Danilov & Wynn (No 7) [2025] FedCFamC1F 447 (5 June 2025)

1. Because of the father's non-attendance at Court - neither he nor any of his witnesses were available for cross-examination.
2. The evidence called on behalf of the Independent Children's Lawyer was finalised and the Independent Children's Lawyer's case was closed.
3. The parties and the Independent Children's Lawyer have been given an opportunity in accordance with this Order to provide written submissions.
4. Because time became available on 5 June 2025 it was possible for the Court to not only hear the available evidence in relation to parenting but also in relation to property.
5. Notwithstanding the non-attendance by the father at the continuation of the final hearing on 5 June 2025 the Court will be considering the father's evidence as contained in the affidavits referred to in his Outline of Case filed 2 June 2025.
6. Following the hearing of the evidence from Dr NN and on the application of the Independent Children's Lawyer and the mother - the interim parenting orders and injunctions contained in this Order were made by the Court.
7. On 5 June 2025, the mother and Independent Children's Lawyer applied to the Court for a vexatious proceedings order against the father. The Court shall issue directions on 6 June 2025 in relation to the application made by the mother and the Independent Children's Lawyer for a vexatious proceedings order against the father.

1. The Orders made on 21 April 2020 in relation to the father spending supervised time with the children are suspended.

1. The Independent Children's Lawyer has leave to file and serve written submissions in relation to parenting and those written submissions shall be filed and served by no later than 4.00pm on 12 June 2025.
2. The applicant mother has leave to file and serve written submissions in relation to parenting and property and those written submissions shall be filed and served by no later than 4.00pm on 19 June 2025.
3. The respondent father has leave to file and serve written submissions in relation to parenting and property and those written submissions shall be filed and served by no later than 4.00pm on 26 June 2025. In the event that the father files and serves written submissions in accordance with this Order - the father has leave to refer to any of his earlier filed affidavits insofar as they relate to property matters.
4. In the event that either the Independent Children's Lawyer or the mother wishes to file and serve a reply to the father's written submissions they have leave to do so provided that any reply is filed and served by no later than 4.00pm on 3 July 2025.
5. Pending the provision of written submissions and the finalisation of the matter by way of final orders, the applicant, the respondent and the Independent Children's Lawyer are hereby restrained from filing any further application in these proceedings without first obtaining the leave the Honourable Justice Howard of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) or another Judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) - in the event that the Honourable Justice Howard is unavailable.
6. Once the parties and Independent Children's Lawyer have filed and served written submissions in accordance with the Orders contained herein, Judgment shall be reserved from the date the final written submissions are received in accordance with this Order or 4.00pm on 3 July 2025, whichever is the later.

1. The respondent father is hereby restrained from:

(a) Communicating with, attempting to communicate with or approaching any of the following individuals:

(i) MS DANILOV (born 1983);

(ii) X (born 2013);

(iii) Y (born 2014);

(iv) Z (born 2017);

(v) MR CC;

(vi) MS F;

(vii) MR B;

(viii) MS PP; and

(ix) MS QQ.

(b) Communicating with or attempting to communicate with the children's school.

1. The parties and their legal representatives (if any) have leave to inspect in the Brisbane registry subpoena office the transcripts of these proceedings, namely 4 and 5 June 2025.
2. The name of the lawyer referred to in Exhibit 5 shall be redacted.

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).

These reasons for Judgment were delivered Ex Tempore on 5 June 2025 and have been settled and corrected for grammatical errors and in order to convey the precise intention of the Court.

1. The Family Report Writer, Dr NN, made it clear that, in her opinion, the father poses a risk to the children's psychological well-being. Dr NN stated that the notes that she was shown from the contact centre do not accord with what the children told her about their complaints to the contact centre staff. I am concerned at the nature of the email correspondence that the father has sent to the mother. The emails are contained in Exhibit 9. I am concerned about the emails generally from the father - not just the emails to the mother - but also emails from the father to other people. I am concerned about the father's non-attendance today and the reason he gave. The reason he gave is contained in the email that became Exhibit 5. I made comments about the content of that email earlier. That information (Exhibit 5) was passed on to the Family Report Writer, who is also a psychologist.
2. The Family Report Writer explained in more detail her concerns about the father's failure to comply with the Court Order to attend an independent psychiatric assessment. The Family Report Writer expanded on and explained further her concerns about the nature of the evidence from Dr AN, the father's treating psychiatrist. The Family Report Writer stated that the last visit involving the two youngest children at the contact centre went well - according to the notes that were provided. But overall, the Family Report Writer, taking into account what she was updated with today, including the father's recent allegation against the Court, the Family Report Writer supports this application that has now been made by the Independent Children's Lawyer[1] - that the supervised time should be suspended pending the receipt of all of the written submissions and pending a final determination by the Court in relation to all aspects of risk. I am very cautious - because this is merely an interim order, it is far from final. I will need to hear from the parties in detail on their submissions and have regard to a large body of evidence. It will be apparent that today the trial has proceeded. The father has chosen to absent himself from the Court without any reasonable excuse. I have not designated the matter as undefended, but I have merely run the trial.
3. The mother's evidence was completed. The mother's case closed. The Independent Children's Lawyer's evidence was completed and the Independent Children's Lawyer's case was closed.
4. No other witnesses were required for cross-examination.
5. My intention is to consider the evidence that the father has filed and included in his case outline document, filed on 2 June 2025. As to what weight can or cannot be given to the evidence that he has relied upon remains to be seen, because the father has not attended at Court. The father has not called his witnesses, the father has not made those witnesses available for cross‑examination, and the father has not made himself available for cross-examination. So I will, of course, consider what those witnesses have to say - but by noting the events that have happened and the failure to actually make those witnesses available for cross-examination, it will be a matter for submissions as to what weight should or should not be given to any of that evidence that the father filed.
6. The Court will be asking for written submissions. The Independent Children's Lawyer will be required to provide, through Counsel, written submissions first. I am going to then ask for a written submission from the mother. I appreciate, of course, that that is not the usual order that we ask for submissions. But in the circumstances of this case, I think it is better if the father, who is now self-represented, has a chance to read the written submissions of the Independent Children's Lawyer and the mother before he is required to provide his written submissions.
7. It will be apparent that yesterday the father had made a request for his evidence to go before the mother's. I rejected that request from the father with good reason and those reasons will be apparent from what I had to say yesterday including when I dismissed the father's adjournment application. I repeat and rely upon those reasons. The father, amongst other things, has a history, including a very recent history, of engaging lawyers funded by Legal Aid, and then those lawyers seek leave of the Court to withdraw for various reasons, including (and they are not required to tell the Court anything further) - but including they cannot continue because there is a conflict between themselves and the father, or they cannot continue for ethical reasons that have arisen in relation to their continued involvement on behalf of the father. That was the case twice in the last week - with the FF Lawyers and with O'Sullivans Law Firm, and earlier this year with EE Lawyers - and then some time ago with DD Lawyers. In any event, I had indicated earlier what would be happening in terms of procedure.
8. These reasons that I have given now support the directions that I am going to make and that I indicated that I would make. These reasons have led me to conclude, that on this interim basis, the father's time with the children, supervised time, should be suspended. One other very important aspect that I have taken into account in coming to this interim decision is the fact that, on Sunday, the mother was very unwell, it could be described as acutely unwell, in terms of her mental health as the day for Court approached, and evidence has been provided by the AZ Hospital about that and by the mother herself. The mother's mental health is a significant issue, and it is a matter I will need to consider carefully in the final decision. But at this stage, noting what happened on Sunday, and the mother's inability to attend Court on Monday because of her mental health, and noting, as I said earlier, the concerns raised today by Dr NN, in addition to what is in her written report, leads me to conclude that, at this interim stage, time should be suspended between the children and the father pending further closer consideration of all of the evidence by the Court.
9. I would add, given the way that the trial proceeded today, that is the father did not attend Court, as I have said more than once now, I did not proceed on an undefended basis. The mother was required to finish her evidence, and her case was then closed, because the Independent Children's Lawyer did not want to cross-examine any other witnesses from the mother. The Independent Children's Lawyer was then required to call their evidence, (contained in the Independent Children's Lawyer's Case Outline), and Dr NN was called (the Family Report Writer) and that was the only witness required for cross-examination. Mr Woods, Counsel for the mother, did not require Dr MM or Dr AD or any of the other witnesses called by the Independent Children's Lawyer. The Independent Children's Lawyer's case then closed. If the father had been here, his case would have been heard before the Independent Children's Lawyer's case - but he was not here. If the father was here now, he could make himself available for cross-examination, but he is not here. The evidence is now closed, subject to the extra exhibit[2] that will be provided by Dr NN about the correspondence that she received.
10. I also note that Dr NN is very concerned for the mother and for the children, in that her view is that the father will not stop litigating. Dr NN queried whether the father was a vexatious litigant. That is a matter that I will need to consider. The Court can of course, on its own motion, hear from the parties in relation to such an issue. The sheer weight of the material and the sheer number of applications filed by the father would be a reason alone for the Court to at least consider the making of such an order.
11. I would highlight, in relation to the suspension of the time order of the supervised contact, that the Family Report Writer today reiterated the fact that, in her interview with the father, or interviews, she was very concerned about the fact that he spoke at length about these constant intrusive thoughts that he has, and in his belief that people and the system are out to get him. I have taken all of these matters into account.
12. I am very concerned, given the state of the mother's mental health, as evidenced by what happened on Sunday. I am very concerned that the mother should not be subjected to the receipt of any further material pending the receipt of submissions and the finalisation of the matter. The Independent Children's Lawyer has sought injunctions that the father does not communicate with the mother, and that he does not communicate with the children or the mother's family, and that he does not approach them either. Given my concerns, and noting the evidence of Dr NN today, and given Dr NN's support for such an interim order and supported by the Independent Children's Lawyer and the mother, and noting the father's non-attendance today, my view is that those interim injunctions should be made under section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
13. In terms of the mother's family, that would include her current partner, and of course her stepfather, her mother, her sisters, her brother, and the children. I have indicated the children separately. I appreciate that it is an exceptional order to make on an interim basis at the end of a hearing, but I have set out in my reasons why it has become necessary - and one of the most important aspects is the failure by the father to attend today or to make any of his witnesses available for cross-examination.
14. The Family Report Writer raised another risk issue - which is the father contacting the children's school.
15. I am inclined to have a copy of the transcript made available for inspection by any of the parties, including the father, in the subpoena room of the Court. I am not going to send a copy of it out to anybody.
16. The other point I would make is, in the directions that issue, obviously the parents both have to make their submissions in relation to parenting and also in relation to property. They also have to make their submissions, and I made it clear earlier today, and it is important for me to add it here so it is conveniently seen in the reasons that I am providing, that the Court had indicated on Tuesday of this week (and it has now been made an exhibit from the transcript - Exhibit 7) the Court had made it clear that the property issue would be determined by the Court. The Court had anticipated issuing directions about updated financial statements or updated affidavits. But the way the matter ran, the evidence has been concluded today, the mother has already put in an affidavit on property because it is part of her trial affidavit. If the father wishes to draw the Court's attention to any earlier affidavit he has filed on property, he is permitted to do so. But of course, the father will be able to make submissions on property, and he will have the benefit of Mr Woods' written submissions first, so he will know what the mother is seeking precisely - although the mother made that clear already in her affidavit. I had anticipated that there would be a longer period of time between finishing the parenting and then getting on to the property, but the way things have gone, the case sped up, and as I say, the evidence is finalised. This Court cannot afford to (given the limited public resources and the large number of litigants awaiting determination of their matters) cannot sit back and do nothing when days have been allocated for hearing and a party, in this case the father, fails to attend and fails to take part in it.
17. I am satisfied that by the time I come to write the judgment in relation to parenting and property, everybody will have had a chance to be properly heard. So the father, in relation to the property, just to be clear, in the affidavit he has read in the case outline, if none of them address property, he is permitted to draw the Court's attention to any earlier affidavits he has filed in relation to property. It is a matter for him entirely.

I certify that the preceding seventeen (17) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Howard.

[1] The mother supported the Independent Children's Lawyer's application for interim parenting orders and injunctions.