Edhouse & Edhouse (No 5) [2025] FedCFamC1F 774 | Case summary

[3]

Eastley & Eastley [2022] FLC 94-094; [2022] FedCFamC1A 101

Edhouse & Edhouse (No 5) [2025] FedCFamC1F 774 | Case summary | Zoe

[41]

These are parenting proceedings regarding the parties' six year old child, X.
X's parents do not agree on her parenting arrangements and their positions have become polarised. The father asks the Court to make orders that provide for him to have sole parental responsibility for X, that she live with him and that she continue to spend professionally supervised time with the mother, albeit on a reduced basis to that which has been occurring in recent times. The mother seeks orders for the parties to share parental responsibility and a shared care week about living arrangement for X.
An Independent Children's Lawyer ("ICL") had been appointed in the proceedings to advance X's interests. However, the appointment was discharged during the course of the final hearing, as counsel who had appeared in the first portion of the trial had returned the brief to appear in the proceedings in opaque circumstances. Nonetheless, the Court records and is cognisant that at the commencement of the trial the ICL was broadly supportive of the mother's proposal for some form of shared care arrangement for X between both of her parents.
The proceedings have a long litigation history. The father commenced the parenting proceedings in June 2021 when X was two and a half years of age and some four months after the parties separated. Throughout the proceedings, X's living arrangements have been the source of significant dispute. In the early stages of the proceedings the mother drew the Court's attention to allegations she made that she had been the victim of family violence perpetrated by the father; allegations which the father has steadfastly denied. However, as the proceedings matured, the central issue colouring the litigation, particularly from about April 2023, turned away from the mother's family violence allegations and into the sequalae of what is now acknowledged by the mother to have been false claims by her that she had been diagnosed with a medical condition, that she had undergone surgery and that she had undertaken treatment. These false claims on the mother's part included the mother falsifying a number of medical records produced by her in these proceedings.
These false claims by the mother coupled with tenuous allegations that the father had injured the child, ultimately culminated in the Court favourably determining the father's interlocutory application to change the primary care arrangements for X prior to the commencement of the final hearing. This occurred across two separate suites of parenting orders; the first made 13 September 2024, and the second made 25 September 2024. As a result of the latter of those orders, at the time of trial X was living with the father and spending professionally supervised time with the mother on two occasions each week.
The father, however, asserts that the mother's false cancer claims are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the falsehoods she has deployed in the context of these proceedings, and more generally. It is the father's position that a number of assertions made by the mother are simply untrue. By the conclusion of the final hearing, the father asked the Court to make specific findings that certain claims made by the mother throughout the proceedings were either untrue, did not occur and/or were fabricated by her. The father went so far as to seek findings from the Court that the mother had "lied".
As shall be discussed throughout these reasons, the mother's acknowledged false diagnosis, surgery and treatment, aside from any of the other findings made later in these reasons, are alone reason enough for the Court to make a finding (which I so do) that there has been an irretrievable break down of trust between the parties and that in all of the circumstances of this case, there is no prospect of salvaging a functional co-parenting relationship between these parents to enable them, either now or in the future, to share parental responsibility and/or decision making for X. Additionally, the mother's conduct in fabricating a medical condition diagnosis, surgery, treatment and associated medical records, leaves the Court with significant concerns as to the mother's ability to make any decision about X's health and medical treatment.
For the reasons that follow, orders shall be made that provide for X to continue to live with the father and spend professionally supervised time with the mother. The father shall also have sole parental responsibility for X.

[42]

The parties commenced cohabitation in approximately July 2014, they married in 2015, and they physically separated on 10 February 2021; having lived separately and apart under the same roof for a few months before that time.
The father was born in 1968 in the United Kingdom. He was 57 years of age at the time of trial. He is a specialist medical practitioner. He is a dual citizen of Australia and the United Kingdom.
The mother was born in 1983. She was 42 years of age at the time of trial. She is presently engaged in home duties. She is a permanent Australian resident, and she has both Country V and Country Z citizenship. The mother holds a bachelor's degree.
There is one child of the relationship, X who was born in 2019. X was 6 years of age at the time of the trial.
It is an agreed fact that the parties faced some challenges conceiving children and that they commenced IVF treatment in 2017. X, however, was ultimately conceived naturally.
It is also an agreed fact that the mother was incarcerated overseas in late 2009/early 2010 in relation to "alleged possession of illicit substances".[1] . It is the mother's case that she was caught in possession of a "small bag" of illicit substance, but that the same "was planted there or arrived out of thin air as part of a scam by the Police".[2] The mother says she was detained overseas for a period of approximately three months and ultimately released without conviction as her parents paid a significant bribe to Country NN officials. It is also the mother's case that she was physically and sexually assaulted by a police officer on the first night she spent in police custody.[3]
The father appears to accept this version of events asserted by the mother, and he acknowledges that the mother advised him that she had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of these events. However, there is a general aura from the father's evidence that he suspects these events are also a fabrication.
It is also the mother's case that the events overseas led to her diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"), depression and anxiety and that she spent time receiving psychiatric care in Country Z immediately following her time overseas.[4] She further asserts that events associated with the marriage, including her difficulty conceiving and various alleged miscarriages has added to her diagnosis of PTSD.[5]

[46]

(a) On 25 August 2021 orders were made by a Senior Judicial Registrar providing for X to live with the mother and spend time with the father for three nights each fortnight, increasing to four nights in January 2022.

(b) The father sought a review of those orders which resulted in orders being made on 22 September 2021 for X to live with the mother and spend time with the father for two nights each week from Saturday to Monday, together with an order providing for the mother to have sole parental responsibility for X.[6]

(c) The father filed an appeal against those orders, which was ultimately dismissed by the Full Court on 2 June 2022.[7]

(d) From approximately April 2023 the proceedings were assigned to my docket and actively case managed by me towards a final hearing.

(e) The proceedings were listed for final hearing on 4 March 2024. That final hearing, however, did not proceed as a consequence of the events which took place following the mother's filing of an Application in a Proceeding on 9 February 2024 seeking orders that I be disqualified from hearing the proceedings on the basis of an apprehension of bias. The diversion of the proceedings effected by that application was:

(i) On 29 February 2024, I delivered reasons dismissing the Application in a Proceeding that I be disqualified from hearing the proceedings.[8]

(ii) On 1 March 2024 the mother commenced an appeal against those orders, which was ultimately dismissed by the Full Court on 12 July 2024.[9]

(f) An interlocutory parenting hearing took place on 13 September 2024. At that hearing, the Court heard the father's application to alter X's living arrangements, first filed on 23 August 2023, but not pressed until the September 2024 hearing. Whilst the decision of the Court was reserved that day, such were the concerns for X's safety that an order was made at the conclusion of the hearing and pending delivery of judgment providing for X to live with the father.[10]

(g) On 25 September 2024 reasons were delivered and orders were made which, in summary, provided for all previous parenting orders for X to be discharged, for X to live with the father, for the father to have sole decision making responsibility in relation to all major long term issues, and for X to spend professionally supervised time with the mother each Saturday from 9.00 am until 12 noon and each Tuesday from 3.00 pm until 6.00 pm.[11]

(h) Following the dismissal of the mother's appeal by the Full Court on 12 July 2024, orders were made on 7 August 2024 which, for the second time, listed the proceedings to a final hearing, this time commencing on 10 February 2025. On 18 December 2024, orders were made for the trial to commence on 11 February 2025 rather than 10 February 2025. Unfortunately, the final hearing did not conclude within the time that had been allowed (in part due to the unavailability of the single expert witness Dr F on the allocated trial dates) and was given further hearing dates on 25, 26 and 27 March 2025.

(i) On 4 March 2025 a chambers order was made relisting the proceedings to a hearing on 12 March 2025 to deal with a communication received in chambers from the ICL who was "simply writing to inform" the Court that counsel for the ICL had returned the brief and new counsel had been instructed.

(j) At the hearing on 12 March 2025 an order was made discharging the appointment of the ICL. This order was made in circumstances where the Court expressed concerns about the unexplained mid-trial change of counsel for the ICL. To that end, counsel submitted that she was not aware of the circumstances that had led to the return of the trial brief by previous counsel, but that she had agreed to accept the brief to appear in the proceedings and conclude the final hearing provided she was possessed of the transcript of the earlier tranche of the trial. Unfortunately, that request was not met (in part it seems because there was no grant of legal aid made to the ICL to meet the cost of the provision of transcript), and so new counsel properly acknowledged that she would have some difficulty concluding the final hearing.

(k) The final hearing thereafter proceeded without the involvement of the ICL.

[48]

(a) The father to have sole parental responsibility for X, with him to keep the mother informed as to X's health and any major health issues, and any emergency involving X, together with any change of school;

(b) X to live with the father;

(c) X to spend supervised time with the mother supervised at AE Contact Centre for a period of three hours on the third Saturday of each month;

(d) X to communicate with the mother by facetime, Kids Messenger or other audio-visual communication on Christmas Day, on the mother's birthday, Mother's Day and X's birthday;

(e) The father to arrange for X to attend upon a psychologist or social worker prior to X commencing Term 2 of her second year of high school (year eight), in essence to ascertain her views about the continuation of supervision for her time spending with the mother;

(f) Should X express the view that she wishes to spend unsupervised time with the mother, then X's time with the mother is to progress to unsupervised time spending for four hours on the third Sunday of each calendar month;

(g) Should X express the view that she wishes to continue to spend supervised time with the mother, then the existing supervised time spending arrangements shall continue;

(h) When X turns 14 years of age, any time spending with the mother shall be in accordance with X's wishes;

(i) The father be permitted to travel overseas with X, and that he be able to solely make any passport application for her, and thereafter retain that passport;

(j) An injunction, until X is 14 years of age, restraining the mother from attending, or allowing or encouraging any other person to attend the father's home, any school or educational institution that X attends or her sporting or extracurricular activities, unless invited to do so by the father in writing;

(k) The father to authorise X's school to provide the mother with copies of X's school reports, photos and other information that the mother requests;

(l) The parties to communicate using the "Our Family Wizard" parenting App;

(m) The parties to keep each other informed of their residential and telephone addresses; and

(n) An injunction restraining each of the parties from denigrating the other parent or members of their family to X or in her presence and/or from passing information or messages through X to the other parent.

[81]

I am satisfied that the father generally presented as a careful and considered witness. He listened carefully to the questions that were asked and he chose his words thoughtfully and carefully when giving his evidence.
The father, however, was not challenged in cross-examination about a range of issues which on the face of the parties' trial material appeared to be in dispute, including the mother's significant allegations of family violence, and his denials of the same. Rather, in her relatively brief cross-examination of the father, the mother's counsel actively eschewed doing so, indicating to the Court that in circumstances where the mother was pursuing a shared care arrangement for X, implicit in her position was that the father did not pose a risk to X. Whilst the logic of this position is understood, the difficulty with this approach at the mother's end however was that the mother did not at any point resile from the allegations that she had made. Instead, her case was run on the basis that she was not asking the Court to make findings about her allegations that the father had perpetrated family violence against her.
The father, on the other hand, asks the Court to make findings that the mother's allegations of family violence were fabricated. Unfortunately, because of the manner in which both parties ran their case, this significant factual dispute is not one that the trial process assisted in resolving. That the Court has been unable to resolve this significant factual dispute in the context of these proceedings is lamentable; particularly given the prominence of family violence within the legislative framework prescribed by the Act.
Similarly, the father was not challenged in cross-examination regarding the mother's allegations that he had injured X. Again, the father asks the Court to make findings that these allegations were fabricated by the mother. Unlike the family violence allegations however, the Court is in a position to make findings that these allegations are not made out.

[82]

The mother's presentation during the final hearing can best be described as complex. It is observed that throughout the final hearing, the mother's emotions vacillated significantly, including laughing audibly during the father's evidence (as discussed later in these reasons), to being forthright, forgetful and confused. At various times throughout her evidence the mother was tearful; particularly when confronted with the implausibility and/or inaccuracies of her evidence. In addition, the mother had the tendency to answer or attempt to answer questions before they were asked; despite the Court repeatedly asking her to wait for the question to be asked before answering. At other times the mother gave answers that were not responsive to the question being asked of her.
In addition, during the course of her evidence the mother gave confusing and convoluted evidence about the accuracy of the various affidavit's that she had sworn and filed in the proceedings, including her trial affidavit; vacillating between accepting the contents of her affidavit(s) were accurate, inaccurate, read by her, not read by her, prepared by her lawyers with her checking the accuracy and also without her checking the accuracy properly. Ultimately when confronted with how confusing her evidence was about these matters, the mother attempted to shut down the questioning by indicating that she found the whole process "triggering".
At various times throughout her evidence the mother maintained the allegations and assertions she had made both in court documents and outside the context of the litigation. At other times, the mother acknowledged that what she had alleged and asserted was inaccurate. For example, the mother acknowledged that assertions she had made in an email to X's school dated 9 April 2021 that "I walked out of my marriage with fractured ribs, 60% vision loss in my right eye from retinal detachment" were "inaccurate".
When taken together, the mother's presentation gave the impression that she had predetermined the narrative and evidence that she wanted and did not want to convey during her oral evidence. As a result, much of the mother's oral evidence impressed as performative.
When these factors are taken together with the mother's admissions about her fabricated "cancer diagnosis", the mother's credit is critically damaged such that any weight which might be attached to her evidence is significantly diminished.
This does not, however, mean that the mother's assertions and allegations are to be dismissed entirely out of hand. Nor does it mean that every denial or assertion or allegation made by the father can simply be accepted.
Whilst ordinarily the Court might look to independent documentary evidence to assist in the fact-finding exercise, the ability to do so in these proceedings has also been stymied by the mother's conduct, and her admissions that she has fabricated documents that otherwise appeared genuine; in particular medical records.
As a result of all of these matters, the Court has been required to carefully scrutinise and assess all of the evidence in these proceedings. Doing so has taken some time. This process however has been illuminative and when regard is had to all of the matters discussed throughout these reasons, the Court is left with the distinct impression that both within the context of these proceedings and more broadly, the mother cannot be taken at her word.

[86]

(d) [X] appeared to be meeting her developmental milestones.

(e) Separation from either parent mother would be detrimental to [X]'s emotional well-being and was not recommended.

(f) Both parents presented as capable of meeting [X]'s needs.

(g) The parents' inability to co-parent and "interact amicably" had the potential to adversely affect [X]'s emotional well-being.

(h) She was not in a position to determine the factual disputes between the parties, particularly their competing allegations that the other had perpetrated family violence.

(i) It was not clear to [Dr F] that either parent's allegations that [X] was at risk in the other parent's care were warranted.

(j) The mother's diagnoses of depression and PTSD did not "directly impact on her parenting capacity".

Of relevance to the present application, in [Dr F]'s first report she detailed matters of concern relating to the mother and her mental health. In that regard [Dr F] variously recorded:

(a) The father's concerns as reported to her about the mother's mental health, her dysregulation, [X]'s exposure to the mother's alleged lying, allegations she had made in the post separation period which he denied, including but not limited to allegations that he had perpetrated "domestic violence" and that he had "threatened to drive into the water with [X] in his car."

(b) The father's concern that the mother might be suffering from borderline personality disorder, and that this condition was not being treated.

(c) The mother's suicidal ideation which resulted in her being involuntarily admitted to the [LL Hospital] [in early] 2021.

(d) A further attendance on the mother by the Acute Care Team from the [LL Hospital in early] 2021 following an argument between the parties where the mother was assessed as being "highly charged, emotional and distressed in the context of complex marital situation and acrimonious separation", with the discharge summary noting that the mother's presentation was "more in line with emotional dysregulation in the context of borderline personality disorder (not diagnosed)."

(e) The mother had been diagnosed by her treating Psychiatrist [Dr A] as suffering from "depression, anxiety and PTSD which had developed primarily due to the multiple pregnancy losses she had experienced." With the mother seeking regular treatment from [Dr A] together with a range of other professional services targeted to supporting victims of family violence.

(f) The mother's self report to [Dr F] that she had been diagnosed with anxiety, depression and PTSD as a result of a period of incarceration/detention [overseas] for offences which she denies, but includes the possession of methamphetamines, and for which she was released following the payment by her parents of between USD$1-2 million.

(g) The mother's allegations that the father was the perpetrator of family violence towards her, and that he had "gaslighted" her "by telling her that she was mentally unwell and accusing her of wanting to engage in deliberate self-harm or suicidal behaviour."

(h) On mental state examination, the mother presented "in an articulate manner and her thought form was logical and goal directed. She demonstrated no obsessional or delusional thought content, nor any preoccupations."

In her second Family Report, [Dr F] was aware of the father's concerns, at that stage unconfirmed by the mother, that she had fabricated her [medical condition] diagnosis and treatment, and fabricated medical records. In addition, [Dr F] was aware of the father's concerns that the mother had reported that the maternal grandmother was deceased (which he did not accept), the mother's repeated requests of the father to care for [X] which he considered indicated the mother was not coping, and an allegation made by the mother in December 2022 (which the father denied) that he had physically harmed [X] and that the mother had recorded [X] naked in the bath and that [X] had been repeatedly questioned by the mother in relation to these allegations.

In relation to these matters, [Dr F] ultimately concluded in her second Family Report:

(a) The mother's presentation was such that she "did not have any symptoms suggestive of mania or psychosis" nor "features suggestive of obsessive-compulsive disorder".

(b) "However, if the Court finds that [Ms Edhouse] has indeed fabricated her illness and fabricated medical documents to support her claim, her ability to provide for [X]'s emotional and psychological needs to be seriously questioned. In addition, further assessment of [Ms Edhouse]'s mental health should be undertaken and additional treatment may be indicated. Such an assessment is not currently possible given that [Ms Edhouse] currently asserts her claims of having been diagnosed with [a medical condition] are true".

(c) "In the absence of facts, it is difficult to speculate about any additional diagnoses [Ms Edhouse] may have, However, if the Court finds that [Ms Edhouse] has fabricated her [medical condition] diagnosis, and has perhaps lied about other matters as well, there are a number of diagnoses that could be considered. For example, borderline personality disorder, factitious disorder, malingering or her presentation could also be viewed in the context of trauma."

So far as [Dr F]'s psychiatric assessment of the mother in her third report of 6 June 2024, commissioned by the parties after the mother had acknowledged she had fabricated her cancer diagnosis, treatment and medical records, [Dr F]:

(a) Recorded that the mother reported her mood as "generally good", identifying that "she was able to be positive despite the ongoing stress regarding current court proceedings. She did not describe a pervasive low mood or any other symptoms suggestive of depression. She felt that her anxiety was under control except when exposed to specific stressors".

(b) Recorded that the mother "stated that her symptoms of PTSD had improved and only surfaced when she was exposed to specific triggers, such as matters relating to the current court proceedings or to [Dr Edhouse]. These symptoms included intrusion symptoms, avoidance, alterations in arousal/reactivity and alterations in cognitions...".

(c) Recorded that the mother "denied any deliberate self-harm" and "denied suicidal ideation, planning or intent and thoughts of self-harm".

(d) Opined that the mother "did not have features suggestive of obsessive-compulsive disorder", "mania" or "psychosis".

(e) Recorded that when asked about her alleged [medical condition] diagnosis the mother "acknowledged that she had not been diagnosed with [a medical condition] and had not undergone any treatment for [a medical condition]", and effectively that her solicitor had misinterpreted her instructions and that she had only told her solicitor she had a lump and was waiting for pathology results.

(f) Recorded that when the mother was asked why she did not correct her solicitor, the mother variously asserted that:

(i) at the time her solicitor had indicated to her that she could obtain a "more favourable financial settlement" if she had a serious medical condition;

(ii) there was a period of a month where her phone was not working and had no communication with her solicitor;

(iii) it was "difficult" for her to explain why she had not corrected her solicitor, and that she was worried that the father would accuse her of "intentionally lying";

(iv) she was focussed on [X] and "wanted everything to go away", describing the prolonged court proceedings as "slow torture" and that she wanted the process to be over and "left alone"; and

(v) she wanted a reprieve from the difficult co-parenting relationship she had with the father, as she considered he would be compassionate of her health.

(g) When the mother was challenged about having gone to "extreme lengths of falsifying medical records", the mother asserted that as it was a year later, she considered that she had no choice but to produce medical records.

(h) [Dr F] identified that she had considered notes from the mother's psychiatrist [Dr A] dated 31 January 2024, produced pursuant to subpoena and provided to [Dr F], where he had discussed the mother's fabricated [medical condition] diagnosis with her, and he recorded:

[96]

(a) One of the significant "challenges" in these proceedings is "knowing what the facts are".

(b) If the Court was satisfied that the mother's allegations, that the father had caused injuries to X, were not made out (with particular reference to the August 2024 allegation), then Dr F's concern expressed in her fourth report as to the risk of harm to X from exposure to the mother's deceptive behaviours would be heightened.

(c) If the Court were to be satisfied that the mother's fabrication of her medical condition diagnosis was such that she had been misleading in her explanation as to how the same had occurred (findings which are made later in these reasons), Dr F's opined that the same would lead her to be more concerned as it would start to indicate that the mother has engaged in a pattern of deceptive behaviour.

(d) Dr F went on to identify that if there were to be "multiple other incidences" where facts asserted by the mother were not found to be "true" (again as found later in these reasons), then the pattern of such behaviour would lead Dr F to form the view that the mother had engaged in a pattern of deceptive behaviour.

(e) The significance of the mother having engaged in a pattern of deceptive behaviour would be that Dr F's view would strengthen, and she would be more inclined to diagnose the mother with a personality disorder; likely still of an unspecified type, but possibly borderline personality disorder, with features of antisocial behaviour.

(f) Dr F was not satisfied that the mother's deceptive behaviour, so far as at least her fabricated "[medical condition]" was concerned, could be explained by the mother's diagnosis of PTSD, particularly given Dr F considered that the mother's deceptive behaviour in this regard had features of a borderline personality disorder with antisocial behaviour and traits.

(g) Ultimately however, Dr F reiterated that the Court should not be preoccupied with trying to put a label on a specific diagnosis for the mother, with the following exchange illuminative:

[123]

(b) At a hearing on 28 April 2023 the father sought an order, which was made (Order 5), requiring the mother to disclose documents from her treating specialist and GP (implicitly regarding her medical condition diagnosis and treatment, in light of Notation C which recorded that the mother proposed to call as a witness at any final hearing "a medical specialist in relation to her [medical condition]" ).

(c) By 19 July 2023 the mother had not complied with those orders for the discovery of documents relating to her medical condition diagnosis and treatment.[23]

(d) On 28 July 2023 an order was made granting the father leave to issue subpoenas for the production of the mother's medical records from "her [specialist]", Professor G, the P Hospital, Dr M, Dr A and Dr L.

(e) On 23 August 2023 the father filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking a change in the primary care arrangements for X. His affidavit filed in support of the same identified that no medical records had been produced by the various medical practitioners and/or hospitals referred to in documents which had been discovered by the mother.

(f) On 29 September 2023, the father filed an affidavit sworn by Professor G (the mother's alleged "[specialist]"), in which, of significance, Professor G deposed that he had been provided with copies of seven letters purportedly authored by him regarding his treatment of the mother for a medical condition. Professor G went on to depose that he had not authored those letters and that they appeared to be "fakes", and that the mother had not ever been a "patient under my care".

(g) On 3 October 2023 the mother filed a Response to the father's Application in a Proceeding filed 23 August 2023. By her affidavit filed in support of the same the mother effectively responded to the father's evidence, and that of Professor G, and deposed that she had indeed been diagnosed with a medical condition and had received treatment. The relevant portions of that affidavit are set out:

[126]

(h) On 2 November 2023 the proceedings were listed for a final hearing commencing 4 March 2024.

(i) On 13 December 2023 orders were made granting the mother a certificate pursuant to s 128 of the Evidence Act in relation to her "cancer diagnosis, [treatment, surgery] and pneumonia diagnosis" (Order 1).

(j) On 26 February 2024 the mother filed her initial trial affidavit in which she relevantly deposed (under cover of the certificate that had been granted pursuant to s 128 of the Evidence Act), that she had "made up" her medical condition diagnosis, surgery and treatment. Of relevance she deposed:

On 23 September 2022, I underwent a [scan] and ultrasound which showed a cyst on my [...]. Due to the extensive history of cancer in my maternal family, I had genuine concerns that the lump on my [...] was cancerous. A biopsy of the [...] lesion was undertaken, and my results were sent to the [P Hospital] Pathology for a further analysis. The histopathology report dated 23 September 2022 showed a 4cm [lump] on my [...], though noted there was no evidence of malignancy.

I do not have a cancer diagnosis. I was not diagnosed with [a medical condition] in 2022.

I did not attend upon [Dr G, specialist], under an assumed name or otherwise.

I did not undergo [treatment] under the care of [Dr G] or otherwise.

I did not undergo a total [surgery] of my [...] performed by [Dr U] at the [P Hospital] or otherwise. I only underwent a biopsy of the lump on my [...].

I edited medical documents in these proceedings to try to prove to [Mr Edhouse] that I had a cancer diagnosis. Those documents are false.

I made up my cancer diagnoses in the hope that [Mr Edhouse] would feel sorry for me and stop treating me so poorly. I have experienced years of domestic violence perpetrated by [Mr Edhouse] against me, and that behaviour continued following our separation. I felt scared, cornered by [Mr Edhouse] and like there was no hope for me to break the cycle of abuse. At the time, we had finished an unsuccessful mediation, and [X] came home with bruises.

I acknowledge that my behaviour in this regard has been unacceptable. I apologise unreservedly to this Honourable Court, for my actions.

I was admitted to hospital between 30 June and 4 July 2023 and was diagnosed with pneumonia at the [P Hospital]. I do not know why my admission does not feature in the subpoena records. I consulted my general practitioner before I was admitted and after I was discharged from hospital. To the best of my recollection, I attended at [QQ Medical Centre] and consulted [Dr MM] on 28 June 2023 and [Dr KK] on 11 July 2023.

[135]

...

Admission Date: [Mid] 2023

Discharge Date: [Mid] 2023

Discharged to: Discharged to Home

Admitting Doctor: [Dr W] (Geriatric Medicine, General Medicine)

...

Reason for Admission: Syncope, fevers, mild hypoxia, asthma and IBC history

Principal Diagnosis: Pneumonia- Community acquired

Additional Diagnoses: Sarcoidosis

Procedures:

Admitted via Emergency Care: Yes

Problems (Past/Current): Asthma

Allergies: Oxycodone, Shellfish, Gluten - gluten free diet

Infectious Risk:

Complications:

Consulting Doctors: [Dr TT] (Respiratory medicine)

Progress in hospital / Comments for GP / Changes in Treatment:

[Ms Edhouse] is a known patient who presented at ED with productive cough, fevers and mild hypoxia. She was diagnosed with IBC in April 2022. She is DFS since completing NAST and localised treatments in December 2022. She has intermittent asthma which worsened since moving to [Suburb SS] and CHD BAV type 1A. She experienced flu symptoms including coughs. nasal congestion, sore throat. myalgia, weakness. and chills for 2 weeks prior to admission. Three days prior admission she experience haemotesys She was seen on multiple occasions by her physician. Her O2 saturations drifted downward. They were less than 88% when active; at rest, varied between 88% and 92%. Influenza A swab positive. Decision was made because of failed outpatient treatment of pneumonia, medical history and pleural effusion. Oral anti-viral treatment oseltamivir given and to continue until 5d course is complete. Chest X-ray revealed pleural effusion. bilateral Hilar lymphadenopathy and diffuse nodular opacities. She was seen by respiratory physician urgaently. Pleural effusion was drained using Seldinger technique on 30/06/2023 under respiratory team. Pleural fluid negative malignancy. CTC to repeat with guided biopsy in outpatient clinic. Her fever broke 18 hours prior to discharge, and O2 saturations improved, as did her overall strength and clinical status Discharged on PT request.

FINDINGS:

CHEST X-RAY:

Mildly increased cardiothoracic ratio (CTR): 52%.

Diffuse small nodular opacities are present throughout the mid and upper zones bilaterally with areas of increased interstitial thickening. The hilar are prominent bilaterally and there is widening of the right paratracheal stripe.

Convex opacity representing encysted pleural fluid is seen between left upper and middle lobe(s), along with fluid in the horizontal fissure. The left costophrenic angle is obliterated with a meniscus noted.

No aggressive lesion on the bone.

CT CHEST:

There is bilateral upper zone predominance subcentimetre nodularity with a peri-bronchovascular, fissural and sub·

pleural distribution.

There is also smooth interlobular septal thickening within the upper zones bilaterally. There are more confluent regions of airspace opacity within the left upper lobe.

Loculated left-sided pleural effusion.

The largest pocket of fluid is present posteriorly at the left lung base, with associated atelectasis and minor consolidation.

Encysted pleural fluid is visualised between the left upper and middle lobe(s). Pleural fluid is seen extending to the left oblique fissure.

There is extensive mediastinal lymphadenopathy, the largest of which is a subcarinal node that measures up to 22 mm in maximum diameter.

There is also bilateral symmetrical hilar lymphadenopathy.

There is a conglomerate mass of enlarged porta hepatis lymph nodes that measure up to 43mm. enhancing hepatic nodule

There are also enlarged lymph nodes adjacent to the superior mesenteric artery. Bilateral axillary lymph node prominence, however these nodes do retain their normal fatty hilum.

Heart size is normal and there is no pericardial effusion appreciated on CT. No pulmonary embolism.

No suspicious bony lesion.

Conclusion:

Pleural effusion suggest pneumonia which correlates with positive influenza A PCR swab. Bilateral perilymphatic nodularity with an upper zone predominance, in conjunction with widespread hilar. mediastinal, porta hepatis and para-aortic lymph node enlargement is most in keeping with sarcoidosis. Lymphoma is possible but much less likely...

(As per the original)

[142]

I am satisfied from this text message exchange that on 30 June 2023 the mother cancelled an appointment that she had with Ms RR that day, because the mother advised her solicitor that she had been hospitalised with pneumonia.
Whilst separate and specific findings are made about this alleged hospital admission later in these reasons (specifically that it did not occur), I find that the timing of this alleged hospital admission was crucial as it coincided with the point in time when, at least from the mother's perspective, it appeared likely that her fabricated "[medical condition] diagnosis" would be uncovered. In light of the same, I am satisfied that this confected hospital admission was a calculated concoction by the mother to prevent her fabricated "cancer diagnosis" from being revealed. It therefore follows that I am satisfied that the discharge summary produced by the mother and dated 4 July 2023 is also a fabrication.
To understand the significance of the timing of this confected hospital admission as it relates to the mother's fabricated "cancer diagnosis", more is able to be understood about the manner in which the mother confected her "cancer diagnosis", and the lengths to which she went to, to use this alleged condition to her advantage. The Court is able to do so, because without objection from the mother, the father issued a subpoena to the mother's former solicitors for production of their file and associated records. In addition, the father issued a subpoena for the production of notes from the mother's treating psychiatrist, Dr A. During the final hearing, the mother was cross-examined by the father's counsel about a range of records produced by each her former solicitor and Dr A so far as they relate to her fabricated cancer diagnosis. As a result of the same, the findings that follow are also able to be made.
I am satisfied that as early as May 2022, the mother's health (not cancer related) was a feature of the discussions and negotiations between the parties around the question of property settlement and spousal maintenance.
I am satisfied that by 17 May 2022 the mother's solicitors were actively asking the mother to produce documents relating to her physical health and her "ability to work", including but not limited to the names of the mother's GP, her rheumatologist, her hospital discharge summaries and associated reports.[30] I am also satisfied that in correspondence sent by the mother's solicitors to the mother on 17 May 2022, there was at that stage, no mention that the mother had been diagnosed with a medical condition, and I am satisfied that on 17 May 2022 the mother had not yet told her solicitors about her "cancer diagnosis".
I am satisfied that whilst the mother communicated with her solicitors after 17 May 2022, the first record of the mother having told her solicitors that she had been diagnosed with "[a medical condition]" was on 27 May 2022. I am satisfied that these instructions were given by the mother in a telephone call with her solicitor, which Ms RR thereafter summarised in an email she sent a colleague as a file note on 27 May 2022[31] in which she recorded the following:

[178]

The court file reveals that on 21 July 2023, the father filed an Application in a Proceeding in which he ostensibly sought orders restraining the mother from taking X outside the Commonwealth of Australia and placing X's name on the Airport Watch list.
As earlier identified a hearing took place on 28 July 2023. Again, I find that to Ms RR's credit, she appeared for the mother, despite having indicated that she was not prepared to act for her by serving the mother with a Notice of Intention to Withdraw. As earlier identified, orders were made at that hearing granting the father leave to issue certain subpoenas for the production of the mother's medical records (Order 2), together with an order extending time for the mother to file her medical reports until 2 August 2023 (Order 3). In addition, orders were made with the consent of both parents, restraining each of them from taking X outside the Commonwealth of Australia and placing her name on the Airport Watch list, as had been sought by the father.
It is now apparent and I am satisfied that earlier in the day on 28 July 2023 the mother had contacted Ms RR to instruct her to continue acting for her.[47] In giving those instructions, the mother provided Ms RR with seven medical reports purportedly written by her specialist, Professor G, to her GP, Dr M from the N Medical Centre (dated 4 May 2022, 9 May 2022, 30 May 2022, 20 June 2022, 11 July 2022, 1 August 2022 and 22 August 2022). Those reports were promptly disclosed by Ms RR to the father's solicitors that same day. I am satisfied that it was the disclosure of these reports that led the father to seek the permission of the Court to issue the subpoenas referred to in the orders made later that day at the hearing. I am further satisfied that these medical reports were all fabricated by the mother.
In addition, it is now apparent and I am satisfied that when the mother produced the seven reports to Ms RR on 28 July 2023, the mother additionally falsely instructed Ms RR that there were four additional reports that she would produce from Professor G to Dr M dated 10 October 2022, 31 October 2022, 28 November 2022 and 12 December 2022.[48]
Significantly, it was prior to this hearing, as earlier discussed that the mother deployed the fabricated discharge summary for her alleged hospital admission between 30 June 2023 and 4 July 2023. I am satisfied that she did so as a means of not only convincing her solicitor to continue to represent her, but importantly to explain her failure to comply with orders of the Court. It is not lost on the Court that a number of fabricated medical reports were provided by the mother to Ms RR in advance of the hearing on 28 July 2023; those the mother admits she fabricated relating to her "[medical condition] diagnosis" and that which she does not admit fabricating regarding her "pneumonia" hospital admission. I am however satisfied that all of these documents were fabricated by the mother.
Following the hearing on 28 July 2023, and on 2 August 2023, the court file reveals that the father duly filed the five subpoenas he was granted leave to file pursuant to Order 2 of the orders made 28 July 2023, to each Professor G of H Medical Centre, Dr A of K Medical Centre in Suburb BB, Dr L, Dr M of N Medical Centre and P Hospital as well as an additional subpoena to Dr Q of R Medical Centre. The court file also reveals that documents produced pursuant to each subpoena were inspected by the father's solicitors within short compass of their production.
I am satisfied that following this hearing, efforts were made by Ms RR to have the mother comply with the order extending time for the mother to file her medical reports by 2 August 2023.[49] To that end I find:

[179]

(a) On 31 July 2023, the mother attended upon Ms RR to swear an affidavit annexing the seven medical reports purportedly prepared by Professor G between 4 May 2022 and 22 August 2022, together with a copy of the discharge summary that had purportedly been provided by P Hospital dated 4 July 2023.

(b) Whilst the mother attended upon Ms RR, she did not bring with her "physical copies" of any of the documents to be annexed to her affidavit.

(c) The mother agreed to return to Ms RR's office with the physical copies of the documents the following day.

(d) In the evening of 31 July 2023, the mother sent Ms RR a text message asking to reschedule her appointment to 2 August 2023, which Ms RR promptly arranged and confirmed with the mother.

(e) The mother, however, did not attend the appointment on 2 August 2023.

(f) On 4 August 2023 the mother and Ms RR had a virtual appointment by Microsoft Teams, in which the mother advised Ms RR that she would communicate with her further on 7 August 2023, when the mother was scheduled to have an appointment with her psychiatrist Dr A.

(g) On 7 August 2023 the mother sent Ms RR a text message at 4.56 pm to advise that she had "forgotten" to call earlier.

(h) On 8 August 2023, Ms RR attempted to call and/or email the mother on five separate occasions between 8.50 am and 6.56 pm, all to no avail.

(i) On 9 August 2023 Ms RR sent the mother a further email asking the mother to check her "phone's settings to ensure" the mother was receiving her calls.

(j) On 10 August 2023 the mother contacted Ms RR by email to advise that she would attend the office the following day on 11 August 2023 to swear the affidavit that had been prepared.

(k) On 11 August 2023 the mother did not attend the scheduled appointment, instead contacting the firm to advise that she was unwell and would attend on 14 August 2023 to sign the affidavit that had been prepared.

(l) On 14 August 2023 at 7.30 am, the mother again contacted her solicitor's office to advise that she was "still unwell".

(m) Later that same day (14 August 2023) at 1.25 pm, the mother's solicitors sent the mother an email to notify her that the father's solicitors had sought the mother's consent to provide Professor G copies of the reports purportedly written by him and disclosed by the mother's solicitors to the father on 28 July 2023. That communication set out that the father's solicitors had been contacted by Professor G's office to advise that the specialist did not have documents and records pertaining to the mother to produce in answer to the subpoena to Professor G.

(n) In response to this email to the mother, the mother contacted Ms RR's office to advise that she considered it "weird" that "[Professor G]'s office could not locate" her records, and that she would contact the "practice manager" to "find out what happened" to her records. I am satisfied that the mother gave her solicitor false instructions in that regard.

(o) Later again that day, at 4.37 pm the mother telephoned Ms RR's office to advise that she was "potentially being hospitalised that evening".

(p) Later again, at 6.18 pm the mother sent an email to Ms RR's office advising that she was at the P Hospital Emergency Department "waiting to be triaged".

(q) The following day (15 August 2023) at 11.55 am, the mother emailed Ms RR's office to advise that she had been discharged at 3.00 am that morning, and that she was on her way to a follow up appointment with her GP.

(r) Across 15 and 16 August 2023, the mother's solicitors made seven attempts to communicate with the mother (by phone and email), to no avail.

(s) On 17 August 2023 the mother finally had an appointment with Ms RR (virtually by Microsoft Teams). During that appointment, Ms RR sought instructions as to why the medical records that had been produced by Dr M (the mother's GP) did not contain the reports to him from Professor G that the mother had discovered. Amongst other things, the mother falsely instructed her solicitor that this was because she had received treatment under an assumed identity (without disclosing that assumed identity), as she "feared" the father would use the diagnosis against her in the family law proceedings. The mother also instructed that she "would prefer to say" that she had "fabricated the medical documents rather than reveal the person's identity" that she had used.

(t) Having been instructed in those terms, Ms RR advised the mother that as an officer of the Court, she could not and would not mislead the Court.

(u) On 18 August 2023, Ms RR sent the mother a detailed seven page letter setting out the circumstances which led her to forming the view that she was no longer prepared to continue to represent the mother.[50]

(v) It is also apparent from that communication, that between the mother's appointment with Ms RR on 17 August 2023 and the letter sent on 18 August 2023, Ms RR inspected the documents which had been produced pursuant to subpoena, and discovered (and pointed out to the mother in that communication):

(i) The discharge summary from P Hospital dated 4 July 2023, which Ms RR had provided to the Court on 28 July 2023 had not been produced pursuant to the subpoena to N Medical Centre, nor pursuant to the subpoena to P Hospital; and

(ii) That having reviewed material produced pursuant to a subpoena issued by the father to Dr Q, an alleged pregnancy of the mother in 2021 ended by way of termination, whereas the mother had instructed her solicitors to prepare and indeed the mother had sworn an affidavit which had been filed in the proceedings on 29 June 2021 wherein the mother deposed that the pregnancy had ended in a miscarriage (a topic about which more shall be said and specific findings made later in these reasons).

[214]

I am satisfied that the subpoena issued on 2 August 2023 was one that ought to have captured any medical records held by P Hospital relating to the mother up to 2 August 2023, and that this would include any records regarding her hospital admission in mid-2023, and specifically the discharge summary produced by the mother.
I am also satisfied that the subpoena issued on 5 March 2024 would have captured any documents about this hospital admission, and in particular documents pertaining to any temporary discharge, approved leave or day release.
During the final hearing, the mother acknowledged, and there was no dispute, that each of the subpoenas issued by the father in relation to this hospital admission returned no documents.
The Court received into evidence correspondence from the Medico-Legal Manager, Health Information Services at P Hospital confirming that the hospital held no records for the mother's alleged admission in mid-2023.[63] In addition, the letter confirmed that the admitting doctor and the discharging doctor information on the discharge summary was "inaccurate". This evidence is accepted.
In her trial affidavits the mother deposed that she did "not know why" there were no records for this hospital admission held by P Hospital,[64] an assertion she repeated when cross-examined during the final hearing.
During her oral evidence and when challenged about the lack of records from P Hospital about this specific hospital admission and when it was put to the mother that she had fabricated this admission and diagnosis, she denied that this was the case. The mother's evidence in this regard is rejected.
I am satisfied that the mother was not admitted to P Hospital in mid-2023. I am also satisfied that the discharge summary the mother produced in relation to this hospital admission was created/edited/fabricated by the mother.
I am satisfied that this is the case, in light of, not only the lack of records produced by P Hospital in answer to the subpoena, but also as a result of:

[237]

(a) What can best be described as the father's mismanagement of the mother's medical care whilst the parties were trying to conceive.[82]

(b) Denigration of her in the presence of others on 27 October 2017.[83]

(c) The father non-consensually restraining her with ropes during a sexual encounter some time between 2014 and 2018, which triggered her PTSD.[84]

(d) An incidence of physical violence when she was pregnant in 2017, in which the father grabbed the mother, pushed her against the wall, causing her to hit a closed door and fall to the floor, with the father thereafter grabbing her by the wrists, and pressing her face to the floor. The mother alleges that this incident resulted in a miscarriage.[85]

(e) An incident in or about March 2018, which involved the father forcibly taking the mother to her GP, telling her it was for her "own good" as she was "mentally unwell", the parties arguing which ultimately led to a bystander intervening as the parties arrived at the GP clinic. The mother asserts that this incident ultimately resulted in her referral to Dr A.[86]

(f) The father refusing to allow the mother to travel to Country V for the funeral of a friend in November 2018.[87]

(g) An argument that took place in the presence of X on 23 January 2020, which included the father forcing his way into the room the mother was in, causing the door to swing into her, knocking her to the ground, with the father thereafter grabbing her wrists and dragging her to a "roughly upright position", the father pushing her against the wall, pushing and dragging her around the room, holding her face down on the floor with his knee pressed into the back of her neck causing the mother to hyperventilate and cry in fear, and suffer "bruising and scratches" to her face and arms. The mother further asserts that later in the day she suffered a panic attack which escalated into hyperventilation. The mother asserts she sought medical attention and disclosed this incident to her GP.[88]

(h) An incident on 8 April 2020 in which the mother alleges the father woke X from sleep and attempted to take her from the home resulting in the mother calling the police to attend the home. The mother says that when police attended the home, she was too afraid to tell them what had occurred.[89]

(i) An incident on 10 August 2020 in which the mother asserts the father shoved X resulting in X bumping her head and "crying hysterically".[90]

(j) An incident on 19 August 2020 in which the mother asserts that she sustained facial injuries as a result of "conflict" between the father and her, and about which she says she has no memory of how she sustained the facial injuries. The mother further asserts that she noticed deterioration of her right eye and in a telehealth appointment that followed (for which the father was present) she was too "scared" to disclose how she sustained the injuries.[91]

(k) An incident on 26 September 2020 in which the mother asserts that the father denigrated her and called her a "bitch" whilst the parties and X were in the car. The mother says that she asked the father to stop the car and when he did so she exited the vehicle, with the father following her and convincing her to get back into the vehicle. Thereafter whilst driving the mother asserts that the father lunged at her causing the car to swerve. The mother says that when the parties returned home and the mother was taking X out of the car, the father said to her "If you take her, I'll kill you". The mother asserts that thereafter the father continued to drive the car, knocking the mother over and causing her to fall to the ground. The mother says that she suffered an abrasion on her ankle and was "in immediate pain". The mother says that the father attempted to dissuade the mother from seeking medical treatment, but that she attended LL Hospital "for examination".[92]

(l) An incident on 11 October 2020 in which the mother alleges the father dragged the mother by her "ankle out of a small tent (tepee) in which [X] had fallen asleep". The mother says that she does not remember the entire incident, but that her next memory is of "lying on the landing, halfway down the flight of stairs in the home". She asserts that she sustained bruising to her ankle and the front of her leg during this incident.[93]

(m) An incident in 2020 in which the mother asserts that during an argument, in which she attempted to recover a suitcase so she could leave, the father saw her holding a strap and asked the mother if she was "trying to kill yourself again?". The mother says that the father was goading her, and ultimately "grabbed" her and pushed her against the wall. The mother says that this "triggered some unrelated historic injuries to my back and rendered [her] in immediate pain and unable to move". The mother asserts that the father threw X's bag which contained a full bottle of soy milk hitting her in the face. The mother says that she suffered a miscarriage after this incident.[94] As earlier identified, findings have been made that the mother was not pregnant at this time and that she did not suffer a miscarriage.

(n) An incident on 13 January 2021 in which the mother asserts that during an argument the mother fell onto the ground, with the father thereafter picking up "a small side table" and lifting it high into the hair before slamming it down "very close to where [she] sat on the ground", causing an indentation in the timber flooring. The mother says that after this incident she took a prescribed sleeping tablet, with the father saying to her "are you trying to overdose?"[95]

(o) An incident on 14 January 2021 in which the mother asserts that as she was cutting a mango in the kitchen, and the father approached her and asked her to put the knife down. The mother says that she "slammed the knife down on the cutting board in frustration" and said to the father "What do you think I'm going to do? Kill you? Come on, I'm not stupid. It's not worth it to kill you. I still have my life ahead of me, why would I give it up to kill you". The mother acknowledges that the father reported this incident to the Department of Communities and Justice and denies that she attempted to self-harm on this occasion.[96]

(p) An incident on 15 January 2021 in which the mother asserts that during an argument (that had continued from 13 January 2021), the father told X's nanny to "keep [X] away from her... she is a danger to [X]". The mother says that when the father left the home the parties continued to argue over the telephone, with the father thereafter returning home. The mother says that when the father returned home, he asked the mother to "pack your bags, because you are going to the hospital". The mother says that the parties had a physical "struggle", with the father ultimately calling the police alleging that the mother was having a "psychotic episode". The mother admits that a mental health acute care unit attended the home with police and that she co-operated and was conveyed by ambulance to LL Hospital. The mother says that she was too scared to tell the hospital staff about the family violence perpetrated against her by the father, and that she was ultimately discharged on 16 January 2021.[97]

(q) An incident on 7 February 2021 in which the mother asserts that the parties argued as the father wanted to take X with him to visit a friend. The mother says that as the father buckled X into her car seat, she "panicked and began to shout and knock on the windows of [the father's] vehicle with open hands". The mother says that after the father left the home, the police attended and thereafter a psychologist from the acute mental health care unit also attended.[98]

[239]

(a) The father identifies an argument which took place between the parties on 23 January 2020, which appears to correspond to the incident the mother asserts took place on 23 January 2020. The father asserts that during that incident the mother locked herself in her study in a "highly agitated state". The father says that when he ultimately gained entry to the study the mother was "on the floor kicking and waving her arms". He says that he observed the mother "scratching her own arms and face" and that she had kicked a pinboard attached to the wall, which had fallen on her face and caused bruising and further scratching. The father says that he assisted the mother to "stop her flailing and to prevent further injuries".[102]

(b) The father identifies an incident in April 2020, which appears to correspond with the incident the mother asserts took place on 8 April 2020. The father asserts that during this incident the mother was screaming at him in X's presence. The father says that when he told the mother he was going to leave with X, the mother called the police and when they ultimately attended the home the mother said very little to them.[103]

(c) The father identifies an incident in September 2020, which appears to correspond with the incident the mother asserts took place on 26 September 2020. In relation to this incident the father asserts that he had noticed the mother and the home to be "particularly dishevelled", with the mother's "dirty underwear, soiled sanitary pads, dirty clothes and towels on the floors and benchtops". The father says that X fell whilst brushing her teeth, banging her head. The father says that later in the day the parties left the home to go out for lunch, but when the parties got into the car the mother was "aggressive, hostile and argumentative". He asserts that the mother "repeatedly" punched him in the head. He says that at one stage when the car was stationary, the mother jumped out of the car and then got into the back seat. The father says that X was distressed. The father says that he decided to go home. He says that the mother remained agitated. He says that when the parties returned home the mother shouted at him and she began to take X out of the car. The father says that he drove the car, moving about 50 centimetres and then stopped and observed the mother on the ground. The father says that the mother shouted at him to "stay away" and she then took X out of the car. He says that he drove away crying, and when he returned the mother told him that she had a pain in her rib. He says that the mother went to the hospital by Uber and that when she later returned home, she told the father that she had a fractured rib.[104]

(d) The father identifies an incident in 2020, which appears to correspond to an incident the mother identifies at that same time. The father asserts that the mother was "hostile" towards him and said words to him that implied she was going to "kill herself". The father says that a short time later he found the mother in the storeroom holding a "cloth strap" and he thought she was trying to "make a noose". The father says that he "held onto her shoulders and guided her out of the storeroom and placed her on a step outside". The father says that several days later the mother told him that she'd had a miscarriage.[105] As earlier identified, findings have been made that no such pregnancy or miscarriage took place.

(e) The father also deposes to his version of events in the lead up to separation across 13-15 January 2021. He asserts that beginning on 13 January 2021, he observed the mother say or do things that led him to believe that she "may harm herself", including:

(i) Taking "pills out of a box" and telling the father "Don't you worry I am not going to kill myself, you are not worth it";[106]

(ii) The mother grabbing a knife the following day in the presence of X and "whilst screaming she stabbed a chopping board with the knife" hitting the chopping board with such force that the knife bent;[107] and

(iii) The mother telephoning the father the following day whilst he was at work and telling him "I am going to destroy you", resulting in the father ultimately telephoning the police and the mother being "scheduled by the mental health team".[108]

(f) The father also deposes to his version of events that took place on 6 February 2021 (which the mother asserts took place on 7 February 2021). The father asserts that the parties agreed that he would take X with him to his friend's home for dinner. The father says that as he went to leave the parties' home, the mother followed him into the garage "screaming and banging on the car windows". He says that he was on the phone to his friend at the time and that his friend must have heard the mother. The father says that he drove off and parked a short distance away. He says that he later understood that his friend telephoned police, resulting in the police and a mental health care team attending the home.

[242]

As earlier indicated, the father was not the subject of any cross-examination about the very serious allegations the mother had made against him. The mother's position was that as she was promoting a shared care arrangement, implicit in the same was that she accepted that X was not at risk in the father's care.
The position adopted by the mother was therefore that she did not ask the Court to make any findings about any of the allegations that she had made against the father. Whilst it is accepted that in the absence of asking the Court to make findings, there is no need to have cross-examined the father about these issues, that the mother was not asking the Court to make findings about her serious allegations of family violence, defies logic given the seriousness of the allegations she made. This is particularly confounding when it is understood that the mother did not resile from her allegations of family violence, and that the allegations included allegations of serious physical violence perpetrated against the mother and X by the father, together with allegations that the father threatened to kill her.
In light of the mother's tarnished credit, it would be easy to dismiss the mother's allegations of family violence all together. However, where the father also makes a range of allegations, in some instances regarding the same episodes the mother has identified, it is impossible to avoid considering this topic entirely.
However, in the absence the father's evidence in particular being challenged, it is impossible to make findings about any of these episodes including findings as to whether or not any particular incident can be categorised as an episode of family violence, and if so whether one or either, or indeed both of the parties were the aggressor.
As earlier identified however, there is some commonality between the parties that certain incidents did occur, and importantly, there is commonality between the parties that on at least two separate occasions the police and mental health services attended the family home, resulting in on at least one occasion the mother's admission to hospital for mental health treatment.
Taking into account all of these matters, the following limited findings are made:

[249]

In addition to these concerns, the mother also deposed to her concerns that X regularly returned to her care from the father's care with bruising;[117] which indicates the mother's concern that the father had caused physical harm to X and is suggestive that he might do so in the future.
The mother specifically identified an occasion on 14 November 2022 where she asserts X returned home with a bruise (described by the mother as "a distinct bruise on her wrist which resembled a fingerprint"), and that X disclosed to her "Daddy hit me". The mother deposed that she took a video of this exchange.[118] The mother did not ask the Court to receive any exhibits in relation to this allegation.
The mother did not otherwise depose in her trial affidavit filed on 18 December 2024, the allegation she had made in August 2024, during the course of a Court hearing, that the father had "hit" X and caused a bruise, as discussed in Edhouse & Edhouse (No 4) [2024] FedCFamC1F 647 at [25]- [30]. Again, the mother did not ask the Court to receive any exhibits in relation to this allegation.
During the final hearing, the father was not cross-examined whatsoever by the mother's counsel about any of the mother's "concerns" regarding the father, including the mother's allegations that the father had physically harmed X and/or caused bruising to X. This approach was again troubling, given the allegations of physical abuse of X which had been made. Whilst it might have been open to infer that the mother abandoned these allegations, again it became obvious during the mother's oral evidence that this was not the case.
The father sought specific findings that the mother had fabricated the allegations that he had physically harmed X. To that end, the mother was cross-examined by the father's counsel about her various allegations and/or inferences that the father had physically harmed X and/or caused her to suffer bruising; in particular in relation to the alleged bruising suffered by X in November 2022 and that in August 2024.
The mother's evidence when challenged about these two allegations was entirely unconvincing, and I do not accept that there has been any occasion where X has suffered non-accidental bruising and/or that the father has caused X non-accidental physical harm.
In relation to the August 2024 allegation, I am mindful that in Edhouse & Edhouse (No 4) [2024] FedCFamC1F 647 (at [70]), I discussed the chronology of events in some detail together summarising all of the evidence which was then before the Court (which was also received into evidence during the final hearing). For ease, I do not propose to repeat those matters here, and I incorporate my earlier reasons in this regard.
Of significance in those earlier reasons, I foreshadowed findings that would likely be made in relation to the mother's allegations regarding the August 2024 allegation that the father had caused X to suffer a bruise. Of significance my earlier reasons record:
1. When all of the matters discussed throughout these reasons are taken together, I consider that despite the interim nature of these proceedings the findings that are likely to ultimately be made (on the balance of probabilities) are:

[262]

Having considered all of these matters, and the findings which have now been made, the Court is left with an overarching concern about the safety of X in the care of the mother. This is because the findings made throughout these reasons support a finding that the mother has engaged in a pattern of deceptive behaviour; thus making it more likely than not that the mother has an untreated, unspecified personality disorder with both borderline personality and antisocial traits as identified by Dr F.
Whilst the Court understands that the mother has obtained long standing psychiatric treatment from Dr A, it does not appear that any of that treatment has been targeted towards either a specified or unspecified personality disorder. Rather the treatment has focussed on Dr A's diagnosis of the mother with PTSD, anxiety and depression. The consequence of this is that the Court is left with no evidence as to the willingness of the mother to accept Dr F's possible diagnosis and treatment recommendations, nor how she might adapt and respond to treatment.
It is for all of these reasons, and accepting the opinion of Dr F, that the Court is left with no alternative but to act protectively of X. This is because the findings made throughout these reasons support an overarching and pervasive concern about the risk of harm the mother poses to X and as a result the safety of X in the care of the mother.
During the final hearing, the father articulated with some precision why he considers he is unable to repose any trust in the mother and/or why he would not be able to make co-parenting decisions with her. His answer in that regard was genuine and compelling, with the father touching on a range of topics including what he considered to be, and the Court has now found to be, false allegations of his physical abuse of X, the death of the maternal grandmother and the mother's fabricated cancer diagnosis. The father additionally pointed to what he described as the mother's "weaponisation" of the Court proceedings, and the unnecessary prolongation of this litigation.
I accept the father's evidence that there is a lack of trust between the parties. I also consider that in light of all of the matters discussed throughout these reasons, there is no prospect of the parties ever being in a position of rebuilding that trust, such that they are able to have a functional co-parenting relationship. This view is one that Dr F also held and her opinion in this regard is accepted.
During her oral evidence, Dr F expressed concerns about the mother's level of insight into the effect of her conduct. Of some significant concern to the Court, and whilst the father was giving his long and detailed explanation as to why his lack of trust for the mother was so strong, the mother, who was sitting in the body of the court room listening to the father's evidence, audibly laughed. This reaction by the mother was troubling. I am satisfied that it belies her inability to whatsoever appreciate the gravity of her deceptions and conduct and the destructive impact it has had on the possibility that she might be able to have a functional co-parenting relationship with the father in the future, and/or the risk that she poses to X.

[265]

For all of the reasons discussed throughout these reasons, the Court is principally concerned with ensuring X's safety in every sense of the word.
Lest it not be obvious and with regard to the two stage assessment of risk discussed in Isles, the findings which have been made throughout these reasons, coupled with the broader factual matrix which has also been discussed, leave the Court with no doubt that the mother poses a risk of harm to X in the future.
The question for the Court therefore becomes whether there are measures capable of deployment that might ameliorate the risks the mother poses.
Whilst it is accepted that X has a close and loving relationship with each of her parents, the risk of harm posed by the mother is particularly troubling and problematic in light of Dr F's evidence; particularly given the findings which have now been made that the mother has engaged in a pattern of deceptive behaviour.
This is particularly so where aside from the mother's fabricated cancer diagnosis, the mother appears incapable of being truthful about much of her history and narrative, even when confronted with incontrovertible evidence that what she has asserted is not accurate.
Added to this, is the history of the mother's poor mental health, which does not appear to have been adequately treated and/or managed by Dr A, in circumstances where he appears incapable of entertaining that he himself has been embroiled in the mother's web of deception and/or that even if this were the case, he does not consider that his diagnosis (and implicitly his treatment) of the mother ought change.
Moreover, the mother's blithe willingness to embroil X in her false narrative elevates the risk she presents to X beyond one which might be managed and ameliorated against such that X is able to spend unsupervised time with the mother either now or in the foreseeable future.
Whilst the Court would ordinarily hesitate to make orders for long term supervision between a parent and a child, the evidence at this stage taken together does not support any finding other than X being at risk in the care of the mother, now and into the future; particularly if the mother does not obtain treatment.
The mother does not advance any arrangement that would see her time with X supervised. For all of the reasons discussed throughout these reasons, that position is rejected as one that is not safe for X and accordingly is not in her best interests.
The father promoted long term supervision of X's time spending with the mother. At present X is spending supervised time with the mother on two occasions each week in accordance with Order 2(c) of the orders made on 25 September 2024. Those periods of time spending take place for three hours on a Tuesday and three hours on a Saturday and are professionally supervised by Y Family Services.
The father's evidence is that the cost of these time spending arrangements is $399.36 for the time spending each Tuesday, and $418.00 for the time spending each Saturday; a combined total of almost $820 each week.[122]
The father, however says, that his financial circumstances are such that he is "concerned" about his ability to continue to meet the costs of this supervised time spending between the mother and X, "without it further financially impacting [X] and I".[123] He therefore asks the Court to make orders that provide for X to spend time with the mother for a period of up to three hours on the third Saturday of each month.
In addition to presently meeting the costs of supervised time spending, it is also accepted that the father has been paying the following in relation to X, pursuant to a Binding Child Support Agreement entered into by the parties as part of the resolution of the financial proceedings. That agreement provides that the father pay:

[280]

For all of these reasons, orders shall be made as to parental responsibility, X's living arrangements and her supervised time spending with the mother as appear at the commencement of these reasons.
I consider it appropriate that where there are to be orders for the long term supervision of X's time with the mother, and particularly given X's young age and the likelihood that she will engage in various extracurricular and sporting activities as she gets older, and/or where she may from time-to-time have social engagements (for example birthday parties and the like), there ought be some flexibility in the day and time on each weekend that her time spending with the mother is to take place. Accordingly, orders shall be made to provide for the same.
As earlier identified, the father promoted a range of additional orders. In that regard, and for all of the reasons discussed, I am satisfied that for the most part the suite of orders promoted by the father are an appropriate consequence of the orders to be made allocating parental responsibility to the father and X's living and time spending arrangements; save that given X's young age, some accommodation needs to be made for the fact that the availability of various services and arrangements may change (for example the contact service and the communication app).
I do not however consider it appropriate nor in X's best interests that at some point of time in the future that X be required to communicate with the mother about whether she wishes her to attend her school and or any other activities. This is because doing so places X in an invidious position of having to make a choice in this regard and opens her to the possibility of pressure being exerted by each of her parents. Rather, I consider that the mother more generally be permitted to attend X's school for the purposes of attending events that parents are ordinarily invited to attend (for example concerts, assemblies and presentations), provided notice is given to the father and he has the opportunity to prepare X. In addition, if there are occasions where the father considers it safe for the mother to attend (including his home or to watch X's sport and/or extracurricular activities), it is appropriate that he invite the mother to do so at his discretion. I have come to these conclusions because I consider that there is limited opportunity for the mother in such an environment to expose X to and/or embroil her in her deceptive behaviours.
For all of the foregoing reasons, I now make those orders that appear at the commencement of these reasons.

Edhouse & Edhouse (No 5) [2025] FedCFamC1F 774 (5 November 2025)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (353 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (1)