggression and whether he 'had changed'. This speaks to the lack of opportunity to engage in any process where repair to the relationship can occur; if the family violence is denied and it cannot be spoken about, there cannot be any repair. [X] considered that he would feel safer if he had a phone with him if time were to occur outside of the contact centre.[66]

1. With respect to X, the Family Consultant reported:

76. [Y] shared that he enjoys spending time with [Mr Dalal] and that the contact centre is 'a fun place with fun toys'. He expressed he loves his dad 'a bit'.[67]

17. [X]'s views are reflected in the Family Report at paragraph 71. [Y] also met with the Court Chid Expert, but no particular view about arrangements in recorded, likely due to his age and his different experience of his parents relationship.

18. The ICL met with both children on 9 October 2024. [X] expressed views and concerns consistent with those recorded in the Family Report. [Y]'s presentation was also consistent with the observations of him recorded in the Family Report.[68]

1. The children's views as expressed to the expert and the ICL have been taken into account.

Developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the children

1. The mother provides positive reports of both children's health and development.[69] Neither child has remarkable or particular needs.
2. The Family Consultant reported:

79. [X] (13) and [Y] (5) presented as engaging and delightful young boys. Structural history of the family alone indicates their primary attachment is with [Ms Goradia], and that they have experienced a more disrupted attachment with [Mr Dalal].

81. Broad ranging social science research affirms that children tend to have better outcomes when they have a meaningful relationship with both of their parents wherever possible. For [X] and [Y], ideally arrangement allow regular, frequent and broad-ranging time with their caregivers. Broad-ranging time is a concept developed in social science and is underpinned by the premise that children are more likely to develop and maintain relationships of substance and meaning with a caregiver when there is an opportunity for interactions to occur reliably and across a range of different contexts. The current arrangements provide broad-ranging time between the children and [Ms Goradia], and their bond appears close and secure. However, since August 2023, the children's time with [Mr Dalal] has been limited. This limited time has afforded a platform for the children and their father to re-establish connection in a safe context. The intention of supervised time is to allow for assessment and opportunity to create a sense of safety and security primarily for the children, but also for the whole caregiving context. This appears to be developing with the children expressing a desire to spend time with their father unsupervised albeit balanced with reticence to enter into overnight time with any immediacy. Arrangements moving forward ought to balance this expressed desire for increased connection and the need to feel secure and not be pushed beyond comfort zones.[70]

The benefit to the children of being able to have a relationship with their parents, where it is safe to do so.

1. The Family Consultant opines that, generally, children are likely to do better in life if they have a meaningful relationship with each of their parents if that is possible.
2. At least as at June 2024 when they were interviewed, the Family Consultant reported:

21. Agreement is seen between the parties that the children's relationship with both parents should be supported.[71]

1. However, in cross-examination the mother was asked by the ICL what, if any, benefit to the children she thought there may be in continuing to have a relationship with their father. The mother's answer was long, referred back to her own concerns about safety, and ultimately was non-responsive.[72] I asked the mother the same question. No answer was forthcoming. Eventually, the mother gave a vague answer to which I understood to mean that it may benefit the children's mental health.[73]
2. My view is that whilst the mother can cognitively recognise that there is probably a benefit to the children of having a meaningful relationship with their father, it is not a priority for her and really, that is a matter for the father. In which case, without orders providing for the opportunity for development of it, the relationship would likely not be provided for unless and until it was actively pursued by the children themselves.
3. The mother has not demonstrated a capacity to move forward or beyond supervision. Absent Court orders, it seems the mother would be content for the children to become so bored and tired of supervised time and its inherent limitations, especially as they age, such that time would cease and the children's relationship with their father would wither.

The capacity of each parent to provide for the children's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs

54. [Ms Goradia] demonstrated a high level of child focus and was able to articulate to children's needs clearly. She provided a detailed account of nuances to her parenting with both children. She delighted in describing the children which reflected their close bond and high level of connection.[74]

1. The mother's either disinclination or present inability to support the children's relationship with their father is a significant lapse in her otherwise comprehensive capacity to provide for all of the needs of the children.
2. The mother stands by her allegations of inadequate care of the children and the father not being able to recognise their needs during the relationship. The father has been deprived any opportunity to demonstrate capacity to provide practical, day to day needs for four years now.
3. The father completed the Circle of Security Parenting Program on 22 June 2023 and the Parenting After Separation program on 28 August 2023.[75]
4. The B Contact Centre reports are wholly positive. They have been going for two years. They record the children's enjoyment of the time with their father. They record the father recognising and meeting the emotional needs of the children. They do not record the father denigrating the mother to the children, expressly or implied, even when seemingly presented with opportunities by the occasional begrudging comments from the children.
5. Unfortunately, rather than accept the reports as progress and take comfort in them,[76] the mother says that B Contact Centre were not "vigilantly observing [Mr Dalal]" and she contacted B Contact Centre to have them change the reports.[77] The mother deposed that when she broached the possibility of unsupervised visits with X, he started to cry and told her that during the visits "Dad indirectly said not to tell truth" and "Dad whispered in my ear at the visit 'don't tell bad things about me in the court, it effects supervisor visits.'"[78] None of that is recorded in the B Contact Centre reports. Further, no such behaviour indicative of these words being said, even if not heard which I doubt, is recorded. I do not accept the mother's evidence over the B Contact Centre reports in that regard.
6. Short of total capitulation by the father to the mother's version of events, it seems the mother is not particularly interested in any attempt by the father to reassure her that he has the capacity to provide for all of their needs and that the children would be safe and supported in his care.
7. The mother has not followed the recommendation to undergo therapy herself. The mother provides some opportunity for X to obtain counselling but acceded quickly to X's disinclination to continue.[79]
8. Lastly, the time arrangements that the father and ICL seek are not long enough such that any deficiencies the father may have could not endure to the extent of causing any harm to the children. It would be short term discomfort at worst that the father is likely to recognise, respond to and rectify.

DETERMINATION OF LONG-TERM ISSUE DECISION MAKING PROCESS

1. It is agreed that the mother is to have sole responsibility for making decisions about major long-term issues. The father wants an order compelling the mother to first advise him prior to making any decisions. In line with the reasons for the determination of time arrangements, I am satisfied that without such an order, the mother would not invite the father's views or perhaps even notify him of such decisions. I am also satisfied that it would be of benefit to the children for the father to have input into such decisions.
2. The mother opposes any such order. In line with the determination of the allegations of abuse and family violence, I do not find that there is a state of fear experienced by the mother which would be exacerbated by an order compelling her to provide notice and consider the father's views prior to making such decisions. Where she would prefer not to, or perhaps find it uncomfortable, that ought to yield to what is best for the children.

1. As recognised at the commencement of these reasons, the outcome turns on the findings made of the respective party's cases. So too did the Family Consultant's recommendations. The progression of time in her report stopped short of any overnight time. Under cross-examination, she deposed that if the contested facts were resolved in the father's favour, then a consequence would be increases to overnight time as a measure against the mother being a barrier to the children's time with the father.[80]
2. Accordingly, and aligning with the momentum of the findings and reasons set out above, orders for time are made for unsupervised and progression of time largely in accordance with the orders sought by the father and the ICL.

1. Order 1 concerning decision making responsibility with respect to major long-term issues is made in the terms sought by the father and the ICL.
2. Order 2 for the children to live with the mother is uncontroversial.
3. Order 3 with respect to the time the children are to spend with the father is based on the regime sought by the father and the ICL and what was considered at hearing. It has been re drafted in an attempt to make it clearer and to incorporate the staged increases now that the date of judgment (and commencement of the process) is known such that the regime can be integrated with school holiday periods.
4. Orders 4-9 are made in relatively uncontroversial terms sought by the father and the ICL.
5. Orders 10-12 are made following engagement with all parties during closing submissions.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and forty-two (142) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Mansfield.

[1] Affidavit of the mother filed 2 December 2024.

[2] Affidavit of father filed 14 November 2024.

[3] Affidavit of father filed 14 November 2024.

[4] Affidavit of mother filed 2 December 2024.

[5] Affidavit of the mother filed 2 December 2024.

[6] Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249 [111].

[7] Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249 [113].

[8] Affidavit of the maternal grandmother filed 2 December 2024.

[9] Affidavit of the mother filed 2 December 2024, paragraph 38.

[10] Affidavit of the father filed 14 November 2024, paragraph 38.

[11] Affidavit of the mother filed 2 December 2024, paragraph 55.

[12] Affidavit of the mother filed 2 December 2024, paragraph 39.

[13] Affidavit of the mother filed 2 December 2024, paragraph 56.

[14] Affidavit of the mother filed 2 December 2024, paragraph 40.

[15] Affidavit of the mother filed 2 December 2024, paragraph 63.

[16] Affidavit of the mother filed 2 December 2024, paragraph 65.

[17] Affidavit of the mother filed 2 December 2024, paragraph 56

[18] Affidavit of the mother filed 2 December 2024, paragraph 46.

[19] Affidavit of the father in reply filed 16 December 2024, paragraph 21.

[20] Affidavit of the mother filed 2 December 2024, paragraph 59.

[21] Affidavit of the mother filed 2 December 2024, paragraph 61.

[22] Transcript 29 January 2025, page 160, line 45 and page 161, line 5.

[23] Affidavit of the mother filed 2 December 2024, paragraph 52.

[24] Affidavit of the father in reply filed 16 December 2024, paragraph 24.

[25] Affidavit of the mother filed 2 December 2024, annexure MSG-3.

[26] Affidavit of the mother filed 2 December 2024, paragraph 63.

[27] Affidavit of the mother filed 2 December 2024, paragraph 68.

[28] Affidavit of the mother filed 2 December 2024, paragraph 53.

[29] Affidavit of the father in reply filed 16 December 2024, paragraph 25.

[30] Affidavit of the mother filed 2 December 2024, paragraph 54.

[31] Affidavit of mother filed 2 December 2024, paragraph 51 and transcript of 29 January 2025, page 133, line 30.

[32] Affidavit of mother filed 2 December 2024, paragraph 44.

[33] Affidavit of mother filed 2 December 2024, paragraph 45.

[34] Affidavit of mother filed 2 December 2024, paragraph 58.

[35] Affidavit of mother filed 2 December 2024, paragraph 58.

[36] Affidavit of mother filed 2 December 2024, paragraph 49.

[37] Transcript of 28 January 2025, page 49 line 17.

[38] Family Report dated 26 July 2024, paragraph 69.

[39] Affidavit of mother filed 2 December 2024, paragraph 143.

[40] Affidavit of mother filed 2 December 2024

[41] Transcript of 29 January 2025, page 113.

[42] Affidavit of mother filed 2 December 2024, paragraph 85.

[43] Affidavit of father in reply filed 16 December 2024, paragraph 43.

[44] Affidavit of the mother filed 2 December 2024, paragraph 41.

[45] Affidavit of the father in reply filed 16 December 2024, paragraph 18-19.

[46] Transcript of 28 January 2025, page 43, lines 20 - 25.

[47] Transcript of 29 January 2025, page 141.

[49] Affidavit of mother filed 2 December 2024, paragraph 43.

[50] Transcript of 29 January 2025, page 122, line30.

[51] Transcript of 29 January 2025, page 124, line 40.

[52] Transcript of 29 January 2025, page 119.

[53] Transcript of 29 January 2025, page 115, lines 35 - 45.

[54] Transcript of 29 January 2025, page 117, lines 30 - 40.

[55] Transcript of 29 January 2025, page 127, lines 5 - 10.

[56] Child Impact Report dated 25 July 2023, paragraph 24.

[57] Transcript of 29 January 2025, pages 187-188.

[58] Child Impact report dated 25 July 2023, paragraph 8.

[59] Family Report dated 26 July 2024, paragraphs 79, 92.

[60] Under cross-examination, the father admitted to the particulars except for causing unconsciousness which he said did not occur.

[61] Transcript of 28 January 2025, pages 30 - 31.

[62] Family Report dated 26 July 2024, paragraph 49.

[63] Transcript of 28 January 2025, page15, line 20.

[64] Transcript of 28 January 2025, page 75, line 5 - 20.

[65] Such as the principle in Re Andrew [1996] FamCA 43; (1996) FLC 92-692.

[66] Family Report dated 26 July 2024, paragraphs 69 - 71.

[67] Family Report dated 26 July 2024, paragraph 76.

[68] Outline of Case document filed by the ICL on 23 January 2025.

[69] Affidavit of the mother filed 2 December 2024, paragraphs 96 - 117.

[70] Family Report dated 26 July 2024, paragraphs 79 and 81.

[71] Family Report dated 26 July 2024, paragraph 21.

[72] Transcript of 29 January 2025, page 198,

[73] Transcript of 29 January 2025, page 203, lines 20 - 45.

[74] Family Report dated 26 July 2025, paragraph 54.

[75] Affidavit of the father filed 14 November 2024, paragraph 66 and Annexure F.

[76] Including additional 11 reports she obtained from B Contact Centre, which were all positive, which she did not disclose, Transcript of 29 January 2025, page 53.

[77] Transcript of 29 January 2025, page 54.

[78] Affidavit of the mother filed 2 December 20024, paragraph 26.

[79] Transcript of 29 January 2025, pages 196 -197.

[80] Transcript of 21 March 2025, page 256, lines 20 - 30.