Forbes & Forbes [2026] FedCFamC2F 115 (3 February 2026)

Bant & Clayton (2015) 53 Fam LR 621; [2015] FamCAFC 222

Bielen & Kozma (2022) FLC 94-123; [2022] FedCFamC1A 221

Blinko & Blinko [2015] FamCAFC 146

Chika & Ragnall [2024] FedCFamC1F 296

Cimorelli & Wenlack [2020] FamCAFC 58

Deiter & Deiter [2011] FamCAFC 82

Edgar & Strofield (2016) FLC 93-711; [2016] FamCAFC 93

Fowler & Northwood (2022) FLC 94-114; [2022] FedCFamC1A 173

Franklyn & Franklyn [2019] FamCAFC 256

Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-296; [2006] FamCA 1346

Hedlund & Hedlund (2021) FLC 94-065; [2021] FedCFamC1A 84

Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-092; [2022] FedCFamC1A 97

Lim & Zong (2020) FLC 93-939; [2020] FamCAFC 20

Maldera & Orbel (2014) FLC 93-602; [2014] FamCAFC 135

Marvel & Marvel (2010) 240 FLR 367; [2010] FamCAFC 101

SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13

Valentine & Lacerra (2013) FLC 93-539; [2013] FamCAFC 53

Walshe & Walshe [2025] FedCFamC1A 231

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

1. The child X born in 2023 ("X") live with the first respondent ("mother").
2. X spend time and communicate with the second respondent ("father") as agreed between the mother and father.
3. X spend time and communicate with the applicant ("maternal grandmother") as agreed between the parties in writing.
4. The maternal grandmother be permitted to send gifts and cards to X once a month and on special occasions to a postal address nominated by the mother.
5. Within seven days from the date of these orders, the mother inform the maternal grandmother (via their lawyers, if they remain engaged) of the postal address to be used for the purpose of order 4.

Obligations, consequences of contravention and assistance with orders

1. Pursuant to sections 65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act"), 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 the parties to adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached and these particulars are included in these orders.

1. All extant applications for interim parenting orders be dismissed.

1. In the event any of the parties seek to pursue applications made in their formal application or response for costs relating to the hearing of the interim applications heard on 16 December 2025:

(a) Within 28 days from the date of these orders, the party seeking costs file and serve an affidavit and written submissions in support of their costs application; and

(b) Within 14 days from the date of service of documents filed in accordance with order 8(a), the other parties file and serve an affidavit and written submissions in response to the costs application, if it pertains to them or if they wish to be heard in respect of that application.

1. Each party's affidavit is to be limited to five pages, with no more than five annexures.
2. Each party's written submissions are to be limited to five pages, are to state with precision the order they seek, and are to state if they consent to the costs application being determined "on the papers" without the need for a hearing, in which case (if all parties indicate their consent) the costs application will be determined in chambers and failing which the costs applications will be listed for hearing on a date to be fixed.
3. If documents are filed exceeding the specified page limit or number of annexures without leave of the court, the additional pages or annexures be disregarded.

1. The matter remains listed for directions hearing before Judicial Registrar Dixon on 17 February 2026 at 11.30 am.
2. Section 114Q of the Act provides that it is an offence punishable by imprisonment for up to one year to publish or disseminate to the public or a section of the public any account of family law proceedings which identifies the parties, witnesses or other people concerned with the proceedings, unless specifically authorised by the court.

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

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

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

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

1. This proceeding concerns a young child, X (aged 2), and involves her parents and her maternal grandmother. Before me is an interim dispute about whether X should spend regular time with the maternal grandmother in circumstances where her separated parents are united in their opposition to her doing so other than with their agreement.
2. The applicant is the mother's mother, X's maternal grandmother. The first respondent is X's mother and the second respondent is her father. I will refer to the parties by their relationship to X without intending any disrespect to them.
3. An independent children's lawyer has been appointed pursuant to orders made on 24 September 2025.

1. The interim hearing was conducted on 16 December 2026. Each of the parties was represented by counsel. Leave was granted to the mother and her solicitor to attend the hearing electronically. Counsel, the independent children's lawyer and all other parties attended the hearing in person.

1. The material relied upon by each of the parties and the independent children's lawyer is clearly identified in their respective case outlines filed ahead of the interim hearing. Documents tendered during the course of the hearing were recorded as exhibits. In making my determination, I have considered that material and the oral submissions made by counsel on behalf of the parties and the independent children's lawyer.

1. In summary, the maternal grandmother seeks orders for X to spend regular time with her, from 10.00 am to 5.00 pm on one day mid-week and overnight on one weekend each month (from 3.00 pm on Friday to 3.00 pm on Saturday) and that X communicate with her by video or telephone each Monday and Thursday between 6.00 pm and 6.30 pm. She adopted this as her preferred position, abandoning her formal application for X to spend overnight time with her mid-week each week and for three consecutive nights over a weekend once a month. In the alternative, the maternal grandmother seeks X spend time with her for no less than three hours each week professionally supervised by B Contact Service. She also seeks injunctions to safeguard X from exposure to denigration of her family members and conflict between them. The terms of the interim orders sought by the maternal grandmother are otherwise set out in her case outline, save that she did not pursue her application for the parties to attend reportable family therapy given it is opposed by the mother.
2. The maternal grandmother submits it is in X's best interests to resume spending regular time with her where she asserts she was heavily involved in X's care while the mother and X lived with her until July 2025.

1. In response, the mother formally seeks the maternal grandmother's application for interim parenting orders be dismissed.
2. The mother alleges the maternal grandmother has subjected her to family violence in the form of controlling behaviours, verbal abuse and criticism, physical aggression and undermining of her parenting of X. She also asserts the maternal grandmother has caused pressure in the co-parenting relationship between her and the father. She alleges the maternal grandmother twice withheld X from her care, resulting in verbal and physical altercations which precipitated her decision to move out of the maternal grandmother's home in July 2025. The mother has experienced mental health challenges which she attributes at least in part to her experience of being subjected to family violence and coercive and controlling behaviour by the maternal grandmother. She contends her mental health has greatly improved since she ceased living with the maternal grandmother and asserts there is a risk of her mental health again deteriorating if X is required to spend time with the maternal grandmother and she submits any significant decline in her mental health will in turn have an impact upon X, due to her age and inability to self-protect.

1. The father joins in seeking the maternal grandmother's application be dismissed. In the alternative, he seeks an order providing for X to spend time with the maternal grandmother as agreed by him and the mother.
2. The evidence given by the father on affidavit corroborates the evidence given by the mother that she was subjected to family violence, including coercive and controlling behaviour by the maternal grandmother. He is concerned about the highly conflictual dynamic between the mother and maternal grandmother and X's exposure to that conflict. The father says he has observed significant improvements in the mother's mental health since she left the maternal grandmother's home and he seeks to support her ongoing improved mental health, cognisant of the importance of the impact of the mother's mental health on X's wellbeing.

1. The independent children's lawyer recommends orders be made providing for X to live with the mother and to spend time with the father as agreed between him and the mother and to spend time with the maternal grandmother as all three parties agree in writing. The independent children's lawyer also recommends an order facilitating the maternal grandmother sending gifts and cards to X on a monthly basis and on special occasions, to a postal address nominated by the mother. The independent children's lawyer did not ultimately recommend the parties engage in family therapy.
2. The independent children's lawyer's submissions and recommendations accord with the assessment and recommendations made in a recent child impact report prepared by court child expert Ms C ("court child expert"), dated 22 November 2025 ("child impact report").
3. During the hearing, the parents indicated their support for the orders recommended by the independent children's lawyer, over their formal positions.

1. The issues requiring determination by the court therefore include:

(a) Is it in X's best interests to resume spending time with the maternal grandmother and to communicate with her on a regular basis, on an interim basis? This requires consideration in particular of the mother's psychological and emotional safety as a person who has parental responsibility for X and the benefit to X of having a relationship with the maternal grandmother;

(b) Is the order proposed by the independent children's lawyer providing for X to receive cards and letters from the maternal grandmother in her best interests?

(c) Are the injunctions sought by the maternal grandmother appropriate for X's welfare?

1. In their formal responses and in the father's case outline, the parents seek an interim order for the maternal grandmother to pay their costs of and incidental to the proceeding, presumably relating to the hearing of her interim application. Submissions were not made in respect of those applications and, if pressed, it is appropriate for them to be dealt with following submissions after delivery of my reasons. I will therefore make directions providing for that, including for the determination of any costs application "on the papers" in chambers, if the parties consent to that.

Approach to be taken to interim parenting disputes

1. The court's task in respect of this interim hearing is to decide, as a necessary but temporary measure, what arrangements will best promote X's welfare pending a final hearing where all of the evidence can be tested, evaluated and weighed.[1] As explained by the Full Court in Banks & Banks, interim parenting proceedings should be confined to those issues which, in the best interests of the children, require determination prior to a proper determination at a final hearing.[2]
2. The procedure for an interim hearing in parenting proceedings was explained by Full Court in Goode:[3]

...the procedure for making interim parenting orders will continue to be an abridged process where the scope of the enquiry is "significantly curtailed". Where the Court cannot make findings of fact it should not be drawn into issues of fact or matters relating to the merits of the substantive case where findings are not possible. The Court also looks to the less contentious matters, such as the agreed facts and issues not in dispute and would have regard to the care arrangements prior to separation, the current circumstances of the parties and their children, and the parties' respective proposals for the future.

1. As the Full Court said in Edgar & Strofield,[4] "[...] the limits to an interim hearing are well known. Disputed issues of fact cannot be resolved at an interim hearing [...]" However, this does not mean that a Judge deciding an interim hearing is relieved from their duty to consider risks pertinent to the welfare of children and their carers.[5] As explained by the Full Court in SS & AH:[6]

[...] findings made at an interim hearing should be couched with great circumspection, no matter how firmly a judge's intuition may suggest that the finding will be borne out after a full testing of the evidence.

Apart from relying upon the uncontroversial or agreed facts, a judge will sometimes have little alternative than to weigh the probabilities of competing claims and the likely impact on children in the event that a controversial assertion is acted upon or rejected. It is not always feasible when dealing with the immediate welfare of children simply to ignore an assertion because its accuracy has been put in issue.

1. In Franklyn & Franklyn, the Full Court further explained_:_[8]

In interlocutory hearings, to the extent it is possible, judges are enjoined to make decisions about interim orders based on agreed facts, less contentious evidence, and inferences which fairly arise [...], but decisions must still be made despite contentious evidence. Judges are obliged to act on the strength of the evidence presented and, if it is relatively weak, are entitled to treat it so. [...] judges are not required to treat all untested evidence as bearing the same weight.

1. The Full Court has acknowledged the required conservative approach, or one which is likely to avoid harm to a child, "is often to the understandable distress of a party who may not achieve the outcome he or she desires, or thinks to be in the best interests of their child or children." [9]

1. Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 ("the Act") contains the statutory provisions applying to the making of parenting orders.
2. The objects of Part VII are set out in section 60B of the Act:

(a) to ensure that the best interests of children are met, including by ensuring their safety; and

(b) to give effect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child done at New York on 20 November 1989.

1. Those objects provide context and assist with interpretation of Part VII, and I have had regard to them. In particular, I have regard to Parliament's intention when amending the Act in 2023[10], that "safety is a fundamental consideration when considering the best interests of the child."
2. Section 60CG requires a court when considering what parenting order to make, to ensure, to the extent it is possible to do so consistently with the child's best interests being the paramount consideration, the order is consistent with any family violence order and does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence.
3. Section 60CA provides that in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order, the court must regard the best interests of a child as the paramount consideration. In determining the best interests of X, I am required to consider those matters set out in section 60CC of the Act and in particular, the general considerations prescribed by section 60CC(2). However, the fact there is little uncontested evidence at this interim stage means that only limited consideration may be able to be given to the relevant section 60CC factors[11] and the issues in dispute will dictate which section 60CC factors are relevant.[12]

1. As observed by Austin J in Chika & Ragnall [13]:

[...] the Act does not import any presumption in favour of parents over non-parents in the determination of proper parenting orders)

1. This remains the case following amendments to the Act made by the Family Law Amendment Act 2023 (Cth) ("Amendment Act").

1. In November 2025, the parties were interviewed by the court child expert for the preparation of the child impact report. X was observed with both of her parents but not with the maternal grandmother.
2. In summary, the court child expert assessed X spending time with the maternal grandmother could have a detrimental effect on X's overall wellbeing given the apparently entrenched conflictual dynamics between the mother and maternal grandmother, which may outweigh any potential benefits for X. In light of that assessment, the court child expert recommended the court consider a cautious approach to the time she spends with the maternal grandmother and that consideration of any future time between X and the maternal grandmother be in accordance with the views and wishes of the mother and the father.
3. As stated in the report, the child impact report has limitations, being a report prepared at an early stage in the proceedings to provide preliminary expert advice about X's needs and experiences. The court child expert's opinion is also untested. However, as explained by Austin J in Fowler & Northwood:[14]

[...] when ostensibly credible evidence is before the court, a judge is expected to heed it. Even though expert opinion evidence is normally untested in an interim hearing, the provisions of the Act expressly require a judge to react to credible evidence concerning risks of harm to which children might be exposed and against which they require protection

1. I therefore give significant weight to the preliminary expert assessment undertaken by the court child expert and the recommendations made in the child impact report when undertaking my assessment of X's safety and making my interim determination.

1. I have read each party's account of the background to this proceeding, as described in their affidavits and to the court child expert as recorded in the child impact report. I have had regard to that background, even though I provide only a brief summary in my reasons.
2. X was born in 2023. Her parents have not been in a relationship, save to co-parent X.
3. The mother and X initially lived with the maternal grandmother following X's birth. The father says that from August 2024 to December 2024, X and the mother lived with him, before returning to live with the maternal grandmother.
4. There is a dispute about X's care history. The parents assert they were the primary carers of X, with some assistance from the maternal grandmother who they assert was overbearing and controlling in relation to their care of X. The maternal grandmother asserts the mother relied on her heavily and she was very involved in X's care.
5. Since July 2025, X has lived with the mother in a location the mother does not wish to disclose to the maternal grandmother, citing safety concerns. X spends time with the father by agreement between the mother and father, including regular time during the week and overnight on weekends. X has spent only one occasion of time with the maternal grandmother since July 2025, on 10 August 2025, in the presence of the father.
6. The maternal grandmother lives with her son (X's maternal uncle), Mr D. The mother alleges the maternal uncle has a history of drug abuse, erratic behaviour and violent outbursts. She provided examples of his behaviour, including that in August 2024 he flipped a table nearly hitting X in her highchair and pushing the mother backwards in X's presence. Her allegations in relation to the maternal uncle's violent behaviour is corroborated by information provided by Victoria Police,[15] reporting numerous family violence intervention orders made to protect the maternal grandmother from family violence by the maternal uncle and criminal charges including a charge for unlawful assault in 2018 which was the subject of a diversion. The maternal grandmother gives evidence that whilst the maternal uncle had drug issues in the past he has recently provided a clear hair follicle test. She did not give a detailed account of the matters giving rise to the family violence intervention orders between her and the maternal uncle.
7. Whilst various claims and allegations will need to be explored and evidence tested at a final hearing, including in relation to the parties' historical role in X's care, the parties' allegations of family violence and the mother's allegation her mental health difficulties are in part attributable to the maternal grandmother's conduct, the following important facts are agreed or uncontested:

(a) The relationship between the mother and maternal grandmother has been one of high conflict since the mother was an adolescent. The court child expert described that conflict as chronic and entrenched;

(b) The mother has experienced significant mental health challenges over an extended period of time and has been under the care of a psychiatrist for many years;

(c) X has lived with the mother independently from the maternal grandmother since July 2025; and

(d) The mother and father currently share a positive co-parenting relationship.

1. For the determination of the issues before me on an interim basis, the provisions of section 60CC(2) requiring particular consideration are those relating to:

(a) X's safety (including her emotional safety) and the mother's safety (as the person primarily responsible for her care): section 60CC(2)(a);

(b) Overlapping with that consideration is the matter of the mother's parenting capacity, as the person primarily responsible for X's care: section 60CC(2)(d);

(c) The benefit to X of resuming a relationship with the maternal grandmother: section 60CC(2)(e); and

(d) The benefit to X of supporting her relationship with her father by supporting the parents' co-parenting relationship: section 60CC(2)(e).

1. X's developmental and emotional needs also require consideration (section 60CC(2)(c)) and I will consider those needs first, to provide context for the other considerations.

The developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of X: section 60CC(2)(c)

1. The court child expert reports the parties raised no concerns for X's health, learning, development or overall wellbeing. It is anticipated she will commence attending one day of childcare each week in 2026.
2. At the age of two, X is a young child, dependent upon her caregivers for her physical and emotional support and wellbeing. She is unable to act protectively or report her experiences to others.
3. As explained by the court child expert:

[X] (2) is at the most critical stage of her development and is tasked with forming a strong bond with her primary caregivers who are ideally reliable and responsive to her needs to establish trust. This vital stage allows [X] to form trustworthiness in others to explore various environments which form an internal working framework enacted throughout her life. [X] is especially vulnerable at this age due to her complete reliance on her primary caregivers to have all her needs met.

It appears that [X] has been exposed to significant changes and disruptions to her young life including her exposure to high conflict by multiple maternal family members, alleged exposure to family violence and parental mental health vulnerabilities. Given [X]'s stage of development and complete vulnerability, she is not yet be able to process such heightened responses from persons with whom she is reliant on to meet her needs.

1. These vulnerabilities in my view weigh in favour of a conservative approach being taken in respect of supporting the mother's emotional safety and parenting capacity, and the co-parenting relationship between the mother and the father, it being agreed X will continue to live with the mother and spend regular time with the father.

What arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of X and each person who has the care of X (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for the X): section 60CC(2)(a)

1. When considering those matters in section 60CC(2)(a), I am required to consider the matters set out in section 60CC(2A), namely:

(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.

Any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving X or a person caring for X (whether or not the person had parental responsibility for X): section 60CC(2A)(a)

1. As already noted, each of the mother and the maternal grandmother allege they have been subjected to family violence and coercive and controlling behaviour by the other.
2. It is not necessary for me to consider the allegations made by the maternal grandmother in detail at this juncture, because she does not assert it is unsafe for X to live with the mother. I am however required to consider the allegations made by the mother, given her submission it is not in X's best interests to spend time with the maternal grandmother, including because of the history of family violence she alleges was perpetrated by the maternal grandmother against, her, including incidents involving X.
3. Whilst I am unable to make findings in relation to disputed facts at this interim stage, I do not disregard the allegations of family violence made by the mother in the following circumstances:

(a) The mother provides a detailed and compelling narrative of the family violence and coercive and controlling behaviour she alleges she was subjected to by the maternal grandmother;

(b) The mother's allegations are corroborated by the father's evidence;

(c) Whilst the maternal grandmother makes a broad denial of the mother's allegation of family violence and alleges them to be "false" and a "complete fabrication" she does not provide a detailed account of the incidents the mother alleges occurred in response to those allegations;

(d) The mother's allegation of the maternal grandmother denigrating her is supported by a tendered document showing screenshots of a video posted by the maternal grandmother on social media in September 2025, bearing the slogan, "...";[16]

(e) The court child expert reports the maternal grandmother made "some disparaging comments" the court child expert assessed as "unhelpful"; and

(f) Information provided by Victoria Police records there are two family violence incident reports where the maternal grandmother is listed as the perpetrator relating to incidents occurring in March 2023 involving a party not named in the information sharing request.[17]

Any family violence order that applies or has applied to X or a member of X's family: section 60CC(2A)(b)

1. The mother has applied for a family violence intervention order against the maternal grandmother. That application was pending and there was no order in place at the time of the hearing.
2. A report provided by Victoria Police pursuant to an information sharing order dated October 2025, records:

(a) There are 12 expired family violence intervention orders initiated by the police where the maternal uncle was listed as the respondent. The maternal grandmother is listed on seven of those orders as a protected person. There are also two expired safety notices issued to protect the maternal grandmother from family violence by the maternal uncle; and

(b) There is a current family violence intervention order in place naming the maternal grandmother as a protected person, with five expired orders linked under the same case number. The maternal grandmother deposed this order relates to her former husband, the paternal grandfather.

1. In relation to my assessment of X's safety, Campton J explained in Walshe & Walshe:[18]

Provisions of the Act now prescribe that a Court should not make orders for a child to spend time with a parent unless it is satisfied that it is safe to do so (s 60CC(2)(a), s 60CC(2)(e), s 60CC(2A) and s 60CG). These provisions mandate that a judge must engage with credible evidence of risks of harm to which a child might be exposed and against which they require protection, thereby making the evaluation of the contended risks an indispensable product of the interlocutory determination, despite evidence being contentious [...]. The assessment of risk is an evidence-based conclusion, not the product of an exercise of discretion [...]

1. The assessment of the risk of harm to X by spending time with the maternal grandmother involves two elements. The first requires a prediction of whether it is likely that some harmful event will occur, and the second requires consideration of the severity of the impact caused by those events.[19] As Tree J wrote as a member of the Full Court in Bant & Clayton[20], cited by the Full Court in Isles & Nelissen:

Risk assessment involves determining firstly, the degree of the likelihood of the postulated event, and secondly, the prospect and magnitude of harm that may flow if the event occurs. The weighing of those two considerations - even accepting they may be imprecisely expressed within parameters - will inform whether the risk is adjudged to be acceptable or not. However that conclusion cannot be made in the abstract.

1. Pending exploration at a final hearing of the allegations made by the mother in respect of the maternal uncle's use of drugs and family violence, the information provided by Victoria Police supports a finding that there is a risk of X being exposed to family violence if she spends time with the maternal grandmother in the presence of the maternal uncle.
2. As I have said, the allegations made by each of the mother and the maternal grandmother that they have been subjected to family violence including coercive and controlling behaviour by the other will need to be tested at a final hearing. In the meantime, I cannot disregard the credible allegations of family violence made by the mother.

1. Whilst the allegations of family violence are disputed, it is not in dispute there has been protracted and chronic conflict between the mother and the maternal grandmother and I undertake my safety and risk assessment on the basis of that agreed fact.
2. In relation to the chronic conflict in the relationship between the mother and the maternal grandmother, the explanatory memorandum to the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 records[21] the intention of parliament when introducing this provision to the Act with effect from 6 May 2024 that [emphasis added]:

Inclusion of the broad term 'other harm' allows a court-wide discretion to consider the child's particular situation and to draw conclusions of what is in a child's best interests. It will allow, for example, consideration of whether certain arrangements are workable in a family situation where high conflict and poor communication is present (as is often the case in family law matters that proceed to court). This acknowledges the findings by the Australian Psychological Society that continuing inter-parental conflict is one of the strongest single predictors of negative child outcomes. [...]

1. I find that if X spends time with the maternal grandmother there is a high likelihood of her being exposed to conflict between the mother and the maternal grandmother and that this is likely to cause her serious psychological and emotional harm. I do so relying on the following expert opinions provided by the court child expert:

The probability that [X] is exposed to future conflict appears likely and it is concerning that she has been exposed to emotionally dysregulated behaviours by the adults in her life as well as being in the middle of an alleged verbal and physical altercation in July 2025.

If [X] continues to be exposed to such conflict, it is highly likely that her sense of safety and stability could be impacted and she could experience regression, a heightened physiological response and have difficulty regulating in multiple settings.

1. The mother tendered a report from her treating psychiatrist of six years dated 30 September 2025,[22] reporting current diagnoses of major depressive disorder, complex post-traumatic stress disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
2. Whilst the maternal grandmother deposed she is not aware of the mother's current diagnoses, she gave evidence she is aware of the mother's diagnosis of postnatal depression following X's birth. It is also apparent she holds concerns in relation to the mother's mental health, including from her Initiating Application, in which she seeks various orders "subject to the mother [being] in a sound state of mind", the acknowledgment by her counsel the mother is "undoubtedly vulnerable" and the submission the maternal grandmother may need to step in to care for X in case of a "deterioration in the mother's functioning".
3. As mentioned, the mother claims her mental health has improved significantly since she has not been living with the maternal grandmother. This evidence was supported by a recent report from her treating psychiatrist dated 9 December 2025, which reported:[23]

I am aware that [the mother] and her daughter [X] left the house of [the maternal grandmother] on or around 30 July 2025. Prior to this date, [the mother's] mood had been deteriorating in the setting of increasing conflicts with [the maternal grandmother].

Since leaving [the maternal grandmother's] house, [the mother's] mental health has improved significantly. There have been no concurrent changes in medication or other treatments that might have contributed to this improvement. [The mother's] mood has stabilised and her anxiety level has been much reduced.

1. Whilst that opinion is based on the mother's self-report, it is corroborated by the father's evidence that he has observed an improvement in the mother's mental health since leaving the maternal grandmother's home.
2. In relation to the risk to the mother's mental health if X spends time with the maternal grandmother, the mother's treating psychiatrist provided his opinion in a letter dated 15 December 2025:[24]

The events of this year have been highly traumatic for [the mother], and at this stage, forced interactions with or about [the maternal grandmother] would be strongly re-traumatising. This would be detrimental to [the mother's] mental health.

1. Whilst the expert evidence of the mother's treating psychiatrist is untested at this interim stage, it is evidence from an expert who reports he has been treating the mother for six years. It is credible evidence in relation to the mother's mental health and I take it into account in my required consideration of arrangements that will promote the safety of the mother and X, including their psychological and emotional safety.
2. The court child expert provided the following preliminary expert opinion in the child impact report in respect of the mother's mental health and of the benefit to X of the mother continuing to make positive gains in her mental health:

Based on the information available to the writer, the concerns for [the mother's] poor mental health in the past have been concerning and which appear to be exacerbated in the context of relational dynamics with the maternal grandmother. There did not appear to be any acute mental health risk for either party during the assessment however given risk is dynamic this may change in the future, particularly if [the mother] continues to experience the dynamic with the maternal grandmother as controlling and/or critical.

Although the parties' narratives differ as to the origins of the conflict, this appears to be entrenched and to have had a significant impact to [the mother's] mental health, which has only recently improved since she sought independent accommodation for herself and [X]. It would be a shame if such progress was hindered by the Court proceedings and may increase the risk that [X] is exposed to heightened emotional responses, stress and/or a more serious deterioration to [the mother's] mental health. In this scenario, [X]'s core task in developing trust may be hindered with long-term negative impacts. [The mother's] narrative suggests her mental health is in a period of recovery, and she has been help-seeking which are identified as strengths. [X] would greatly benefit from the continuation of such positive progress for [the mother's] mental health and which both parents appear to be highly attuned to.

1. Having considered the undisputed facts (of entrenched, chronic conflict between the mother and maternal grandmother and of the mother experiencing mental health challenges over a long period of time) and credible expert evidence before me, I find there is a risk of the mother's mental health deteriorating if X spends time with the maternal grandmother.
2. I find even a low risk of the mother's mental health deteriorating in response to X spending time with the maternal grandmother poses an unacceptable risk of psychological and emotional harm to X, taking into account the following matters in particular:

(a) X's young age and reliance upon the mother as her primary carer; and

(b) The magnitude of risk of harm to the mother and therefore X, in the event of a decline in the mother's mental health including the risk of the mother misusing medication or using drugs (alleged by the maternal grandmother) and the mother's death by suicide, given there are allegations the mother has in the past experienced suicidal thoughts and attempted suicide. Whilst the mother denies the allegation she has attempted suicide, that allegation is supported by the information sharing report provided by DFFH relied upon by the maternal grandmother[25] and by the evidence of the father.

1. Having identified the existence of an unacceptable risk of harm to X, it is then necessary for me to assess whether that risk is able to be sufficiently managed or ameliorated_._[26]
2. I find the maternal grandmother's proposal for professional supervision would adequately safeguard against the risk of X being exposed to family violence between the mother and maternal grandmother and between the maternal grandmother and maternal uncle. However, I am not persuaded it would adequately safeguard against the risk of X being exposed to ongoing conflict between the mother and maternal grandmother or that it would sufficiently ameliorate the risk to the mother's emotional and psychological safety and therefore to X of a deterioration in the mother's mental health.
3. I find the risk to X's emotional safety, from being exposed to conflict between the mother and maternal grandmother, extends to her communicating with the maternal grandmother by phone or video.

The capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for X to provide for X's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs: section 60CC(2)(d)

1. It is apparent from the proposals of all parties that they accept the mother and father have the required capacity to provide for X's care needs.
2. I have already addressed the matter of the potential for the mother's parenting capacity to be adversely impacted by a deterioration in her mental health in the event an order is made requiring X to spend time with the maternal grandmother.
3. The mother deposes to other matters she says raises concern about the maternal grandmother's capacity to safely care for X and provide for her needs. Given my findings in relation to the risk to the safety of X and the mother arising from the conflict between the mother and maternal grandmother and the mother's mental health vulnerabilities, it is unnecessary for me to consider those allegations at this interim stage.

The benefit to X of being able to have a relationship with her parents, and other people who are significant to her, where it is safe to do so: section 60CC(2)(e)

1. In relation to section 60CC(2)(e), the explanatory memorandum to the Amendment Act explains:

This consideration recognises the importance of parental relationships, and relationships with other people who are significant to the child (such as grandparents or members of a broader kinship group) to a child's wellbeing. Where appropriate and safe, parenting orders that ensure children benefit from a close and nurturing relationship with their parents should be made.

1. Ordinarily, it would be in X's best interests to be able to have a relationship with both of her parents and the maternal grandmother. However, as I have made clear, I am not persuaded it is presently safe for X to resume spending time with the maternal grandmother.
2. My finding is consistent with the expert opinion of the court child expert, expressed in the following terms:

Whilst [X] may benefit from a relationship with the maternal grandmother in the future, the potential impact to [X]'s overall wellbeing in the context of the current conflict, and her complete reliance on [the mother] for her needs would likely be outweighed by any potential benefits. Court ordered time with the maternal grandmother would likely be disruptive to [X]'s development and the overall family unit and may be best supported if or when the conflictual dynamics between [the mother] and the maternal grandmother had improved. It does not appear appropriate to place [X] in the middle of such conflict particularly given her alleged exposure since birth.

1. I also find that X spending time and communicating with the maternal grandmother has the potential to negatively impact the positive co-parenting relationship her parents currently enjoy. About this the court child expert provided the following expert opinion:

The narratives and parent-child observations indicate that [the mother] and [the father] have a positive co-parenting relationship and [X] appeared to greatly enjoy spending time with her parents together. [The father] has indicated that the current situation has been overwhelming and that any Orders whereby he was to facilitate [X]'s time with the maternal grandmother, would negatively impact on their co-parenting relationship and cause undue stress. The writer would assess that [the father] appears to be a significant protective factor for [the mother] and thus [X] and that any impacts to the co-parenting relationship due to the current conflict would not be beneficial for [X] overall.

1. This is another risk from which I consider X should be safeguarded.
2. Counsel for the maternal grandmother submitted the court child expert omitted to consider the impact of severing X's relationship with the maternal grandmother. I emphasise this is an interim hearing to determine if X should resume spending time with the maternal grandmother pending a final hearing to fully explore the allegations made by each of the parties and to determine X's long term care arrangements.
3. At this juncture, X has only spent time with the maternal grandmother on one occasion since July 2025, on 10 August 2025. There is no evidence before me to indicate X is not faring well with her current care arrangements. The orders I have determined to make to promote the psychological and emotional safety of X and the mother will not effect any change to those care arrangements pending a final hearing.

Anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of X: section 60CC(2)(f)

1. A submission was made on behalf of the maternal grandmother in closing that because the mother is "undoubtedly vulnerable", it is in X's best interests for her relationship with the maternal grandmother to be maintained in case of a deterioration in the mother's functioning and need for the maternal grandmother to "step in" as she has historically had the "next level of significant care" of X, I note however the father's availability in the event the mother requires support with X's care.

1. In all of the circumstances, I find it is not presently in X's best interests to spend time with the maternal grandmother, even on a professionally supervised basis, or to communicate with her by telephone or video. I will therefore make the interim orders set out at the commencement of these reasons, in the terms recommended by the independent children's lawyer and supported by the mother and the father. Those orders will provide for the possibility of X spending time with the maternal grandmother pending a final hearing if the current situation changes and the mother and the father agree that is appropriate.
2. I acknowledge the maternal grandmother will be upset by this outcome because she loves X and misses her, but my priority is X's safety and her best interests, and I am required to take a conservative approach to safeguarding her welfare at this interim stage.

1. I will make the order recommended by the independent children's lawyer facilitating the maternal grandmother communicating with X by sending her gifts and cards on special occasions. I am satisfied this form of communication is far less likely to expose X to conflict between the mother and maternal grandmother than communication by phone or video. This communication will allow X to maintain a connection with the maternal grandmother, to be built upon in the future if the mother and the father agree to that or if the court finds it is in X's best interests following a final hearing. In this way, X's relationship will not be "severed" on an interim basis, to adopt the term used by counsel for the maternal grandmother.
2. I will make an additional order to support this form of communication, requiring the mother to provide a postal address within seven days from the date of my orders.

1. To make an injunction pursuant to section 68B of the Act in relation to X, I am required to be satisfied that it is appropriate for her welfare. Section 68B is informed by the best interests of the child but not governed by the paramountcy principle.[27] The Full Court in Bielen & Kozma[28] observed there is no definition of the "welfare" of the child in the Act and expressed the view that consideration of matters impacting upon the welfare of a child "necessarily involves focusing upon the immediate, medium and long-term impact of proposed orders upon the child's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being."
2. I am satisfied the injunction sought by the maternal grandmother restraining the parties from denigrating X's family members to X or in her presence of hearing is appropriate for her welfare and in her best interests given the identified need to safeguard X from conflict between the mother and the maternal grandmother in particular.
3. I will not make the injunction sought by the maternal grandmother restraining the parties from "involving X in adult conversations" which I find is unclear and incapable of enforcement.

1. Having considered all of the matters I have referred to, I am satisfied the orders set out at the commencement of these reasons are in X's best interests.

I certify that the preceding eighty-nine (89) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge A. Humphreys.

[1] Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101; (2010) 240 FLR 367 ("Marvel"), at [120].

[2] [2015] FamCAFC 36; (2015) FLC 93-637 at [48], referring also at [47] to Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 958; (2006) FLC 93-296 ("Goode").

[4] [2016] FamCAFC 93; (2016) FLC 93-711 at [15].

[5] Cimorelli & Wenlack [2020] FamCAFC 58 ("Cimorelli & Wenlack") at [80]-[81]).

[6] [2010] FamCAFC 13, at [88].

[8] [2019] FamCAFC 256 at [73].

[10] As expressed at paragraph 17 of the explanatory memorandum to the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023.

[13] [2024] FedCFamC1F 296, at [39] by reference to well-established authority including Maldera & Orbel [2014] FamCAFC 135; (2014) FLC 93-602 at [79]-[81]; Valentine & Lacerra [2013] FamCAFC 53; (2013) FLC 93-539 at [42]-[43]; Aldridge & Keaton [2009] FamCAFC 229; (2009) FLC 93-421 at [59]-[61], [75]-[81] and [83].

[14] (2022) FLC 94-114 ("Fowler & Northwood"), at [24], citing Cimorelli & Wenlack; and Lim & Zong [2020] FamCAFC 20; (2020) FLC 93-939 at [32]-[33].

[15] Section 67ZBD response of Victoria Police dated October 2025.

[17] section 67ZBD response of Victoria Police dated October 2025.

[18] [2025] FedCFamC1A 231, at [38] referring to Fowler & Northwood at [24] and Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97; (2022) FLC 94-092 ("Isles & Nelissen") at [85].

[19] Deiter & Deiter [2011] FamCAFC 82 at [61]

[20] [2015] FamCAFC 222; (2015) 53 Fam LR 621 at [171]

[25] Section 67ZBD response of DFFH dated 2 September 2025.

[26] Blinko & Blinko [2015] FamCAFC 146 at [83]

[27] Hedlund & Hedlund [2021] FedCFamC1A 84; (2021) FLC 94-065 citing previous authorities with approval.