Fausti & Baasch [2025] FedCFamC1F 830 (17 November 2025)

1. That upon receipt of items pursuant to order 4 hereof, the Father ensure that those items are given to the child as soon as practicable provided that he deems such items to be appropriate to be passed on to the child.
2. The Father provide a copy of these Orders to such school as is attended by the child AND THE COURT NOTES that the child currently attends L School.
3. The Father do all such acts as may be required to authorise the child's school to assist in and/or facilitate the child's assessment for ADHD.
4. The Father be authorised to provide a copy of these Orders to such other persons or agencies as necessary to ensure he is able to discharge his parental decision-making authority, including but not limited to such doctors, hospitals, allied health professionals, schools, government departments and providers of extra-curricular activities for the child.
5. Pursuant to Section 11 of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth), upon the Father's application to apply for, or renew a Passport for the child X born in 2025, such passport shall be issued to the Father who shall hold authority thereafter to retain the passport.
6. The Father shall be permitted to travel with the child outside the Commonwealth of Australia.
7. The parents will keep each other informed of their email address and notify the other parent of any change to those details within forty-eight (48) hours of such change occurring
8. Within 14 days the Father provide to the Mother an address where she can send gifts, cards and letters to the child in accordance with Order 4 hereof and notify the Mother of any change to those details within forty-eight (48) hours of such change occurring.
9. The Mother be and is hereby restrained by injunction from:

(a) Contacting the child's school or any extra-curricular activity provider upon whom the child attends;

(b) Contacting any medical practitioners, hospitals, or allied health professionals upon whom the child attends.

1. The appointment of the Independent Children's Lawyer be discharged.
2. This matter be marked as finalised and removed from the pending case list.
3. All extant applications be otherwise dismissed.
4. Pursuant to s 65DA(2) and s 62B, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.

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

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

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

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

1. These proceedings relate to the future parenting arrangements for the parties' only child, X, who was born in 2015 and is aged 10 years.
2. The proceedings were commenced by the applicant mother, Ms Fausti, who was born in 1985 and is aged 40 years. The mother has another child, B, who was born in 2022 and is aged three years.
3. The respondent father, Mr Baasch, was born in 1986 and is aged almost 39 years. He lives with his partner, Ms C, aged 38 years. Together, they have one child, D, who is an infant.
4. X was placed into the father's care by Child Protection in 2022 and she has lived with him in Victoria since that time.
5. In June 2023, the mother commenced these proceedings, seeking final orders that X live with her. That application was opposed by the father, who raises significant concerns as to the mother's capacity to parent due to her alleged mental illness.
6. The matter was listed for final hearing before me to commence on 5 November 2025. The mother did not attend that hearing to prosecute her claim. As a result, the father applied to proceed with his application for final parenting orders on an undefended basis. That application was supported by the Independent Children's Lawyer ("the ICL").
7. For the reasons that follow:-

(a) leave is granted for the father to proceed with his application for final parenting orders on an undefended basis;

(b) final parenting orders will be made in the terms sought by the father and the Independent Children's Lawyer.

1. The parties commenced their relationship in 2013. The father alleges that the parties commenced cohabitation in New South Wales in 2015, shortly prior to X's birth and separated a few months later in 2015. The mother contends that the parties did not cohabit. Little turns on that dispute.
2. Initially following the parties' separation, the mother and the child lived in New South Wales and the father spent regular time with X.
3. In 2016, when X was aged approximately 12 months, the mother relocated to Western Australia with her. The father alleges that he did not consent to that relocation. The father had limited time with X following that move, such time occurring when the mother and the child returned to New South Wales to visit family.
4. In 2021, the mother relocated to South Australia with the child to commence cohabitation with the mother's partner, Mr E.
5. In September 2021, the mother separated from Mr E. It is alleged that around the time of that separation, the mother informed Mr E that she had given birth to a baby boy in 2021, and that the infant had been flown interstate for treatment and subsequently died. It is also alleged that the mother informed X that the infant, named F, had passed away.
6. In 2021, X was removed from the mother's care by Child Protection South Australia and placed into foster care. In 2022, X was reunified with the father and has continued to live with him since that time.
7. The mother had telephone communication with X until February 2023. The mother contends that the father ceased the telephone communication, whilst the father maintains that X chose to cease that communication due to the mother's conduct during those calls; the father alleges that the mother would yell at him during the calls, which upset X.
8. On 13 June 2023, the mother filed an Initiating Application in the Sydney Registry of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2). That application sought final orders that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for all long-term major decisions with respect to the care, welfare and development of the child and that the child live with the mother. Specific proposals were made for the child to spend time with the father.
9. In July 2023, the father filed a Response to Final Orders in which he sought interim orders that the child live with him, that the parties attend upon a Court Child Expert for the purpose of a Child Impact Report and that otherwise the father have leave to file an amended response in relation to final orders upon release of that report.
10. On 26 July 2023, orders were made transferring the proceedings to the Melbourne Registry of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2). In addition, orders were made for the appointment of an Independent Children's Lawyer and for the preparation of a Child Impact Report.
11. In April 2025, orders were made transferring the proceedings to this Court.
12. On 23 May 2025, I listed the matter for final hearing to commence on 5 November 2025.
13. Concurrent proceedings have been ongoing in the Adelaide Registry of this Court with respect to B, the mother's child with Mr E. In October 2023, the mother was ordered to deliver B to the Adelaide Registry of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. At that time, the mother travelled to Queensland with B. With the assistance of the Australian Federal Police, B was returned to his father's care on 1 November 2023. B has remained in the care of his father since that time.

1. The matter was listed for final hearing before me on 5 November 2025. The mother, the father and the Independent Children's Lawyer were represented by counsel at the hearing.
2. At the commencement of the hearing, the mother's counsel informed the Court that the mother had not attended Court for the hearing, and she had been unable to communicate with the mother that day. The mother's counsel confirmed that she had endeavoured to communicate with her client by telephone and email, without success. The mother's counsel confirmed that she had conferred with her client in the period leading up to the final hearing and understood that her client intended to travel from Sydney to Melbourne for the purposes of the hearing.
3. Given the circumstances, the matter was stood down until 12.45pm to enable the mother's counsel to locate her client and obtain instructions.
4. The hearing resumed at approximately 12.45pm. The mother's counsel informed the Court that she had been unable to contact or communicate with her client, who had not attended at Court. I inquired of the mother's counsel as to whether her client was aware of the final orders sought by the ICL (Exhibit ICL-1). Counsel confirmed that her client had received the ICL's proposal (Exhibit ICL-1) and that she had been instructed to, and did, put a proposal to the father and the ICL in response to that document, which had not been accepted.
5. In circumstances where her client had failed to attend Court or provide instructions and was unable to be contacted, the mother's counsel sought leave of the Court to withdraw from the proceedings. That application was not opposed by counsel for the father or the Independent Children's Lawyer. Given the mother's failure to appear or engage with her counsel, I acceded to that application.
6. In light of the mother's failure to appear at the final hearing, counsel for the father sought to proceed with his client's application for final orders on an undefended basis. He confirmed that his client sought orders in the terms of the Minute of Final Orders prepared by the ICL (Exhibit ICL-1) of which the mother had notice, as was confirmed by her counsel prior to her withdrawal.
7. In circumstances where the mother, who is the applicant in the proceedings, had not attended at Court to prosecute her claim, it was submitted on behalf of the father that his application should proceed on an undefended basis. He further submitted that in circumstances where the mother was on notice as to the orders sought by the ICL (which were supported by the father), the mother had been afforded procedural fairness.
8. At the directions hearing on 23 May 2025, the mother was represented by counsel. That day, I made orders fixing the matter for final hearing before me to commence on 5 November 2025. Accordingly, I am satisfied that she has had notice of the final hearing. That view is bolstered given the submissions made by her counsel this day that she had conferred with her client in anticipation of the final hearing and that counsel had expected the mother to attend court to prosecute her claim.
9. I am also satisfied that the mother has had notice of the orders sought by the Independent Children's Lawyer and the father. Counsel for the mother confirmed that she had provided to the mother a copy of the Minute of Orders sought by the ICL (Exhibit ICL-1). Indeed, it was submitted on behalf of the mother that a counter-proposal had been put on her behalf in response to the orders sought by the ICL. From the commencement of the proceedings the father has sought orders that X continue to live with him; his position with respect to with whom X should live has not altered since that time and his application with respect to the allocation of parental responsibility has been known since the filing of his amended Response to Initiating Application on 18 October 2024. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the mother has been afforded procedural fairness with respect to the orders sought by the ICL and the father.
10. Having regard to those matters, I am satisfied that it is appropriate that the father's application for final parenting orders proceed on an undefended basis.

1. The father relies upon the material identified at Part B of his outline of case document filed 30 October 2025, being:-

(a) Amended Response to Initiating Application filed 18 October 2024;

(b) Notice of Risk filed 18 July 2023;

(c) Trial affidavit of the father filed 8 October 2025;

(d) Affidavit of Ms C filed 27 October 2025;

(e) Affidavit of Dr G filed 7 October 2024;

(f) Child Impact Report of Ms H dated 1 December 2023;

(g) Family Report of Ms J dated 22 May 2024; and

(h) Family Report of Ms K dated 3 April 2025.

1. In addition to those documents, the father also relies on Exhibit ICL-1, being the Minute of Proposed Orders prepared by the ICL.
2. The ICL relies on the following documents;-

(a) Child Impact Report of Ms H dated 1 December 2023;

(b) Outline of Case document filed 29 October 2025;

(c) Affidavit of Dr G filed 7 October 2024;

(d) Family Report of Ms K dated 3 April 2025; and

(e) Exhibit ICL-1.

1. The ICL and the father seek orders in the terms of Exhibit ICL-1 which provides as follows:-
   1. That the child X born in 2015 ("the child") live with the Father.
   2. That the Father have sole parental decision making in relation to all long term decisions including education, health and religion for the child.
   3. The child will not spend time or communicate with the Mother unless the child expresses a wish to do so and the Father will organise for spend time and / or communication to occur.
   4. That the Mother be permitted to send gifts, cards and letters to the child to the address nominated by the Father and the Father shall ensure that these are passed on to the child as soon as practicable (and the Father is to decide what is appropriate to pass on to X) for the following days:

(a) The child's birthday;

(b) Christmas Day.

1. The Father to provide a copy of this Order to the child's school L School.

2. The Father to contact the child's school L School for assistance from the school for an assessment of ADHD for the child.

3. The Father is authorised to to [sic] provide a copy of these Orders to such other persons and bodies as necessary to ensure he is able to discharge his parental responsibility including all doctors, hospitals, allied health professionals, schools, government departments and those other persons or bodies connected with extra curricular activities of the child.

4. Pursuant to Section 11 of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth), upon the father's application to apply for, or renew a Passport for the child X born in 2025, such passport shall be issued to the Father who shall hold authority thereafter to retain the passport.

5. The Father shall be permitted to travel with the child outside the Commonwealth of Australia.

6. The parents will keep each other informed of their email address and notify the other parent of any change to those details within forty-eight (48) hours of such change occurring..

7. The Father will provide an address where the Mother can send gifts, cards and letters to the child in accordance with [Order] 4 of this order and will notify the Mother of any change to those details within forty-eight ( 48) hours of such change occurring.

8. The Mother be restrained and an injunction be granted restraining her from:

(a) Contacting the child's school or any extra-curricular activity provider upon whom the child attends, save as may be required to facilitate order 13 hereof;

(b) Contacting any medical practitioners, hospitals[, or] allied heath [sic] professionals upon whom the child attends.

1. The appoitment [sic] of the Independent Children's Lawyer be discharged.
2. This matter be marked as finalised and removed form [sic] the pending case list.
3. All extant applications are otherwise dismissed.

1. Section 102NE of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") identifies the principles for conducting child-related proceedings and provides that the court must give effect to the principles (s 102NE(1)).
2. The first principle so identified (s 102NE(3)) is that the Court is to consider the needs of the child concerned and the impact that the conduct of the proceedings may have on the child in determining the conduct of the proceedings. In circumstances where X has been the subject of Child Protection intervention, has had periods in foster care and has been placed in the father's care because of that intervention, in my view this principle is of particular relevance.
3. The second principle (s 102NE(4)) is that the Court is to actively direct, control and manage the conduct of the proceedings. This too is relevant in circumstances where the mother, who is the applicant in the proceedings, has seemingly disengaged from the Court process. In light of that conduct, it is incumbent on the Court to direct and manage the proceedings to bring them to a conclusion as expeditiously as possible, particularly given the potential impact of the ongoing proceedings on X and the father.
4. The fifth principle (s 102NE(7)) is that the proceedings are to be conducted without undue delay and with as little formality, and legal technicality and form, as possible. Again, having regard to the history of X's engagement with Court processes since her removal from the mother's care in 2021, I consider that principle to be of significance in this matter.
5. Section 60CA of the Act provides that the child's best interests are the paramount consideration in making parenting orders.
6. A parenting order is defined in s 64B(2) of the Act as one which includes:

(a) the person or persons with whom a child is to live;

(b) the time a child is to spend with another person or other persons;

(c) the allocation of parental responsibility for the child;

(d) if 2 or more persons are to share parental responsibility for a child - the form of consultations those persons are to have with one another about decisions to be made in the exercise of that parental responsibility;

(e) the communication a child is to have with another person or persons;

(f) maintenance of a child;

(g) the steps to be taken before an application is made to Court for a variation of the order...;

(h) the process to be used for resolving disputes about the terms or operation of the order;

(i) any aspect of the care, welfare or development of the child or any other aspect of parental responsibility for a child.

1. In determining what is in the child's best interests, the Court must consider the matters set out in section 60CC(2). Those matters are outlined as follows:

(a) What arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect or other harm) of:-

(i) the child; and

(ii) each person who has care of the child (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for the child);

(b) Any views expressed by the child;

(c) The developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child;

(d) 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;

(e) 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; and

(f) Anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child.

1. Section 60CC(2A) provides:-

(2A) In considering the matters set out in paragraph (2)(a), the court must include consideration of:

(a) 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

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

1. In determining this matter, the relevant standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. Section 140(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) provides that without limiting the matters the Court may take into account in applying that standard of proof, the Court must take into account the nature of the cause of action or defence, the nature of the subject matter of the proceedings and the gravity of the matters alleged.
2. I have read all documents relied upon by the father and the Independent Children's Lawyer. In what follows, statement of fact constitute findings of fact. I have carefully considered the matter, and in making findings to the requisite standard, I have had regard to all of the evidence, the nature of the proceedings, the seriousness of the allegations and the consequences that flow from my findings.
3. The father's evidence as contained in his trial affidavit is unchallenged. Accordingly, I accept that evidence in its entirety.

1. It is common ground as between the parties that X has been in the father's primary care since November 2022. Further, other than the observation session conducted with Ms K for the purposes of the preparation of the Family Report in February 2025, it is common ground that X has spent no time with the mother since she was placed in foster care by the Department of Child Protection South Australia in 2021. It is also agreed that X last had telephone communication with the mother on her birthday in February 2023.
2. That this is so is due to the mother's ongoing mental health issues, which were the catalyst for intervention by Child Protection. As a result of the continuing concerns raised by the father for the mother's mental health and therefore her capacity to parent X, orders were made for the mother to undertake psychiatric assessment with Dr G, psychiatrist.
3. Dr G undertook a detailed psychiatric assessment of the mother which is set out in his Psychiatric Assessment Report dated 3 September 2024 annexed to his affidavit filed 7 October 2024. As part of that assessment, Dr G considered the material filed in these proceedings by both the mother and the father as well as Court orders and material produced by the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing, Victoria Police, South Australian Child Protection and Western Australia Police. Dr G also considered the Child Impact Report dated 1 December 2023. Dr G conferred with the mother by videoconference on 3 September 2024 for the purposes of his assessment.
4. Dr G reported that concerns had previously been raised about the possibility of the mother having factitious disorder imposed on self or factitious disorder imposed on another, being X. Ultimately, Dr G concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a diagnosis for factitious disorder.
5. However, Dr G observed at [58] of his report that the mother does have a consistent history of fabricating stories, including exaggerating the seriousness of her own problems and those of X. He observed that such a pattern is usually associated with enduring personality pathology. He noted:-

...There are suggestions that she demonstrates some antisocial traits (frequent lying and lack of remorse for the impact of her actions) and narcissistic traits (can be exploitative of others and lacking in empathy for others), which have been present for many years, and been evident in a few domains of her life (such as her interactions with the child and with her partners). She also described persecutory ideation regarding alleged corruption in [Child Protection], which may be a sign of paranoid traits. Since it is unclear as to the onset of such ideation, these [sic] cannot be assumed that this has been enduring. There are no signs of an incipient psychosis. Her behaviours have led to impairment in her capacity to function interpersonally, in terms of difficulties in intimate relationships, and problems in being able to care for her children satisfactorily on an ongoing basis. These difficulties lead me to make a provisional diagnosis of a General Personality Disorder.

(Emphasis in original)

1. Dr G expressed significant concern as to the mother's parenting capacity, having regard to her conduct in relation to her alleged fabricated pregnancy and birth of baby "F", including her sharing of information with X of those matters. As to the impact of that behaviour, Dr G expressed the following opinion:-

Although the mother may not have intended to cause distress to [X], her reason for creating this story is unclear. [The mother], in simply denying statements that she had apparently made to others (including Child Protection), was effectively being uncooperative in the assessment. It is possible that this was done to bring about a degree of sympathy and support for herself. She did not seem able to understand the impact upon a young child, of being told of an imminent arrival of a sibling, and then hav[ing] to deal with the news of its death. At its best, this suggests a profound lack of capacity for empathy for her own child, and at worst, a degree of mental cruelty. It also imparts to [X] the experience of care-giving adults as parents who cannot be trusted, and who lie to and mislead their children. The lack of remorse and responsibility for the behaviour would mean that there would be no chance for any age-appropriate discussion with [X], or any demonstration of a capacity for the ownership of parental responsibility for her actions towards the child. Without any acknowledgment of her responsibility, there remains the possibility that, if there were ongoing unsupervised care of the child, that some similar event may occur in the future.

1. Dr G also considered the mother's inaccurate reporting to X's school of her alleged physical impairments. For example, the mother apparently informed X's school that she required a wheelchair and other aids, notwithstanding the fact that X had no need for such supports. At [63] of his report, Dr G observed:-

...[The mother] agreed that [X] does not require a wheelchair or other aids, [sic] and states that this was a misunderstanding with the school. The mother had also stated to the school, that the child had been diagnosed with a number of serious long-term conditions, including global development delay and autism, which left the school, and presumably also the child, with [the] impression that she was far more impaired than [was] the case. This is notwithstanding the concerns found on psychological testing of the child, and the possibility raised of ADHD, although no firm diagnosis was made. It is unclear as to the reasons why the mother may have done this, other than [that] she was trying to gain vicarious sympathy and support by portraying herself as having to look after a high-needs child.

1. As to the potential impact of those behaviours, Dr G noted at [64] of his report as follows:-

...The concern is that the child develops a lack of confidence in her own capacities, and mis-cueing between her own perception of her abilities, and what trusted adults convey to her of her capacities. If repeated on an ongoing basis, then this may lead to a diminution of self-confidence in the child and of the development in trust with the parent. The possible impact on the child of this falsification does not seem to have been taken into account of [sic] by the mother.

1. In light of those behaviours, Dr G expressed the following opinion at [65]:-

Since both these examples centre around the frequent use of lies and mistruths, there is a concern that [the mother] has normalised the use of lies and falsification as a means of achieving an end...Although not cooperative, she gave the impression of someone who faced major issues dealing with the frustrations of the realities of life, particularly in interpersonal relationships, slipping into the use of lying as a maladaptive response. If this continues for the foreseeable future, and without an acknowledgement by her that this is a problem, this is likely to be the prognosis, then unsupervised care of a young child for prolonged periods of time, would continue to immerse the child in a potential web of falsifications where there is a blur between fantasy and reality. This might have profound implications for her future psychological development, particularly if she is facing other cognitive challenges.

1. As to treatment options for the mother, Dr G opined at [67] as follows:-

Any possible avenue of treatment would have to involve a truthful admission of responsibility on the part of [the mother] for her actions, as well as admitting the full extent of what had actually occurred. This may be very difficult for the mother, who may have partly believed her own version of reality. However, without this admission, there is no firm basis for psychological growth and maturity, sufficient for her to be able to start to recognise the child's real vulnerabilities and needs.

1. In light of that assessment, Dr G recommended that the mother should undertake Court reportable psychological treatment aimed at an understanding of why this behaviour occurred and in developing more adaptive coping strategies to deal with her interpersonal issues. Dr G recommended that such treatment should be at least fortnightly in frequency and would need to last for a period of at least 18 months in duration.
2. Dr G's assessment of the mother was detailed and thorough. His assessment was not challenged. Accordingly, I accept his evidence and assessment of the mother.
3. On any view, the assessment of the mother by Dr G raises significant concerns as to the mother's parenting capacities and as to the safety of the child were she returned to the mother's care. Dr G recommended that the mother undertake intensive psychological treatment to address those concerns. There is no evidence before the Court that the mother has accepted those recommendations or acted upon them.
4. Accordingly, having regard to Dr G's evidence, which I accept, I am satisfied that X's safety would be significantly compromised were she placed in the mother's care. I am also satisfied that the mother does not have the capacity to provide for the child's developmental, psychological and emotional needs.

1. Orders were made by Senior Judicial Registrar Crocker in November 2024 for the preparation of a Family Report. To that end, the mother, the father and X were interviewed by Family Consultant Ms K in February 2025 for the purposes of the preparation of that report. Ms K undertook in-person observations between the father, his partner and X and also as between X and the mother.
2. Ms K also reviewed the material filed in the proceedings as well as material produced by the Department of Child Protection, and Police. Ms K has prepared a detailed Family Report in relation to her observations and assessment of the matter, that report dated 3 April 2025.
3. During interview with X, Ms K observed her to speak happily about her experiences living with the father, his partner and her stepbrother, D. X described the father as "funny, entertaining, happy, caring, calm and kind."[1]
4. In relation to her experiences of living with the mother, Ms K observed at [48] of the Family Report as follows:-

[X] appeared tense and sad when she was speaking about her experiences in the care of [the mother]. She informed that she witnessed her mother and Mr [E] fighting and she ended up being placed in foster care by [Child Protection]. [X] advised that her mother is the one who caused her to end up being placed in foster care. [X] spoke about how difficult it was for her to go and live with strangers during the time she was placed in foster care. [X] advised that she does not want to see her mother because she makes her upset. She advised that she does not miss her mother. She advised that in future if she is forced to spend time with her mother, she will refuse. [X] advised that she does not remember any good things about her mother.

1. Notwithstanding her misgivings, X agreed to participate in an observation with the mother. In relation to that observation, Ms K noted at [53]:-

...Although [X] interacted with her mother in a respectful way, she appeared uncomfortable around her mother as she avoided eye contact with her mother, she was more reserved and she provided brief responses to her mother's questions.

1. At [54] Ms K reported that overall, the mother's interaction with X seemed one-sided and showcased a lack of emotional connection and the absence of a meaningful relationship between X and the mother. In contrast, Ms K observed X's interactions with the father to be "notably positive, showcasing a good and healthy relationship between X and her father".[2]
2. As to X's future needs, Ms K observed at [63] as follows:-

Given [X's] age, stage of development and additional needs she requires a stable and predictable environment with structure, routine, child-appropriate discipline as well as physically and emotionally available and responsive parents who appropriately meet her physical care, emotional and social development needs. [X's] disruptive caregiving experiences and exposure to family violence and parental conflict means that her need for stability, routine and emotionally attuned relationships is greater.

1. Ms K assessed that X does not have a well-developed warm relationship with the mother. Further, she noted that X has expressed that she does not want to spend time with the mother. It was Ms K's assessment that to suddenly move X to the mother's care would likely cause significant disruption to her life, and that she would likely experience loss which would potentially have significant adverse impacts upon her emotional, psychological and social wellbeing.[3]
2. Ms K expressed significant concerns as to the mother's failure to engage in psychological counselling as recommended by Dr G. She noted that the mother's failure to engage in the recommended treatment demonstrated a lack of insight into her mental health issues and their impact upon X and others.
3. Ms K reported that the mother maintains she does not have any mental health issues, despite the assessment completed by Dr G. Ms K considered that the mother's continued denial of those issues raises questions as to her willingness and capacity to address those issues. She also observed that if those issues remain unmanaged, this may impact on the mother's ability to provide X with appropriate and safe caregiving which can manifest in "neglect, emotional unavailability or inconsistent parenting leading to unmet basic needs, lack of emotional support and exposure to unsafe behaviours for X".[4]
4. Ms K also confirmed that X has expressed views that she does not wish to communicate with or spend time with the mother.
5. Having regard to those matters, Ms K made recommendations at [78] to [83] of the Family Report as follows:-
   • That X continue to live with the father;
   • That X could initially spend supervised time with the mother for two hours once a fortnight. After about six months such time could be increased to four hours once per fortnight with time occurring in the community. After a further six months, time could be increased to six hours per fortnight;
   • That X's time occur on condition that the mother remain engaged with a psychologist, with the psychologist providing letters to the father every three months confirming the mother's engagement;
   • That the mother engage in psychological counselling in line with the recommendations of Dr G in his report;
   • That the mother complete the Tuning into Kids program; and
   • That the parents attend individual counselling sessions.
6. The evidence of Ms K as to her observations and assessment is unchallenged. Ms K provided a detailed account of her interviews with the parties and the child and provided a considered and thorough assessment of the family. Her account of X's experiences in the mother's care and the impact of those experiences upon X was compelling.
7. Ms K also provided a detailed account as to X's views of and responses to the mother during observation. I accept the evidence of Ms K with respect to those matters.
8. Counsel for the ICL confirmed that the ICL has spoken with X on two occasions, being 7 November 2024 and 24 October 2025. The ICL reported that X described being happy and settled with the father and that she did not wish to receive phone calls from her mother. The ICL confirmed that during her most recent interview with the child, X had reiterated those views and reported that she feels angry and upset by her mother's behaviour. The ICL reported that X's views of her mother and her desire to remain in the father's care were consistent across multiple assessments.
9. Having regard to the views expressed by X, and the recommendations of Ms K, it was submitted by the ICL that significant weight ought to attach to X's strongly expressed views. I accept that submission.

1. The father seek orders that the existing care arrangements for X continue; he submits that such orders will ensure that X's physical, psychological, intellectual and emotional needs are met. I accept that submission.
2. In circumstances where the mother has failed to appear to prosecute her application, I am satisfied there is little benefit to X in attempting to craft orders for her to spend time with the mother.

1. No submissions were made addressing any other matter relevant to the child's circumstances.

1. It was submitted by both the father and the ICL that X's safety is the primary concern in this matter, particularly having regard to X's experiences in the mother's care prior to her removal by Child Protection. It was submitted that in light of the evidence of Dr G as to the mother's presentation, there are significant concerns as to her capacity to provide a safe environment for X. Those concerns are heightened in circumstances where the mother is yet to engage in the treatment recommended by Dr G and where she has now disengaged from the proceedings. I accept those submissions.
2. I am satisfied that the order sought by the father and the ICL that X continues to live with the father is in X's best interests. An order in those terms will ensure that she has the opportunity of living in a settled and stable environment which is familiar to her. Given X's experience of living in foster care for a period of almost one year after removal from the mother's care, I am satisfied that that stability is in her best interest. Such arrangements will enable X to continue at her current school where her educational needs are well supported. They will also ensure that X will continue to be nurtured and cared for by the father with the support of his partner, both of whom have demonstrated a strong commitment and capacity to meet all of X's day to day physical, emotional and intellectual needs. Finally, such orders will also ensure that X has the opportunity of living with and sharing her life with her half-sibling D, which I am satisfied is in her best interests.
3. The evidence of Ms K indicates that X is happy and well cared for in the father's home. Further, Ms K reports as to strong and established relationships between X, the father and his partner Ms C, as well as her half-sibling, D. I accept that evidence.
4. The father also seeks orders that he have sole decision-making authority with respect to long-term decisions regarding X's education, health and religion. That application is supported by the ICL. The reality is that the father has been responsible for all such decision-making for X since she was placed in his care in 2022. In circumstances where the mother lives in New South Wales and has spent no time with X since 2021, save for the observation with her for the purposes of the preparation of the Family Report, I am satisfied that it is in X's best interests that such decision-making responsibility rests with the father, who has detailed and intimate knowledge of X's needs. That view is bolstered in circumstances where the mother has absented herself from these proceedings.
5. The father and the ICL also seek an order that the child not spend time or communicate with the mother unless she expresses a wish to do so. That order reflects X's views as reported to the Family Consultant, which I accept. Having regard to the evidence of the father, Dr G and Ms K, I am satisfied that X's experiences of living with the mother exposed her to an unsettled, and at times chaotic and violent existence. I accept that those experiences have shaped and influenced X's view of the mother. Given those experiences, I am satisfied that the stability and consistency of X's current living arrangements must be protected. I accept the evidence of Ms K as to the potential harm to X if her settled environment is disrupted. Having regard to those matters, I am satisfied that an order that any time or communication between X and her mother be in accordance with X's wishes, is in her best interests.
6. The father and the ICL also seek an order that the mother be permitted to send gifts, cards and letters to X on her birthday and at Christmas. I am satisfied that an order in those terms is in X's best interests. It will enable X to understand that the mother seeks to maintain contact with her and will ensure that the door remains open should X wish to pursue a relationship with the mother in the future.
7. The father also seeks orders that he be permitted to provide a copy of the final orders to X's school. I am satisfied that it is in X's best interests that her school understand X's circumstances and the arrangements for her care. Accordingly, I will make an order in those terms. Similarly, the father seeks orders that he be authorised to provide a copy of the orders to such authorities as may require that information to enable him to discharge his parental responsibilities. Again, I consider an order in those terms to be in X's best interests.
8. The father seeks an order that he be permitted to apply for a passport for X and that he be permitted to travel with her outside the Commonwealth of Australia. That application is supported by the ICL. I consider an order in those terms to be in X's best interests, particularly in circumstances where I have determined that the father ought have sole decision-making authority for her. Should the opportunity to travel overseas with the father present, in my view the father should be in a position to make such arrangements for that travel without having to embark upon further Court processes; it would be contrary to X's best interests were that opportunity to be delayed or lost due to difficulties in obtaining the mother's consent to a passport or to such travel.
9. The father also seeks orders restraining the mother from communicating or contacting X's school, any extracurricular activity provider upon whom she attends or the child's treating medical practitioners. In circumstances where I have determined that it is in X's best interests that she not spend time with the mother unless she expresses a desire to do so, I consider such orders to be appropriate and in X's best interests. That view is bolstered given the mother's history in making false reports to X's previous school about X's need for specialist supports. Accordingly, I will make an order in those terms.
10. Otherwise, I will dismiss all applications before the Court. The orders I make will bring these proceedings to an end, which is plainly in X's best interests having regard to the long history of involvement with Child Protection as well as these proceedings.

I certify that the preceding eighty-eight (88) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Johns.

[1] Family Report dated 3 April 2025 ("Family Report"), paragraph 47