Eglitis & Droit [2025] FedCFamC1F 616 (5 September 2025)

1. The child live with the mother.
2. The child spend time with the father as agreed between the parties in writing, and failing agreement as follows:

(a) From the date of these Orders for a period of three months:

(i) Each Tuesday from the conclusion of school/kinder (or 2:00pm) until 7:00pm;

(ii) Each alternate weekend:

1. On Saturday from 9:00am until 7:00pm.
2. On Sunday from 9:00am until 7:00pm.

(b) At the conclusion of the time period provided at 3(a), for a period of three months:

(i) Each Tuesday from the conclusion of school/kinder (or 2:00pm) until 7:00pm;

(ii) Each alternate weekend from 9:00am Saturday until 5:00pm Sunday.

(c) At the conclusion of the time period provided at 3(b), for a period of three months:

(i) Each Tuesday from the conclusion of school/kinder (or 2:00pm) until 7:00pm;

(ii) Each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school/kinder (or 3:00pm) Friday until 5:00pm Sunday.

(d) At the conclusion of the time period provided at 3(c), for a period of three months:

(i) In week one of a fortnightly cycle, on Tuesday from the conclusion of school/kinder (or 2:00pm) until 7:00pm;

(ii) In week two of a fortnightly cycle, from the conclusion of school/kinder (or 3:00pm) Friday until the commencement of school/kinder (or 9:00am) Monday.

(e) At the conclusion of the time period provided at 3(d):

(i) In week one of a fortnightly cycle, from the conclusion of school/kinder (or 2:00pm) Tuesday until the commencement of school/kinder (or 9:00am) Wednesday.

(ii) In week two of a fortnightly cycle, from the conclusion of school/kinder (or 3:00pm) Friday until the commencement of school/kinder (or 9:00am) Monday.

1. During school holidays once the child commences primary school, the arrangements at paragraph 3 of these Orders be suspended to enable the child to spend time with the father during the school holidays as follows:

(a) When X is in Prep:

(i) During the term 1, 2 and 3 school holidays, for a period of 5 consecutive nights commencing the first Saturday after the school term ends;

(ii) During the long summer holidays, for 3 blocks of 5 consecutive nights as agreed between the parties in writing, and failing agreement, with the first block commencing the first Saturday of the school holiday period and each alternate week thereafter.

(b) From the child's commencement of Year 1 onwards:

(i) For one half of each school term holidays as agreed in writing, and failing agreement as follows:

1. In an odd numbered year, for the second half of the school holidays commencing at 5:00pm on the day being the midpoint of the term holidays and concluding at 5:00pm on the day before the re-commencement of school;
2. In an even numbered year, for the first half of the school holidays commencing at the conclusion of school on the last day of term and concluding on 5:00pm on the day being the midpoint of the term holidays.

(ii) During the long summer school holidays, the child will spend time with each parent on a week about basis with the first week of the holidays to be with the mother in even years and with the father in odd years.

1. Notwithstanding paragraphs 2 to 4 of these Orders, the child spend time with the parents for special occasions as follows:

(a) With the mother from 5:00pm on the Saturday preceding Mother's Day until 7:00pm on Mother's Day;

(b) With the father from 5:00pm on the Saturday preceding Father's Day until 7:00pm on Father's Day;

(c) On the child's birthday, from 3:00pm until 7:00pm, with the parent who does not otherwise have care of the child pursuant to these Orders;

(d) For each parent's birthday, the child spend time with that parent from 3:00pm until 7:00pm;

(e) For Christmas 2025 and each alternate year thereafter:

(i) With the mother from 3:00pm Christmas Eve until 3:00pm Christmas Day;

(ii) With the father from 3:00pm Christmas Day until 3:00pm Boxing Day.

(f) For Christmas 2026 and each alternate year thereafter:

(i) With the father from 3:00pm Christmas Eve until 3:00pm Christmas Day;

(ii) With the mother from 3:00pm Christmas Day until 3:00pm Boxing Day.

(g) For Easter 2026 and each alternate year thereafter:

(i) With the mother from 3:00pm Easter Saturday until 3:00pm Easter Sunday;

(ii) With the father from 3:00pm Easter Sunday until 3:00pm Easter Monday.

(h) For Easter 2027 and each alternate year thereafter:

(i) With the father from 3:00pm Easter Saturday until 3:00pm Easter Sunday;

(ii) With the mother from 3:00pm Easter Sunday until 3:00pm Easter Monday.

(i) At such other times or further times as agreed in writing by the parents.

1. Changeover occur at a location agreed between the parties in writing and failing agreement:

(a) At the child's school/kinder at school/kinder times.

(b) At a midpoint location as agreed between the parties in writing and failing agreement, at Suburb B McDonalds.

1. The parties will be at liberty to communicate with the child at all reasonable times as agreed between the parties and failing agreement:

(a) Each Tuesday and Thursday from 6:30pm until 7:00pm with the parent of which the child is not in the care of.

(b) The parent whom the child is in the care of is to facilitate such communication.

1. The parents will communicate with each other in relation to all matters concerning the child in writing via the "2Houses" app, except in the case of an emergency in which case the parents may communicate verbally by telephone call.
2. The parents notify the other in writing of any change or proposed change to their email addresses, residential address and telephone numbers.
3. Within 7 days of the date of these Orders, the mother provide the father with a list of all of the child's medical or allied health treaters and provide the father with any updates to these treaters within 7 days of any changes occurring.
4. Either parent be at liberty to provide the child's treaters with a copy of these Orders.
5. The parents advise each other by the 2Houses app as soon as reasonably practicable upon becoming aware of any of the following in relation to the child:

(a) Any illness or injury requiring a medical examination or medical consultation;

(b) Any illness requiring the provision to the child of any medicine prescribed by a medical practitioner;

(c) Any hospital attendance for examination, consultation or treatment;

(d) Any proposed dental treatment;

(e) Any proposed appointment with any other health professional, including all details as to the health or educational professional and the time of the attendance or appointment; and

(f) Any issue of concern raised with either parent by the child's school relating to his education, welfare or behaviour.

1. Each parent be at liberty to attend any school event, sports days, parent teacher nights, functions or meetings at which parent of the child would normally be entitled to be present.

1. Each parent be permitted to travel with the child overseas during the periods in which the child is in the respective parent's care (or such other period as agreed between the parents in writing) provided that:

(a) The party who intends to travel overseas must give to the other parent at least 60 days clear notice of their intention to travel with such notice to include details as to where the child will be travelling to, where the child will be staying and all details in relation to the transportation of the child;

(b) At least 30 days prior to the intended date of departure the travelling parent must provide a full itinerary and copy of tickets evidencing return to Australia, contact details for the child overseas;

(c) At least 30 days prior to the intended date of departure the passport is to be made available to the travelling parent; and

(d) The travelling parent must provide proof to the other parent that the child has received vaccinations necessary to enable the child to leave and return to Australia from the intended travel destination.

1. The child's passport is to be held by the mother unless the child is travelling with the father.
2. No later than seventy-two (72) hours after returning to Australia from any overseas travel, the father is to return the child's passport to the mother for safekeeping.
3. Each parent must, at the written request of the other, forthwith do all acts and things necessary to cause the child to be issued with an Australian Passport and thereafter do all acts and things necessary to cause the passport to be renewed if any such request is made by the other parent.
4. Should each party agree that the travelling parent may travel with the child during their scheduled time with the non-travelling parent, arrangements shall be made for the child to spend make-up time with the non-travelling parent as agreed between the parents in writing.

1. The father to do all acts and things necessary to undergo a hair follicle drug and alcohol test every four months for a period of two years following the making of the Final Orders being made by the Court and for the purpose of these Orders:

(a) The first test shall take place within 21 days of the making of the Final Orders;

(b) On each occasion, the father make an appointment and attend for hair collection at T Clinic or nominee for hair drug and alcohol testing purposes. Collection is to be conducted by a qualified and certified collector. Chain-of- Custody procedure is to be applied to the sample. Testing is to be conducted at an approved laboratory, accredited to conduct hair drug testing to the recognised International Standard ISO/IEC 17025:2005 by the relevant national accreditation body for that laboratory. Either head or body hair may be collected for testing. To give effect to this order:

(i) The father is required to maintain his head hair at a length of not less than four (4) centimetres; neither head hair nor body hair is to be cut, bleached or dyed between the date of this order and the time of collection of hair;

(ii) Each party or their legal representatives is at liberty to provide T Clinic with a copy of these orders;

(iii) The father to attend at an T Clinic or nominee and submit to the supervised collection of a hair sample from the T Clinic on the relevant date;

(iv) The father is to provide the collector with photographic identification to be recorded before each hair collection and authority, with this order also hereby authorising T Clinic or nominee to provide the results of each test to both parties and their legal representatives forthwith upon receipt of such test results;

(v) The hair drug test must screen for alcohol and drugs of abuse including amphetamine-type substance and metabolites, cannabis and metabolites, cocaine and metabolites, opioids and metabolites and any other drug as required and any other drug specified in this order as required;

(vi) T Clinic is required to utilise the testing services of an appropriate laboratory accredited to conduct hair drug testing to the recognised International Standard ISO/IEC 17025:2005 by the relevant National Accreditation body; and

(vii) T Clinic's selection is to be based on the type of test required, the specific drug or drugs to be tested, the laboratory's compliance level with international Society of Hair Testing (SoHT) guidelines, cost, and time required for results to be made available.

1. In the event that the father produces a test result which is positive for illicit substances or produces an excessive alcohol result, the child's time with him pursuant to these Orders be suspended, with both parties to have liberty to apply.

1. That the parents and their servants and agents are restrained by injunction from:

(a) Abusing, insulting, belittling, rebuking or otherwise denigrating the other party; and

(b) Discussing these proceedings or the contents of any documents filed in or intended for use in these proceedings to, with or in the presence or hearing of the child and permitting any other person to do so.

1. Each parent shall authorise all or any school/kinder staff, extracurricular providers, medical or allied health treaters that the child may attend to communicate with both parents in respect to the child and receive any information concerning the child.
2. The father's time with the child shall be suspended from 27 January 2026 until 5 February 2026 with arrangements to be made for make up time between the father and child as agreed between the parents in writing.

1. All previous parenting orders be discharged.
2. The Independent Children's Lawyer be discharged.

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 the pseudonym Eglitis & Droit has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. This matter concerns the parenting arrangements for the child, X born in 2021 ("the child") between the applicant father, Mr Eglitis born in 1989 ("the father") and the respondent mother, Ms Droit born in 1984 ("the mother").

1. The parties commenced a relationship in 2019.[1] They were married in 2020 and separated on 29 December 2022.[2] There is only one child to the marriage.
2. The mother characterises the relationship as volatile and fraught with family violence perpetrated on her by the father.[3] The father admits that he was verbally abusive but denies any other form of family violence.
3. The father suffers from a substance use disorder involving methamphetamine. The father's evidence is that he commenced using marijuana throughout his teenage years. The father secured a job at U Company following high school and this is where he says that he began experimenting with other illegal substances.[4] In about 2012, the father was first exposed to methamphetamines and he would consume it every few months.[5] The father gives evidence that in 2015 he resigned from U Company and his ICE use became daily.[6] The father then secured a job at C Company and his methamphetamine use decreased for a period. He met the mother through his employment at C Company and they began dating but the relationship ended after ten months.[7]
4. In 2018, the father left C Company and his methamphetamine use increased again.[8] In March 2019, he moved to Tasmania to live with the paternal grandfather in an attempt to cease his methamphetamine usage. It was around this time that he contacted the mother and they re-commenced a relationship.[9] The mother was living in Country D during this period and in late 2019, the father travelled to Country D where he proposed shortly thereafter.[10]
5. The father's evidence is that he commenced using methamphetamines again in January 2020 which gradually increased to the extent where he would leave the parties' home following arguments with the mother, use methamphetamines and go to venues with poker machines to gamble.[11] The father was a 'closet user' and the mother was unaware of his illicit drug use (although she was aware that he had previously used methamphetamines).
6. The mother became aware of the father's illicit drug use in about September 2022 after being told by an extended family member.[12] Following this, the parties went on what the father describes as a 'break' where he left the family home before returning in late 2022.[13] In late 2022, the father was scheduled to commence rehabilitation at E Treatment Centre for 28 days, however, he says that around this time the mother became aware of his infidelity whilst they were on a 'break' and the parties separated on a final basis.[14] Whilst the father did complete his 28 days at E Treatment Centre, the mother contends that the father told her it was meant to be a three month program.[15]
7. The father relapsed on an occasion in May 2023. He asserts, and I accept, that this was the last time he used methamphetamine.[16] I accept this by reason of the number of clean drug test results he has produced after that date.
8. Following separation, the mother facilitated Facetime calls between the child and father but did not allow any face to face spend time to occur.[17] The parties were able to resolve property proceedings but were unable to finalise any parenting agreement despite the father giving evidence that they lodged forms and intake assessments with the Family Contact Service with a view to implementing supervised visits.[18]

1. The father filed an Initiating Application on 8 August 2023 seeking parenting orders for equal shared parental responsibility and graduating overnight time with the child. The mother filed her Response on 8 September 2023.
2. On 23 November 2023, orders were made by Senior Judicial Registrar Jenkinson for the child to spend time with the father with such time to be supervised by the Family Contact Service each Saturday for up to three hours between 10:00am and 1:00pm. Provision was made for a FaceTime call each Tuesday for a period up to 30 minutes. The father was also to undergo supervised hair drug and alcohol testing every three months and supervised urine drug screens within 24 hours of a request from the Independent Children's Lawyer ("ICL").
3. On 27 March 2024, the father filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking increased time graduating to overnight.
4. On 4 June 2024, Senior Judicial Registrar Jenkinson made orders that the father spend time with the child graduating to each Tuesday from 3:30pm until 6:30pm, each alternate weekend on Saturday from 11:00am until 5:00pm and on Sunday from 11:00am until 5:00pm to be supervised by the paternal grandmother or such other person as agreed between the parties in writing subject to the provision of an undertaking being provided to the Court as drafted by the ICL.
5. On 6 September 2024, the father filed an Application in a Proceeding claiming urgency and for time to be reinstated in circumstances where the mother ceased time after she had concerns that the father had sexually abused the child. On 16 September 2024, the mother filed her Response to Application in a Proceeding seeking for the father's time with the child to be suspended and for the father to undergo a psycho-sexual assessment. The mother informed the Court on the first day that the matter was listed for trial that she would not be pressing allegations that the father had sexually abused the child. This was the first indication that these claims would not be proceeded with.
6. On 2 October 2024, Senior Judicial Registrar Jenkinson made orders that the orders of 4 June 2024 remain in full force and effect with some minor amendments.

1. The mother seeks orders that the father spend no time or have any contact with the child. In the alternative, if the Court were to make a finding that the father is not an unacceptable risk to the child, the mother seeks orders that she have sole decision-making responsibilities for the child and the father spend time with the child graduating to each alternate weekend from 5:00pm Friday until 5:00pm Sunday and for all half of school term holidays and for about two weeks during the long summer holidays. The child's time with the father pursuant to these proposed orders is subject to hair follicle testing until 2029 with the order for time to be discharged if a test returns positive or the father fails to undertake a test.
2. The father seeks orders that the parties have joint-decision making authority for long-term issues concerning the child, for the child to spend graduating time with him culminating, in week one, from the conclusion of kinder/school on Tuesday until the commencement of kinder/school on Thursday and, in week two, from the conclusion of kinder/school on Friday until the commencement of kinder/school on Monday and for half of all school holidays.
3. The ICL provided the Court with a minute of proposed orders where they sought orders that the mother have sole-decision making authority regarding long-terms issues relating to the child providing that she consult with the father, for the child to live with the mother and spend time with the father graduating to, in the first week, from the conclusion of school/kinder on Tuesday until the commencement of school/kinder on Wednesday and, in the second week, from the conclusion of school/kinder Friday until the commencement of school/kinder on Monday. The proposed orders also make provision for the father to spend time with the child in school holidays graduating to half of all school holidays and for hair follicle testing every four months for a period of two years.

1. By way of his Outline of Case filed 24 June 2025, the father relies upon:

(a) amended Application for Final Orders filed 19 May 2025;

(b) affidavit of Mr Eglitis filed 19 May 2025;

(c) affidavit of Ms F filed 19 May 2025;

(d) affidavit of Ms G filed 19 May 2025;

(e) affidavit of Dr H (psychologist) filed 15 May 2025;

(f) affidavit of Mr J (psychologist) filed 15 May 2025;

(g) affidavit of Dr K (single expert witness) filed 18 February 2025;

(h) documents produced under the subpoena issued to the L Family Services filed 25 November 2024;

(i) section 67ZBE Response filed 23 September 2024;

(j) documents produced under the subpoena issued to M Hospital filed 29 August 2024;

(k) documents produced under the subpoena issued to N Health Services filed 29 August 2024;

(l) affidavit of Ms O - Family Contact Service (professional contact supervisor) filed 28 May 2024;

(m) documents produced under the subpoena issued to P Family Services filed 27 March 2024;

(n) affidavit of Ms O - Family Contact Service (professional contact supervisor) filed 7 March 2024;

(o) section 69ZW Response filed 15 November 2023; and

(p) documents produced under the subpoena issued to Victoria Police filed 1 November 2023.

1. By way of her Outline of Case filed 27 June 2025, the mother relies upon:

1. By way of their Outline of Case, the ICL relies upon:

(a) affidavit of Dr K annexing Family Report filed 18 February 2025;

(b) section 67ZBE Response filed 23 September 2024;

(c) section 69ZW Response filed 15 November 2023; and

(d) various subpoena material.

1. In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to the children, I must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.[19]
2. Section 60CC(2) of the Act sets out the list of matters that the Court must consider in determining what is in the children's best interests.
3. Orders in respect of children are made under Part VII of the Act, where the meaning of a "parenting order" is defined (s 64B). The Court may make such parenting orders as it thinks proper (s 65D(1)), within the context of the objects of the legislation (s 60B). The objects of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 ("the Act") are to ensure that the best interests of children are met, including by ensuring their safety, and to give effect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989.[20] My decision is guided by those objects.
4. The Act confirms that safety includes safety from family violence, abuse, neglect or other harm.[21] Family violence and abuse are defined in the Act as "violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family or causes the family member to be fearful".[22] Examples of such behaviour include assaults, repeated derogatory taunts, intentionally damaging property, unreasonably withholding financial support and preventing a family member from keeping connections with his or her family and friends.
5. The Explanatory Memorandum indicates further that "other harm" allows me to consider whether these children are affected by issues such as inter-parental conflict.[23]
6. "Safety" is not defined in the Act. I note that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Family Law Amendment Act 2023 states that s 60B(a) of the Act is "intended to make it clear to all users of the Family Law Act that safety is a fundamental consideration when considering the best interests of the child."[24] It goes on to state that Courts should consider "what arrangements would encourage or support a removal, reduction or avoidance of harm".[25]
7. In considering these matters I must include consideration of:

(a) any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child; and

(b) any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child's family.[26]

1. Parental responsibility for children is vested in their parents (s 61C(1)), regardless of whether they live together or are separated (s 61C(2)), but that situation only applies whilst ever no order is made to change it (s 61C(3) and s 61D). Parental responsibility is defined to encompass all duties, powers, responsibilities and authority conferred by law upon parents (s 61B).

What arrangements would promote the safety of the child (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of the child and each person who has care of the child (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for the child)

In considering the matters set out in paragraph (2)(a) the Court must include consideration of any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child (whether or not the person had parental responsibility for the child) and any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child's family**

1. Section 60CG of the Act requires the Court, when making a parenting order, to ensure the order does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence and is consistent with an existing family violence order.
2. In early 2023, the mother applied for an interim FVO, the child was not specifically named.[27] Later that month, the FVO was amended to include the child as a person at risk.[28] In early 2023, the father consented to the making of the FVO on a final basis but without admissions.[29] The mother has reported about six occasions where the father has breached the FVO, including in August 2023 due to the volume of messages the father sent her on 2Houses messenger service.[30] The father has not been charged with any breaches of the FVO.[31]
3. The FVO was set to expire in early 2025, and the mother applied for it to be extended. There was a hearing at the Magistrates' Court in Suburb Q where the mother was to file further particulars to support her application by mid-2025 and the matter was listed for mid2025.[32]
4. In Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97; (2022) FLC 94-092 the Full Court, in relation to unacceptable risk, provided that the Court is to undertake a qualitative analysis of the evidence directed not just to the existence of the risk of harm but also to the magnitude of the possible harm whereby a possibility may be sufficient basis upon which to find an unacceptable risk.
5. Throughout the conduct of these proceedings the mother alleged that the child had made disclosures which indicated that the father had sexually abused the child.
6. The mother focused much of her case on allegations that the father had sexually abused the child prior to the hearing. At the commencement of the hearing, however, counsel for the mother informed the Court that the mother was no longer pressing that the father is an unacceptable risk of sexual harm towards the child.
7. Where the mother does not press a finding that the father is an unacceptable risk of sexual harm, I do not propose to make any findings regarding the father's alleged conduct in that regard. The father has denied he has behaved in such a manner and the mother, by her evidence in cross examination, accepts that this is the case.
8. I, therefore, turn to what counsel for the mother said was the basis of the unacceptable risk posed by the father, being the possibility that he may relapse and the associated risk with that, including physical harm to the child, compromised parenting capacity and emotional harm in that any relationship that the child has formed with the father would cease.
9. The father's history of illicit drug use is considerable. On his own evidence, the father attempted to cease his usage in March 2019 when he moved to City R to live with the paternal grandfather.[33] Whilst he was able to cease his usage from about March 2019 until December 2019,[34] he recommenced using again in January 2020.[35] His final relapse occurred in May 2023 which was after he attended rehab which he says he derived great benefit from.[36] His usage was a feature of his life for about a decade and would dramatically increase when stressors would be present, particularly leaving employment, COVID-19 lockdowns or issues in the relationship with the mother.
10. The mother agrees that whilst she was unaware of the father's illicit drug use, she now can see the signs that were present during their relationship, in particular that his addiction caused instances of family violence.[37] Whilst the father does not accept all allegations of family violence, he concedes that he was verbally abusive towards the mother and accepts that this constituted family violence.
11. In my view, the risk of the father relapsing into drug use does not present an unacceptable risk to the child. This is on the basis that the father has produced 34 clean drug screen tests since May 2023 and the accuracy of those tests have not been challenged. The father has seriously engaged in therapy with an experienced clinical psychologist, Dr H, and has attended 18 sessions with that practitioner. The Court has before it a report from Dr H and had the benefit of her evidence. She expressed the opinion that the father presently has a stimulant use disorder (amphetamine-type substance) which is severe in sustained remission. Dr H did not present as partisan when giving evidence and the Court was left with the impression that the treatment she had provided to the father, and the evidence that she gave to the Court, was informed by considerable formal qualifications and experience.
12. There was also evidence given by Mr J, a psychologist with a background in treating patients with substance use disorders. He provided a report dated [...] May 2025 annexed to an affidavit filed 15 May 2025 and refers to the father as being in recovery. Mr J was cross examined and his opinion was unchanged.
13. The father has remained drug-free throughout the course of these proceedings which will have been the subject of significant stress given the grave allegations that were made against him in relation to the sexual abuse of the child. It is notable that he has not relapsed into illicit drug use through this period.
14. I note that the father is regularly attending Narcotics Anonymous and has completed a Men's Behaviour Change Program, Tuning into Kids, Triple P Parenting Program and a Post Separation Parenting Course.
15. The Family Report writer Dr K ("the Family Report writer") gave evidence that there was nothing further that the father could have done to demonstrate that he is drug free.
16. For these reasons, I do not regard the risk of relapse into drug use as being an unacceptable risk to the child. Further, I do not regard the risk of a loss of the relationship between the father and child in the event of relapse as a sufficient reason not to order time. It is not axiomatic that a relapse would lead to a complete loss of relationship. That point was made by the Family Report writer when giving evidence before the Court.
17. The mother submitted that the father's credit was in issue as a result of inconsistent responses that he gave during his intake at the rehabilitation facility. It was the mother's submissions that the responses he gave in those intake documents were given when he was drug addicted and affected. This may explain inconsistencies in his responses, and I do not regard those matters as a ground for making orders that he spends no time with the child.
18. The compelling evidence in relation to risk is the unchallenged evidence that he has remained drug free since May 2023. The regime of testing proposed by the orders of the ICL provide a safeguard to the child and the mother. I also accept that the paternal grandmother and aunt will act protectively.
19. In relation to the consideration of the history of family violence, the father has admitted to engaging in family violence by way of verbal abuse of the mother, including referring to her in strongly derogatory terms. The mother has alleged that there were incidents of physical and sexual family violence, but I do not accept that the evidence goes to establish that he engaged in physical or sexual violence against the mother or that there is any appreciable risk that he will do so in the future. I accept the father's evidence that the verbal family violence occurred in circumstances where he was drug addicted. There are no reported incidents of family violence since these proceedings were issued (aside from the alleged breaches of the FVO). The mother conducted the case on the basis that the risks posed by the father arose from his previous drug use and the risks associated with any relapse rather than risks arising from family violence.

The developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child**

1. It does not appear that the child's needs are beyond those typical of a child his age. The mother gives evidence that in September 2024, she took the child to a Maternal Child Health Nurse where the child was then assessed. The child was identified as developing well in all areas and that he was in the 50th percentile range for his physical growth and measurements.[38] Notwithstanding, the mother says that she has been informed by early educators of the following issues identified with the child:[39]
   1. [the child] has refused to eat;
   2. [the child] has been dysregulated and at times, required me to attend up on the centre to collect [the child];
   3. [the child] has been observed to display anxiety based traits, such as nail biting and 'lip chewing'. On occasion, the lip chewing has caused [the child] to require blood to be wiped from his face; and
   4. [the child] has shown signs of fretting and withdrawal from social settings with his peers.
2. The mother is of the belief that these traits are a sign of worry and anxiety and that she has been advised by the early educators that the child requires further assessment.[40] The Family Report writer noted that the child appeared shy, nervous and uneasy and that it was difficult to establish rapport.[41]
3. The Family Report writer further stated that the child struggled to separate from the mother and may feel a sense of foreignness and displacement in the care of the father over more protracted periods (although there was no doubt that the child enjoys his visits with the father).[42] The Family Report writer referred to his interaction with the child and described it as "odd" and that the child appeared tepid in relation to the time with the father but stated that, that is not to "infer dysfunction or malfeasance in the care of [the father]".[43]
4. During closing submissions, counsel for the ICL referred to a recommendation by S Family Services that the child is to engage with a mental health professional. As to whether the child is referred is a matter for the parties.

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

1. I have dealt with concerns surrounding the father's diagnosis as a drug addict in remission, which, were he to relapse, would have obvious impacts on his parenting capacity. Where the father has remained abstinent from illicit drugs, the evidence suggests that the father has the capacity to provide for the child's needs. I refer to the interactions between the child and father which were recorded by professional supervisors at pages 53-54 of a report prepared by Ms O where she noted:

(a) there is no doubt that the child shares a familiar bond with his father and has transitioned to the visits with ease;

(b) the child refers to the father as "Baba" and has often expressed his love for his father;

(c) physical interaction between the father and the child has been affectionate and loving;

(d) the father has been observed to be patient, loving and attentive. There have not been any concerns noted regarding the father's interaction with the child;

(e) the father has demonstrated exceptional parenting skills including feed the child setting appropriate boundaries, ensuring his safety and attending to his basic care needs extremely well; and

(f) the father has attended the visits extremely well prepared with his own travel bag including toys, activities and healthy home-made food options for the child to enjoy.

1. The Family Report writer, however, was of the opinion that the father presented with an underdeveloped parenting capacity. In the Family Report writer's opinion, this was due to the father having been absent for much of the child's life and therefore rarely caring for the child without a lot of assistance. On this basis, the Family Report writer recommended that any increase in time between the father and the child must be gradual to allow the father time to develop his parenting acumen and familiarity with raising a small child.[44]
2. I accept both above mentioned observations which go to the father's capacity to care for the child. The father has demonstrated a capacity to care for the child and a strong willingness to do so, however, it is only natural that this will be underdeveloped where he has not spent a large amount of time with the child. His capacity to care for the child's needs will only progress, but the Court notes the caution expressed by the Family Report writer that such capacity will need to develop over time.
3. There are concerns raised in relation to the mother's capacity. This is due to circumstances where she has raised allegations of sexual abuse of the child against the father, proceeded with medical examinations of the child when advised by the medical professionals that their examination did not support a finding that the child had been abused and the subsequent abandonment of those claims at the last minute. Her persistence with seeking orders that the father spend no time with the child in the face of evidence that the father has not relapsed into drug use since May 2023 and where the reports from supervisors show that the father has a loving relationship with the child raises questions about her capacity to provide for the child's developmental, psychological and emotional needs.
4. This is a case where both parties will have to check themselves in order to ensure that they act in the best interests of the child. Understandably the mother is very angry and upset that she commenced a relationship with a person who is addicted to drugs (which she was unaware of), that the marriage was affected by the father's addiction and that he treated her badly during the course of the relationship as a result of that addiction. The mother is also understandably upset that the father was unfaithful to her during the course of the short marriage when she was pregnant with the child. Further, she encouraged/assisted the father attending rehabilitation in order to try and save the relationship and then he promptly relapsed into drug use shortly after leaving the rehabilitation facility. All these matters go to give some explanation for the mother's animus towards the father and her reluctance to have the child spend time with him in circumstances where she feels that she has been badly hurt by her experiences with him. With that said, both parents have the capacity to care for the child.

The benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child's parents, and other people who are significant to the child, where it is safe to do so**

1. The Family Report writer strongly emphasised the benefits to the child in having a relationship with the father, describing the loss of a relationship as injurious (causing lifelong harm) and ruinous. The strong recommendation from the Family Report writer was that the father should have a relationship with the child where he made the following observations:

...

1. This situation between [X] and his father is more complex. Prior to separation, [Mr Eglitis] was responsible for providing for the family financially. As a result, he did not have the level of involvement with the child that [Ms Droit] had. There was almost a year where there was no contact between [X] and his father. Currently, their time is limited to six hours per week, and compromised by having a supervisor in attendance. Collectively, throughout his short life, [X] has had far less exposure to his father. In turn, he has not had the benefit of consistent, repeated, and immersive interactions that he has experienced with his mother. [X]'s relationship with his father is far more cursory. There is some degree of familiarity between the child and his father, though there is not a deep sense of connection evidenced by the child. Indeed, [X] has struggled to separate from his mother and transition into the care of his father. [X] may feel a sense of foreignness and displacement in the care of his father over more protracted periods. While I have no doubt that [X] has enjoyed visits with his father since they recommenced, ambivalence is a feature of [X]'s approach towards his father.
2. In short, [X] does not have the same sense of connection with his father as he does with his mother. For this reason alone, it is crucial that [X] continues to live mainly in the care of [Ms Droit], at least until he is settled into school, and has had an opportunity to build a more immersive relationship with [Mr Eglitis]. Any change to the child's living arrangement will need to be gradual, to ensure that [X] is able to grow in his connection with his father, and equally, that [Mr Eglitis] can adjust to caring for [X] unassisted. I am not yet of the view that sole parental responsibility is essential, in circumstances where there is little clinical data to demonstrate that [X] has been disadvantaged by his parents' inability to agree on a given course of action. However, if there is not improvement between the parties, this may become a requirement for the child in the years ahead.

...

98 ...

1. Ultimately, the question before the court relates to the longer term living arrangements for [X]. As noted previously, [X] is still a very young child, with a far closer bond with his mother. He lacks familiarity with [Mr Eglitis's] provision of care. Still, [X] needs an opportunity to grow his connection to his father, so that he can be raised with the loving input of both parents.
2. Having regard to the issues outlined in the preceding sections, I have formed the view that [X] should be spending more time with his father than what presently exists...

1. It is clear on the evidence that there is a benefit to the child in having a relationship with the father. It is also the case that the child will benefit from having a relationship with his paternal grandmother and the paternal aunt. The paternal grandmother and paternal aunt gave evidence by way of affidavit and oral evidence.
2. The paternal grandmother gave evidence that she had a close relationship with all her grandchildren, and she was frank regarding the father's illicit drug use. She gave oral evidence that the father was living with her when he relapsed and when she became aware of him relapsing, she did not remove him from her house but rather informed him that she will continue to support him as long he remained abstinent and provided her with a copy of all his drug tests results. She also gave evidence of having driven the father to some of his narcotic anonymous meetings and having met with some of the friends the father had made in these meetings.
3. The paternal aunt gave evidence that she is agreeable to the father living with her if there is more time between him and the child. Her evidence was that she is happy for this to be on an indefinite basis and that the father and the child would each have their own rooms. The maternal aunt said that she lives about a 20-25-minute drive away from the mother.
4. The paternal grandmother and aunt were impressive witnesses. They presented as frank, sensible and as significant supports for both the child and the father.

1. Notwithstanding that the focus of these proceedings were the risks to the child presented by the father's substance use disorder, the mother is opposed to the child being administered vaccinations that are recommended by Australian health authorities for children. The child has not been vaccinated. The evidence establishes that, prior to these proceedings being issued, the father was also opposed to vaccinations and he expressed, in very strong terms in text messages, his opposition to vaccination (although he says that, that opposition was to receiving a COVID-19 vaccination rather than the administration of vaccinations to children generally).
2. Whether it is in a latter-day epiphany, the father now says that he is in favour of the child being vaccinated and that is a point of difference between he and the mother. The hearing was not conducted as an investigation into the efficacy and safety of vaccinations and it appears that the child was able to be enrolled in kindergarten without vaccination by the mother relying on what can best be described as a loophole whereby the mother falls under an exemption under the legislation preventing unvaccinated children attending child care as she has a health care card.[45] Neither party sought orders for the child to be vaccinated.
3. Given that the parties are apparently now in dispute regarding whether or not the child is to be vaccinated, I will make orders for the mother to have sole decision-making authority for the child but will make provision for the mother to consult with father per the terms proposed by the ICL. If issues arise in relation to the health and welfare of the child as a result of the child not being vaccinated, then it may become necessary for the father to involve health and child welfare authorities and make further applications arising from or in relation to that.
4. I would be concerned to make orders of joint decision-making responsibility in relation to long term issues (as that term is defined at s 4(1) of the Act) as it is likely to lead to ongoing disputes (which is said to have already occurred). The father should be consulted in relation to the decision making but the ultimate decision will rest with the mother. This is to avoid conflict and because she is, and has always been, the primary carer of the child. The parties otherwise retain the parental responsibility which is conferred by operation of s 61C of the Act.
5. At closing submissions, counsel for the mother advised that the mother would not oppose orders being made for the child to be vaccinated to enable the child to leave and return to Australia for overseas travel. I will make an order to that effect as it is in the best interests of the child and not opposed by the mother.
6. The father has access to the child's medical or allied health treaters and school/kindergarten staff and he can be informed of the child's health.
7. It is a matter of bitter irony that so much focus has been put on the health and welfare of the child as a result of the father's conduct, yet the child was unvaccinated from birth and remains so in the face of clear recommendations from health authorities in this country.

1. The spend time arrangements between the father and the child as proposed by the ICL are sensible and in the best interests of the child.
2. Those arrangements involve a gradual increase in the time that the father spends with the child which is largely in line with the Family Report writers' recommendations. The proposed orders, in comparison to those recommendations, have the progression of increase in time occur more gradually.
3. Whilst there has been a level of animus between the father and mother, which is hardly unique in proceedings of this particular nature where they proceed to a full contested hearing, I do not accept that the time set by those proposed orders are something that the parents will be unable to manage. They also make allowances for each party to have time with the child on special occasions, including Easter and Christmas, which will be of benefit to the child.
4. The mother sought orders that suspended the child's time with the father from 27 January 2026 until 5 February 2026 as she had prebooked a holiday in that time. I will make orders to that effect with the father to be provided any make up time.
5. The court makes orders to reflect these reasons.

I certify that the preceding seventy-five (75) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice McNab.

[1] Affidavit of Ms Droit filed 13 June 2025 ('Mother's affidavit) at [3].

[4] Affidavit of Mr Eglitis filed 19 May 2025 ('Father's affidavit') at [56].

[6] Father's affidavit at [62]-[63].

[10] Father's affidavit at [73]-[74].

[13] Father's affidavit at [96]-[99].

[16] Father's affidavit at [116]-[117].

[19] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CA.

[20] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60B.

[21] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC(2)(a).

[22] _Family Law Act 197_5 (Cth) s 4AB(1).

[23]Explanatory Memorandum, Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 (Cth) 20 at [36].

[24] Explanatory Memorandum, Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 (Cth) 18 at [17].

[25] Explanatory Memorandum, Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 (Cth) 19 at [30].

[26] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC(2A)

[30] Mother's affidavit at [26]-[27].

[32] Father's affidavit at [45]-[46].

[40] Mother's affidavit at [173]-[174].

[45] Public Health & Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) s 143C.