Fort & Fort (No 5) [2026] FedCFamC1F 182 (23 March 2026)

1. That the parties have parental responsibility in respect of X and YY ("Y") both born in 2013 ("the children").

1. Commencing at the end of Term 4, 2025 the children spend time with the father on a week about basis during school holiday periods as follows:

(a) During the March/April and October school holidays in each year as follows:

(i) If the children are not already in the care of the father on the last weekend of the school term pursuant to order 22 herein, then the children shall spend time with the father during the school holiday period from 8.30 am on the first Monday of the holiday period to 8.30 am on the second Monday (7 nights) of the holiday period

NOTING THAT in addition to the said 7 night block the father will spend time with the children on the final weekend of the school holiday period in accordance with the usual term time arrangement in accordance with to order 22 herein.

(ii) If the children are in the care of the father on the last weekend of the school term pursuant to order 22 herein, then the children shall spend time with the father during the school holiday period from 8.30 am on the second Monday of the holiday period to the commencement of school on the first day of the school term (or 8.30 am if a non-school day)

NOTING THAT in addition to the said 7-night block the father will spend time with the children on the first weekend of the school holiday period in accordance with the usual term time arrangement in accordance with order 22 herein.

(b) During the December/January school holidays in each year as follows:

(i) That if the children are not in the care of the father on the last weekend of the school term pursuant to order 22 herein, then the children shall spend time with the father during the school holiday period from 8.30 am on the

(ii) That if the children are in the care of the father on the last weekend of the school term pursuant to order 22 herein, then the children shall spend time with the father during the school holiday period from 8.30 am on the second Monday of the school holiday period to 8.30 am on the third Monday of the school holiday period (7 nights) and each alternate week thereafter

NOTING THAT in addition to the said 7-night blocks he will spend time with the children on the first weekend of the school holiday period in accordance with the usual term time arrangement in accordance with order 22 herein.

(c) During the July school holidays in each year as follows:

(i) That if the children are not in the care of the father on the last weekend of the school term pursuant to order 22 herein, then the children shall spend time with the father during the school holiday period from 8.30 am on the first Monday of the school holiday period to 4.00 pm on the second Wednesday of the school holiday period (9 nights)

NOTING THAT in addition to the said 9 night block the father will spend time with the children on the final weekend of the school holiday period in accordance with the usual term time arrangement in accordance with order 22 herein.

(ii) That if the children are in the care of the father on the last weekend of the school term pursuant to order 22 herein, then the children shall spend time with the father during the school holiday period from 4.00 pm on the second Wednesday of the school holiday period to 4.00 pm on the third Friday of the school holiday period (9 nights)

NOTING THAT in additional to the said 9-night block the father will spend time with the children on the first weekend of the school holiday period in accordance with his usual term time arrangement in accordance with order 22 herein.

(d) The parties' time with the children in accordance with order 22 and 3 herein be suspended during special occasions and the children time with the parties in lieu thereof as follows:

(e) The time spending arrangements pursuant to order 22 and 3(b) herein be suspended from 10.00 am Christmas Eve to 3.00 pm Boxing Day and in lieu thereof:

(i) In 2025 and each alternate year thereafter:

1. With the father, from 10.00 am Christmas Eve to 12.30 pm Christmas Day; and
2. With the mother, from 12.30 noon Christmas Day until 3.00 pm on 26 December.

(ii) In 2026 and each alternate year thereafter:

1. With the mother, from 10.00 am Christmas Eve to 12.30 pm Christmas Day; and
2. With the father, from 12.30 pm Christmas Day until 3.00 pm on 26 December.

(f) That on the children's birthdaythe children spend time with the parent who does not have the care of them that day as agreed between the parties in writing and in the absence of agreement:

(i) If a non-school day, from 4.00 pm to 8.00 pm; or

(ii) If a school day, from the conclusion of school until 5.00 pm.

(g) With the father on Father's Day, from 5.00 pm the preceding Saturday until 5.00 pm on Father's Day; and

(h) With the mother on Mother's Day from 5.00 pm the Saturday before Mother's Day until 5.00 pm on Mother's Day.

1. That all handovers occur at the children's school and in the event such cannot occur, the parent whose time is to commence is to collect the children from the other parent's residential address.

1. That for three (3) years following the date of this order the father do submit to testing requirements as follows:

(a) For a period of one (1) year as from the date of this Order:

(i) The father be required to submit to monthly phosphatidylethanol (PEth) blood testing administered by SA Pathology on the first day of each calendar month or the next business day if the first day of the month falls on a weekend or a public holiday.

(ii) That the father do submit to quarterly ethyl glucuronide (EtG) hair testing administered by SS Pty Ltd on the first day of March, June, September and December or the next business day if the first day of the month falls on a weekend or a public holiday.

(iii) That for the purpose of compliance with order 5(a)(ii) herein the father do provide a body hair sample of no less than 3 cm.

(b) That subject to the father returning all results of

(i) The father be required to submit to PEth blood testing administered by SA Pathology on ten (10) separate occasions at intervals between thirty‑five (35) to forty (40) days between each test; and

(ii) The father be required to submit to two (2) further PEth blood tests within seven (7) days of any request by the mother by email to the father.

(c) That subject to the father returning all results of

(i) That the father be required to submit to three (3) further PEth blood tests within seven (7) days of any request by the mother by email to the father.

1. That the requisite three-year period that the father's compliance with orders 5(a) to 5(c) will restart upon the father providing a result of >20ng/mL for PEth and/or >5pg/mg for EtG (or "positive for the consumption of alcohol") during the period that order 5 is operative.
2. If the father is away from South Australia at the time that the mother makes a random request in accordance with orders 5(b)(ii) or 5(c)(i) herein:

(a) The timeframe for the father to submit to the test is extended to the date being seven (7) days following his return to South Australia subject to the father providing to the mother documentary evidence (being either airfare or accommodation receipts, or such other document as agreed by the mother) directed to his absence from South Australia at the time of the request being made.

1. That in respect of random testing in accordance with orders 5(b)(ii) or 5(c)(i) herein the father do forthwith provide to the mother documentary evidence that he has submitted to the required test within the required timeframe irrespective of whether the results for the test have yet been published.
2. That the father do:

(a) Provide to the mother copies of the PEth and EtG test results directly to the mother by email within forty-eight (48) hours of his receipt of same; and

(b) Provide an irrevocable authority to SA Pathology, SS Pty Ltd and his General Practitioner granting them permission to release copies of the PEth and EtG test results to the mother within forty-eight (48) hours of receipt, such authority to lapse upon the conclusion of the father's obligations pursuant to order 5 hereof.

1. That the parties do all things necessary to maintain valid Australian passports for the children with the costs to be shared equally between the parties.
2. That the mother do retain the children's passports for safekeeping and:

(a) The mother will release the passports to the father no later than seven (7) days prior to any international travel and otherwise for the limited purpose of obtaining any visa; and

(b) The father will return the passports to the mother no later than seven (7) days following his return to Australia after such travel.

1. That the mother be at liberty to have an extended travel period of up to twenty-one (21) consecutive days with the children in the July or December/January school holiday periods between July 2026 and 31 December 2027 provided that the father have make up time for the time that he would have otherwise had with the children with such make up time to take place within the following subsequent two school holiday periods on dates and at times as agreed between the parties.
2. That commencing from January 2028 and subject to the father providing results of 20ng/mL for PEth and/or EtG >5pg/mg during the operation of orders 5 to 9 hereof, or fails to comply with orders 5 to 9 hereof then:

(a) Forthwith:

(i) The father's time with the children pursuant to orders 22 and 3 shall stand suspended and in lieu thereof the father shall spend time with the children during the school term and school holidays subject to his compliance with orders 18(a)(ii) to 18(a)(viii) as follows:

1. In accordance with the cycle of time which would have otherwise applied pursuant to order 22:

(1) from the conclusion of school on Friday (or 4.00 pm if a non-school day) until the commencement of school on Monday (or 8.30 am if a non-school day) (3 nights) and each alternate week thereafter.

(1) from the conclusion of school on Thursday (or 4.00 pm if a non-school day) until the commencement of school on Friday (or 4.00 pm if a non-school day) (1 night) and each alternate week thereafter.

(ii) The father shall record his blood alcohol content on a breath alcohol analysis device and provide clear photographic evidence by text message of his blood alcohol readings, and date and time of the readings to the mother as follows:

1. on handover days:

(1) 30 minutes prior to the commencement of his time with the children; and

(2) 30 minutes prior to the conclusion of his time with the children.

(1) at 8.00 am and 9.00 pm of each day that the children are in his care.

1. In addition to orders 18(a)(ii)(A) and 18(a)(ii)(B) herein:

(1) the mother be at liberty to request by text message random breathalyser readings from the father when the children are in the father's care as follows:

1. on two (2) separate occasions during the time that the children are in the care of the father pursuant to order 18(a)(i)(A)(1) herein and the twenty-four (24) hour period prior to the commencement of such time.
2. on one (1) occasion during the time that the children are in the care of the father pursuant to order 18(a)(i)(B)(1) herein and the twenty-four (24) hour period prior to the commencement of such time.
   1. That the father do comply with the mother's request for a random breathalyser test in accordance with order 18(a)(ii)(C) herein within sixty (60) minutes of a request being made.

(iii) With respect to the breath alcohol analysis device referred to in order 18(a)(ii):

1. it shall be a F Company breathalyser;

2. it shall be sent by the father for recalibration by F Company within seven (7) days of order 18(a)(ii) herein taking effect and do provide the mother with written confirmation of same with any associated costs to be borne solely by the father;

   1. the father do provide an irrevocable authority to F Company granting them permission to release to the mother the data downloaded from the breathalyser device within forty-eight (48) hours of receipt;

   2. during any period that the breathalyser device is sent for recalibration the mother may require the father to provide a recording of his blood alcohol content in accordance with order 18(a)(ii) herein on an alternate breath alcohol analysis device; and

   3. the mother be at liberty to require on one (1) occasion per month that the father provide the breath analysis device to the mother during a period of time that he does not have the care of the children for the purposes of her inspecting the device and the mother do return the device to the father prior to the next occasion that he spends time with the children.

(iv) The father immediately arranges the installation of an Ignition Interlock Device in his motor vehicle and do provide the mother with evidence of its installation.

(v) The father ensure that his Ignition Interlock Device is recalibrated once per month upon noting that the time between each recalibration shall not exceed thirty-five (35) days.

(vi) The father do send to the mother a copy of the recalibration report within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt.

(vii) The father do provide an irrevocable authority to the service provider for the Ignition Interlock Device granting them permission to release to the mother the recalibration report to her within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt.

(viii) That the father be restrained by injunction from transporting the children in any vehicle that does not have an Ignition Interlock Device installed in the event that he is the driver of any such vehicle.

1. That order 18 be suspended and the father's time with the children in accordance with orders 22 and 3 herein be reinstated upon the father producing:

(a) Six (6) consecutive PEth results returning a result of
(b) One hair follicle test returning a result of (a) Denigrating the other parent in the presence or hearing of the children or allowing any other person to do so.

(b) Discussing any matters raised in these proceedings with or in the presence of or in the hearing of the children or allowing any other person to do so.

1. The children shall live with each of the parents in a week-about arrangement with handover occurring each Friday as follows:

(a) If a school day at the conclusion of school; and

(b) If a non-school day at 4.00pm.

1. The parenting proceedings otherwise be dismissed as finalised save as to any application for costs.
2. Pursuant to section 65DA(2) and section 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), 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 Annexure A and the Fact Sheet from the Federal Circuit and Family Court attached hereto and these particulars are included in and form part of these orders.

1. The Principal Registrar of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) is requested to provide a copy of these reasons to the South Australian Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner for consideration of the conduct of Mr John Dillon as referred to at paragraphs 114 - 121 of these reasons.

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

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

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

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

1. These reasons concern the parenting arrangements for the parties' twin children X and Y, who were twelve years of age at the time of trial.
2. The central issue in the proceedings concerned the undisputed fact that the father has abused alcohol in the past and his acknowledgement that he suffered from an alcohol use disorder which was in remission (albeit not formally diagnosed), such that the mother continues to hold concerns as to the risk of harm the father's potential for future alcohol misuse poses to the children.
3. The findings made later in these reasons are such that the Court is satisfied that since November/December 2023 the father has made significant changes to his approach to alcohol consumption and associated behaviours so as to address the problematic behaviour more generally but specifically the risks those behaviours pose to the children. Indeed, it is the father's case that he has been entirely abstinent from alcohol consumption since about November/December 2023, and that he made this change as he was desirous of maintaining his relationship with the children. It is also the father's case that his plan and goal is to remain abstinent from alcohol consumption in the future.
4. Whilst there appears to be a great deal of acrimony between the parties, and reams of material had been filed for trial and/or produced in tender bundles in anticipation of the final hearing, the issues the Court was ultimately asked to determine at the commencement of the trial were quite narrow and can be distilled to the following substantive issues:

(a) Whether the father's time spending with the children should reduce from its current five night per fortnight regime during school terms, to four nights each fortnight as proposed by the mother, or whether it should increase to a week about arrangement as proposed by the father; and

(b) What ongoing protective regime ought remain in place to address the risks posed by the father's alcohol misuse and any relapse, and how long any protective measures ought remain in place.

1. Unfortunately, and despite the centrality of the father's alcohol misuse to the issues in dispute in the proceedings, limited expert evidence was before the Court about issues that appeared to remain in dispute during the final hearing, including:

(a) What if anything was to be made about the father's assertions that he had recorded "false positives" when testing on a breathalyser and car interlock device; and

(b) Future testing regimes to buttress against the father's risk of relapse such that it is brought to the mother's attention in a timely fashion.

1. To the parties' credit, prior to the Court hearing counsel's closing submissions in the final hearing, the parties were able to reach agreement about the protective regime to be put in place. To that end, the Court was invited, and made, a tranche of orders on 17 December 2025 on a final basis in that regard. These orders were made on the basis that the Court would remake those orders as part of the final parenting orders to be made (albeit by consent), so that all parenting orders relating to the children are consolidated into one order.
2. This agreement between the parties resolved one of the substantive issues in dispute, leaving the only question to be resolved by the Court, by the time of the conclusion of the final hearing, to be the term time living arrangements for the children.
3. For the reasons that follow orders shall be made which in essence implement a week about shared care arrangement for the children, together with the suite of parenting orders the parties agreed ought be made with their mutual consent.

1. From the material filed by each of the parties for the final hearing, the following appear to be agreed background facts:

(a) The father was born in South Australia in 1979 and was 46 years old at the time of trial.

(b) The mother was born in the United Kingdom ("UK") in 1981 and was 44 years old at the time of trial.

(c) The parties met at a festival in the UK in mid-2008 when the father was living and working in City UU in the financial sector and the mother was working as a manager for a retail chain, with their relationship commencing some time shortly thereafter and the parties cohabiting in either 2010 (on the mother's case) or January 2011 (on the father's case), with nothing turning on this factual dispute.

(d) The parties remained living in the UK throughout the first portion of their relationship and were ultimately married in 2012 in the UK.

(e) In 2013 the twins, X and Y, were born. The children were aged 12 at the time of the final hearing and attending TT School which is located near to the former matrimonial home. The children however were due to commence at new schools in the 2026 year (following the conclusion of the final hearing), being VV School for the child X and WW School for the child Y; the latter of which is close to the father's home.

(f) The mother took maternity leave at the time of the children's birth, but ultimately did not return to her employment as the parties had decided to relocate to Australia ostensibly to take over the paternal grandparent's business as they had decided to retire.

(g) In September 2015 the family permanently relocated to Australia and they have lived in Australia since that time.

(h) The parties separated under the same roof in or about May 2021, with physical separation taking place in March 2022 when the father vacated the former matrimonial home in Suburb XX and obtained rental accommodation in Suburb M.

(i) Since the parties' relocation to Australia they have operated a business known as "[...]". The father is the chief operating officer and the mother is the chief financial officer. Both parties continue to work it the business with the father working approximately 60 hours each week and the mother working approximately 15‑20 hours each week (Fort & Fort (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 213 at [25]- [27]).

1. I am satisfied that a significant factor in the breakdown of the parties' relationship was the father's use and abuse of alcohol.
2. It is the mother's case that the father's problematic relationship with alcohol is longstanding, and that it was present when the parties resided in the UK and has prevailed since that time.
3. In light of the admissions made by the father during the course of the final hearing, as discussed later in these reasons, I am satisfied that the father has had a problematic relationship with alcohol, which likely developed whilst the parties were living in the UK, escalated over time such that it became and remained significantly problematic until the father determined that he would cease alcohol consumption all together in November/December 2023.

1. Proceedings were commenced by the mother in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) when she filed an Initiating Application on 9 June 2023 seeking parenting orders; which were at that stage unparticularised as to the final relief that she was seeking. The father filed a Response on 21 July 2023, followed by an Amended Response on 1 July 2024 joining financial proceedings. The mother filed a Reply in relation to the financial proceedings on 23 August 2024.
2. It is an agreed fact that prior to the commencement of this litigation, and whilst the parties were separated but living together, they each had legal representation and they engaged in mediation with a retired judicial officer.
3. The parties reached an agreement during that mediation process, which was reduced into a Heads of Agreement signed by the parties and dated 24 February 2022 (Exhibit H5), which included their agreement that:

(a) The parties would have equal shared parental responsibility;

(b) The children would live with the mother;

(c) The children would spend term time with the father:

(i) Each alternate weekend from 5.00pm Friday until 7.30pm Sunday;

(ii) Each Wednesday from the conclusion of school until 7.30pm; and

(iii) At further times as agreed between the parties;

(d) An extension of the father's time between August and October 2025 to provide for a block of five consecutive nights with the children, to make up for the mother being permitted to take the children overseas to the UK in the July 2022 school holidays for three weeks.

1. Significantly from the mother's perspective, protective measures were also implemented to guard the children against the risks associated with the father's problematic alcohol use which included:

(a) The father not to consume alcohol 24 hours prior to spending time with the children nor when they were in his care;

(b) The father to "record his blood alcohol content on a breath alcohol analysis device and provide evidence of his blood alcohol readings to the Mother" at set times at the commencement and conclusion of the children's time spending with the father, together with a reading taken in the morning and the evening at set times when the children were spending overnight time with the father, with those readings to be provided to the mother by text message (paragraph 13); and

(c) In the event that the father did not return a 0.00% breath alcohol analysis reading, then the father's time was to be suspended, with the children to either not transition into the father's care or the children to be returned to the mother if they were already in the father's care.

1. In addition, the parties agreed to instruct a social worker, Ms H to undertake a Family Assessment Report. Ms H ultimately produced her first report on 17 June 2022 together with a further report in the context of the litigation on 24 June 2025. More shall be said about those reports later in these reasons.
2. The first contested interlocutory hearing in the proceedings took place before a senior judicial registrar on 2 November 2023. The following day judgment was delivered with parenting orders made by consent which significantly provided for:

(a) The children to live with the mother;

(b) The children to spend time with the father during school terms for five nights each fortnight as follows:

(i) Each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school Friday until the commencement of school Monday, and each alternate Tuesday from the conclusion of school until the commencement of school Wednesday; and

(ii) Each intervening week from the conclusion of school Wednesday until the commencement of school Thursday.

(c) If the father was to travel further than a 100km radius from the Adelaide CBD the father's time with the children was to be supervised by either the paternal grandmother or paternal aunt;

(d) The continued use of a breath alcohol analysis device by the father (with text message provision of the readings to the mother) on handover days 30 minutes prior to the commencement and conclusion of the father's time with the children, and on non‑handovers days when the children were in his care, at 8.00am and 9.00pm;

(e) In addition, the mother was at liberty to request random breath alcohol analysis test readings from the father on specified occasions when the children were in the father's care;

(f) Use of an Ignition Interlock Device on the father's motor vehicle (which had been fitted to the vehicle by that stage), with the father to provide monthly recalibration reports to the mother;

(g) The father's time with the children to be suspended (including the collection of the children from the father's care) in the event of the father providing a positive blood alcohol concentration reading from the alcohol breath analysis testing when the children were in his care, or if he failed to a provide a reading at those times, if he failed to provide the recalibration report for the Ignition Interlock Device, or if he produced a positive reading on the Ignition Interlock Device when the children were in his care;

(h) In the event of suspension of the father's time with the children, they were to thereafter spend supervised time with the father each alternate weekend from 9.00am to 5.00pm each Saturday and Sunday, and time from the conclusion of school Tuesday until 7.30pm, together with time each intervening week from the conclusion of school Wednesday until 7.30pm, with that time to be supervised by either the paternal grandmother or paternal aunt.

(i) The father to provide results from recent pathology testing, including a liver function test, complete blood examination, carbohydrate-deficient transferrin test;

(j) The father to have an independent psychiatric assessment with Dr G "directed to the allegations of alcohol dependency and alcohol use disorder";

(k) Injunctions restraining the father from consuming alcohol 24 hours prior to or during any time that the children were in his care; and

(l) The father's school holiday time spending with the children to be subject to conditions including a restraint on the father travelling with the children further than a 100km radius from the Adelaide CBD, the children residing at the father's home or at the holiday house of the paternal grandmother in Town U, South Australia, compliance with the breath testing regime together with additional breath testing 24 hours and 12 hours prior to the commencement of the father's school holiday time with the children.

1. In addition to those orders made by consent on 3 November 2023, orders were made by the Court in relation to school holiday time spending between the children and the father on a week about basis over the long Christmas school holidays commencing December 2023, together with time spending for one half of the short school holidays at the end of terms one, two and three in 2024.
2. The mother filed an Application for Review in relation to the judicially determined orders regarding school holiday time spending on 24 November 2023. That application was heard and determined by a judge on 22 December 2023 with the orders regarding the father's school holiday time spending discharged to provide for specified time spending over the December 2023/January 2024 Christmas school holidays of between two and three consecutive nights on each occasion, and the father to submit to random breath analysis testing at the request of the mother during the Christmas school holidays.
3. At a compliance and readiness hearing on 18 September 2024 the proceedings were transferred to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1), because at that stage it was apparent that any final hearing in these proceedings would be lengthy and at least nine days in duration.
4. Following the transfer of the proceedings various interlocutory applications were filed by the parties. It is not necessary for present purposes to discuss the financial applications that were filed, other than to note that they concerned valuation issues relating to the business operated by the parties, with judgment delivered on 4 April 2025 (Fort & Fort (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 213).
5. The interlocutory parenting applications resulted in two separate judgments on 19 February 2025 (Fort & Fort [2025] FedCFamC1F 126) and 19 March 2025 (Fort & Fort (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 175). Those interlocutory parenting disputes were highly charged and it was obvious to the Court at that juncture that there was a "significant lack of trust between the parties" (Fort & Fort [2025] FedCFamC1F 126 at [45]).
6. I do not propose to repeat in these reasons the matters canvassed in those interlocutory judgments. All that is necessary to record for present purposes is that the parenting disputes, at that time, included the father's desire to soften the protective regime and the use of the Ignition Interlock Device alongside increasing his time spending with the children both during term time and school holidays. The mother for her part did not want any softening of the protective regime and additionally opposed longer block time spending between the children and the father in the school holidays. The parties were also in dispute about whether Ms H be engaged to provide a further report in the proceedings (with the mother opposing that course).
7. Relevantly orders were ultimately made by the Court (on 19 February 2025 and 19 March 2025) which provided for:

(a) The ongoing use of the Ignition Interlock Device;

(b) A continuation of the existing school term time spending between the father and the children pursuant to the orders of 2 November 2023;

(c) A further Family Assessment and Report to be undertaken with Ms H;

(d) The father to spend block time with the children during the school holidays in April 2025, July 2025 and September/October 2025 to facilitate interstate holidays to Sydney, Town V and Town W respectively, on the condition that the father's time with the children be supervised by the paternal grandmother.

1. On 10 April 2025 both parenting and financial proceedings were listed for trial commencing 3 December 2025 with a time allocation of eight days. On 22 September 2025 a chambers order was made shifting the commencement of the trial to 8 December 2025.

1. Prior to the commencement of the final hearing, the mother filed an Application in a Proceeding on 20 November 2025 in which she sought in the first instance to bifurcate the financial proceedings to be heard separately and at a later date, or in the alternative, if the Court was not minded to separately hear the two issues, the mother sought that the final hearing in its entirety be adjourned.
2. The motivation behind the mother's application was the revelation by the father, when he filed his trial material on 6 November 2025, in which he indicated for the first time, that he no longer wished to retain the business, and sought orders that the same be sold. This decision on the father's part resulted in an ancillary dispute between the parties as to the machinery orders to be made to facilitate and manage the sale of the business.
3. The father opposed the mother's application that there be a bifurcation of the issues to be determined in the proceedings and promoted either that the trial proceed as scheduled, or in the alternative be adjourned entirely; that is to say he was opposed to any bifurcation of the parenting and financial proceedings.
4. In addition to the dispute relating to which issues ought proceed to trial, the mother also sought orders in her Application in a Proceeding filed 20 November 2025, which when interrogated with reference to the position promoted by the father were as follows:

(a) Leave was sought for the mother to rely on a report from Mr P dated 11 September 2025; and

(b) Leave was sought by the mother to issue a subpoena to the father's former treating psychologist Dr J.

1. Orders were made on 3 December 2025 relevantly which provided for:

(a) The financial proceedings to be bifurcated and heard separately at a later date;

(b) The ancillary financial issues surrounding the management of the sale of the business to be dealt with separately, but within the existing days allocated to the final hearing;

(c) The refusal of the mother's application for leave to issue a subpoena to Dr J; and

(d) The refusal of the mother's application for leave to rely on the report of Mr P dated 11 September 2025.

1. The brief reasons for the making of those orders are as follows.
2. In relation to the bifurcation of the parenting and the financial proceedings:

(a) I was persuaded that there was sufficient lack of clarity regarding the value of the property of the parties rendering it difficult for the Court to effect justice and equity between the parties.

(b) This was because the changed circumstance of the father's intention to sell the business rather than retain it, meant that whilst the business was the subject of a single expert valuation of somewhere between $7.1 million and $9.1 million (depending on which of the parties' projections was accepted by the Court), the parties agreed that:

(i) if the business was able to be sold as a going concern then the value to be ascribed to the business would be determined by the sale price achieved (presumably less any costs of sale); and

(ii) alternatively if the business was unable to be sold as a going concern, it was unlikely to achieve a sale price commensurate with the valuation, in circumstances where certain fixtures and fittings in both the retail and warehouse facilities were unlikely to achieve the values brought to account by the single expert in the valuation, and the stock of the business may ultimately return lower amounts to that recorded as the cost base and/or anticipated sale price. The mother's counsel contended that the differential could be as much as the parties only realising an amount of $4 million from the sale of the business as against the single expert valuation of somewhere between $7.1 million and $9.1 million.

(c) Given this extreme differential in the value of the business, as against the parties' other asset of significance, the former matrimonial home, the Court was concerned as to how to ultimately achieve justice and equity.

(d) Added to this difficulty from the Court's perspective is that the mother wished to reconsider her position as to whether she would now like to retain the business, and/or what, if any, other orders she might pursue by way of final property adjustment. Given the late change to the father's position the Court considered it appropriate that the mother be given the chance to reconsider her position.

(a) Dr J is a practitioner that the father attended upon in relation to his alcohol misuse across 2023. She is no longer the father's treating practitioner and as from approximately February 2024 the father has consulted with Ms B.

(b) Dr J's notes were the subject of a subpoena issued by the mother and have been in the possession of the parties' legal representatives for some time. Indeed, during the interlocutory parenting proceedings determined in February 2025, the content of Dr J's notes had been in issue as discussed in those earlier reasons (Fort & Fort [2025] FedCFamC1F 126 at [50]- [51]).

(c) In that context, the potential for Dr J to be called to give evidence at the trial in these proceedings had been a live and known issue for some significant time.

(d) The father did not elect to call Dr J, and it has never been proposed by him that he would rely on her evidence.

(e) The mother however sought to call Dr J to give evidence amongst other things as to the circumstances that led her to no longer treating the father. The relevance of Dr J's evidence on this topic has been known by the mother since the production of Dr J's notes, and certainly well before the trial directions were made in these proceedings on 10 April 2025.

(f) The father opposed the late request for leave to issue a subpoena to Dr J to give evidence at the trial, raising issues of procedural fairness in the manner in which he had prepared his case for trial based on his understanding that the mother was not seeking to call Dr J.

(g) When pressed, the mother's position was that she did not press the issue of leave to issue the subpoena to Dr J in the event the Court found in favour of her application to bifurcate and proceed with the parenting trial only.

(h) Irrespective, the late request for leave to issue a subpoena on the mother's part would have been determinative of the request. In that regard, merit was found in the procedural fairness submissions made by the father's counsel.

(a) The Court understands that the mother unilaterally instructed Mr P to prepare a report in relation to the different types of testing that might be considered as part of any future monitoring of the father's alcohol consumption.

(b) That the mother did so, in defiance of the single expert rules contained in Part 7.1 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) ("the Rules") is fatal to the application to rely on the report.

(c) Whilst the Court accepts that the topics traversed by Mr P would have been of assistance to the Court, it would make a mockery of the single expert rules if permission were given to litigants to instruct their own expert witnesses at will and have that evidence before the Court by default; noting that this was done by the mother when she first instructed Mr P in May 2024 to prepare an interpretive report regarding the father's testing results that were available at that time, and the report is before the Court without objection as it had been received by the Court during earlier interlocutory proceedings.

1. The mother asks the Court to make parenting orders as set out in her Amended Initiating Application filed on 8 October 2025 and refined in the Minute of Order appended to her Outline of Case filed on 5 December 2025. In summary the orders that the mother seeks are as follows:

(a) The parties to have equal shared parental responsibility for the children;

(b) The children to live with the mother;

(c) The children to spend time with the father:

(i) During term time each alternate week from the conclusion of school Thursday until the commencement of school Monday (4 nights); and

(ii) During school holidays on a week about basis.

(d) A regime of protective orders to guard against the risk of harm to the children from the father's alcohol abuse including:

(i) Ongoing breath alcohol analysis testing until the making of any final order and ongoing for a period of three months following any positive breath testing result, and/or failure to comply with the protective regime;

(ii) For a period of two years from the making of any final order monthly phosphatidylethanol (PEth) blood testing, and quarterly ethyl glucuronide (EtG) hair testing at the father's sole cost;

(iii) After the two year period of PEth and EtG testing and provided the father returns no excessive results from the same, a further one year period of random PEth testing on three occasions at the request of the mother; and

(iv) In the event of positive readings on the testing undertaken by the father both a suspension of the father's time spending and an extension of the testing regimes.

1. The father asks the Court to make orders as set out in his Further Amended Response to Final Orders filed on 6 November 2025 and refined in his Outline of Case filed on 5 December 2025. The orders sought by the father in summary included:

(a) The parties to have joint decision making for major long-term issues for the children;

(b) The children to live with each of the parents in a week about arrangement with changeover occurring each Friday after school;

(c) A regime of protective orders for a period of 12 months following the making of final orders, including:

(i) Quarterly carbohydrate-deficient transferrin (CDT) blood testing, together with a further three random CDT tests at the mother's request; and

(ii) An injunction restraining the father from consuming alcohol 24 hours prior to and during his time spending with the children.

AGREEMENTS REACHED BY THE PARTIES DURING THE FINAL HEARING

1. As earlier identified, to the parties' credit, during the course of the final hearing they were able to reach agreement in relation to a range of issues, including the question of parental responsibility, time spending during school holidays, travel, and significantly from the Court's perspective the protective regime to be implemented to safeguard the children from harm as a consequence of any return to problematic drinking by the father. That agreement was reduced to a Minute of Order, signed by the parties, which was received as Exhibit J2, and ultimately formed the basis of the final parenting orders made on 17 December 2025.
2. As earlier identified, the parties agreed that the final parenting orders made 17 December 2025 ought be made afresh as part of the final parenting orders.
3. That the parties were able to broker such detailed and considered parenting orders in the shadow of the final hearing, and the extant financial proceedings, and against the background of the acrimony and mistrust that has existed in these proceedings, is to their mutual credit.
4. The parties' ability to do so speaks highly of, and I am satisfied evidences, their mutual motivation to arrive at an outcome that meets the children's needs, is responsive to protective issues that might arise in the future, but importantly from the Court's perspective must also stem from an appreciation by both parties that they each have an important role to play in the lives of these children, and that both of the children would benefit from having both of their parents fully and meaningfully engaged in their lives.
5. What the agreement also suggests is that absent any risk to the children stemming from the father's problematic relationship with and abuse of alcohol, neither of the parties have any concerns, and I am satisfied that there are no concerns about the ability of each parent to meet the children's respective needs in every sense.

1. Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") sets out the relevant legislative provisions concerning children. The central focus underpinning the legislation is that the Court "ensure that the best interests of children are met, including by ensuring their safety; and to give effect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child done at New York on 20 November 1989" (s 60B of the Act).
2. To that end, the Court has an obligation to make parenting orders which "regard the best interest of the child as the paramount consideration" (s 60CA of the Act).
3. In determining what is in a child's best interest, the Court is to have regard to six separate factors identified in s 60CC(2) of the Act under the heading "General Considerations" 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;

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

1. In addition, and when considering arrangements that would promote the safety of the child and each person who has the care of the child (whether or not that person has parental responsibility for the child), the Court must consider the following matters under s 60CC(2A) of the Act:

(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. It has long been acknowledged that the assessment of risk of harm is one of the many burdens placed on family law decision makers (Deiter & Deiter [2011] FamCAFC 82 at [61]).
2. The assessment of risk and the concept of "unacceptable risk" were comprehensively considered by the Full Court in Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97; (2022) FLC 94-092 ("Isles"). There the Full Court made clear that the assessment of risk involves two distinct components:

(a) Firstly, the fact finding exercise, which may include findings about any allegations that have been made, together with any admissions made; and

(b) Secondly, the predictive exercise which involves the assessment of the evidence and circumstances, including but not limited to any findings/lack of findings/inability to make findings.

1. However so far as the fact finding exercise is concerned, it must also be remembered that the Court is not required to resolve every disputed allegation (M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 at [76]‑[77]) or fact (Baghti & Baghti and Ors [2015] FamCAFC 71). Rather, the Court is required to consider the entire matrix of evidence before coming to a conclusion as to what orders are in the best interests of the subject child(ren).
2. The significance of approaching the assessment of risk in this fulsome fashion has a direct link to the legislative imperative that the Court make orders that are in the best interests of the subject child(ren). This is because it is the exploration of the entire factual matrix that ultimately enables the Court to consider what, if any, arrangements are able to be put in place to ameliorate risk so as to ensure that the resultant parenting orders are "safe" as prescribed by s 60CC(2)(a) of the Act.
3. As discussed throughout these reasons it is not the mother's case that the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the children such that there are no protective measures capable of implementation to suitably protect the children. Rather, implicit in the mother's case is that provided the father remains sober, she considers the children are safe in his care and that he is able to meet their needs. It is the Court's assessment that the mother's concerns are directly linked to the father's possible future relapse into problematic drinking behaviours and how any such relapse is to be monitored and guarded against to protect the children from any harm that might flow to them from exposure to any such relapse.
4. To that end, and in the absence of fulsome expert evidence directed to the topic, the Court accepts the parties' agreement as to the suitability of the protective regime now implemented as part of the orders made 17 December 2025 and to be remade as part of these final orders.
5. Importantly, given the single issue left in dispute between the parties, the Court infers that where the mother considers those protective arrangements to be suitably protective during school holiday and special occasion time spending, those arrangements are equally suitably protective at all times.

1. The burden of proof in civil proceedings such as these, is that found in s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ("the Evidence Act"); namely "the balance of probabilities". That section provides:

(1) In a civil proceeding, the court must find the case of a party proved if it is satisfied that the case has been proved on the balance of probabilities.

(2) Without limiting the matters that the court may take into account in deciding whether it is so satisfied, it is to take into account:

(a) the nature of the cause of action or defence; and

(b) the nature of the subject matter of the proceeding; and

(c) the gravity of the matters alleged.

1. I have assessed the evidence in these proceedings and made findings throughout these reasons by applying this standard of proof.

(a) Outline of Case filed on 5 December 2025;

(b) Amended Application for Final Orders filed on 8 October 2025;

(c) Trial Affidavit (subject to redactions and rulings on objections to evidence) filed on 8 October 2025;

(d) Reply Affidavit (subject to redactions and ruling on objections to evidence) filed on 17 November 2025;

(e) The affidavit of Mr N, who is a former partner of the father, filed on 8 October 2025;

(f) The affidavit of Mr P filed on 5 December 2025 annexing his report dated 24 June 2024 in which he provided an interpretive analysis of various testing regimes undertaken by the father in relation to his alcohol use prior to that date; and

(g) The affidavit of Dr G who undertook an assessment of the father and prepared several reports dated 8 February 2024, 22 March 2024, 2 May 2025, and 4 August 2025 annexed to his affidavit filed on 8 October 2025.

(a) Outline of Case filed on 5 December 2025;

(b) Amended Response to Final Orders filed on 6 November 2025;

(c) Trial Affidavit (subject to redactions and rulings on objections to evidence) filed on 6 November 2025; and

(d) A document titled "Husband's Admissions" received into evidence at the commencement of the final hearing (Exhibit H1), in which the father made specific admissions in relation to various allegations made by the mother in her trial affidavit of 8 October 2025 (noting that whilst denials were also made in the same, the Court has not had regard to those denials).

1. In addition, during the final hearing the Court received a number of exhibits into evidence.
2. Finally, the Court had the benefit of expert evidence from Ms H who prepared two Family Assessment Reports in these proceedings on each 17 June 2022 and 24 June 2025, both of which were annexed to an affidavit of Ms H filed on 30 September 2025.
3. Irrespective of whether specific reference is made in these reasons to the material before the Court for the final hearing, regard has been had to all of the material in evidence in preparing these reasons and determining those orders that would serve the children's best interests.

1. On 2 December 2025 each of the parties filed Cost Notices in accordance with r 12.06 of the Rules in preparation for trial. The information contained in those Cost Notices was sobering and staggering as to the fees incurred by the parties in this litigation such that it cannot pass without comment. To that end:

(a) The mother's total costs billed up to 2 December 2025 and not including the final hearing totalled $786,263, with a further $95,000 anticipated if the parenting proceedings were bifurcated and heard in December 2025; and

(b) The father's total costs billed up to 2 December 2025 were around $513,768 with a further $100,000 to $200,000 anticipated for an eight day trial on parenting and financial issues.

(c) Whilst it is not clear is how much of the parties' respective costs relate to the parenting proceedings as against the financial proceedings, irrespective of this, the Court expresses some concern over the quantum of costs the parties have been willing to expend on these proceedings.

(d) Further litigation is anticipated to bring the financial proceedings to conclusion. Whilst the Court understands that the parenting proceedings have been motivated by legitimate concerns around the father's alcohol misuse and the concomitant risks that posed to the children, sound heads ought have prevailed much sooner, such that the concessions ultimately made by each of the parties, when cross examined during the final hearing, were known to each of them beforehand, as the Court apprehends that at least the parenting proceedings may well have been capable of resolution.

1. As earlier indicated Ms H prepared two separate Family Assessment Reports.
2. The first was prepared prior to the commencement of the litigation and is dated 17 June 2022 ("first report"). That assessment was completed by Ms H at a time when the children were eight years of age and in year three at TT School.
3. The second report was prepared in anticipation of the final hearing and is dated 24 June 2025 ("second report"). At the time of the second report the children were 12 years of age and they were in their final year (year six) at TT School. Whilst the children remained living primarily in the former matrimonial home at City R, the mother had re-partnered (albeit not living together) with Mr YY who has four children (aged between four and 15 years).
4. In addition to her two written reports, Ms H attended the final hearing and gave oral evidence in the course of cross examination by each of the parties' counsel.
5. During cross examination, Ms H's expertise as it related to expressing an opinion and making recommendations about the arrangements that would be in the children's best interests, was not the subject of challenge.
6. Having assessed the evidence of Ms H, I am satisfied that she was able to give careful consideration to the circumstances of this family, and that she gave careful and considered evidence about the arrangements that might best serve the children's interests and meet their needs.
7. A significant feature throughout Ms H's two written reports and her oral evidence is her opinion, which is accepted, that:

(a) On the whole the parties have an amicable co-parenting relationship, which whilst not without its difficulties, has remained relatively functional (first report, paragraphs 14 and 27 and second report, paragraphs 24-25).

(b) Both parents have a strong, loving and meaningful attachment to the children (first report, paragraphs 25-26);

(c) The father's alcohol use has been the mother's dominant concern regarding the father (first report, paragraphs 29-43 and 89 and second report, paragraphs 32, 35-38, and 44);

(d) Both children appear to be "delightful", "friendly", "polite" and "well-adjusted" children, who both spoke in age appropriate language (first report, paragraphs 60 and 73 and second report, paragraphs 69 and 79);

(e) Both children had been exposed to their parent's conflict towards the end of the parties' relationship, however, to the parties' credit the children have been shielded from ongoing exposure to the parent's dispute post separation (first report, paragraph 87);

(f) Both parents had a high level of insight, understanding, willingness and ability to prioritise the children's needs (first report, paragraph 88);

(g) The mother holds genuine concerns for the children's safety and wellbeing so far as her desire to protect them from harm and/or exposure to the father's problematic alcohol consumption (first report, paragraphs 93-94).

1. In her first report, Ms H recorded the following in relation to each of the children's interviews:

(a) So far as X was concerned:

(i) X appeared to have been exposed to and had memories of the father's problematic alcohol consumption and related behaviours, and it is apparent that she had an acute awareness of his drinking and "drunk" behaviours (paragraphs 60-66), with X commenting "when he drinks I just didn't want any accidents to happen, I just wanted a normal dad" (paragraph 65);

(ii) X reported that the father "doesn't drink if we are going to his house; I don't think he drinks anymore" (paragraph 69), and that "he's really good, he doesn't drink at all, well not that I know if" (paragraph 70);

(iii) X reported that she felt safe with both parents (paragraphs 68 and 71), but that she would be worried if the father started "drinking around me again" (paragraph 71);

(iv) X expressed the view that she wanted the parenting arrangements to stay as they were at that stage (paragraph 72).

(b) So far as Y was concerned:

(i) Y too appeared to have been exposed to and had memories of the father's problematic alcohol consumption and related behaviours, reporting "I could tell he was drunk because he was wobbly and looked tired" (paragraph 76);

(ii) Y too was worried about the father's alcohol consumption, commenting "I worried when I wasn't with him what he might be doing" (paragraph 77);

(iii) Y too reported improvements in the father's drinking and behaviours in the post separation period and that he felt safe in the father's care (paragraph 80);

(iv) Y also expressed the view that he was content with the parenting arrangements in place at that stage (paragraph 81).

1. Of some significance to the present dispute, during their respective interviews for the first report, both children commented on the convenience of living close to school when at the mother's home (paragraphs 72 and 82); noting that at the time both children were attending TT School which is proximate to the former matrimonial home in which the mother was residing and continues to reside.
2. Ultimately, at the conclusion of her first report, (and bearing in mind the terms of the Heads of Agreement of 24 February 2022 in place at the time of Ms H's first report) Ms H recommended (at paragraphs 105-109):

(a) The children shift to a five night a fortnight time spending regime with the father;

(b) The father continue to engage in the alcohol breath analysis regime then in place:

(c) The parties participate in further mediation once the children turned twelve years of age.

1. In her second report, Ms H recorded the following in relation to each of the children's interviews:

(a) So far as X was concerned:

(i) X spoke of a preference for block time spending, but wanting "a bit more" time with the mother in the family home (paragraph 81);

(ii) X was unsure of what other time she would want with the father beyond the existing alternate weekends (paragraph 82) and that she felt that the existing arrangements were "about right" (paragraph 88); and

(iii) X felt safe in the care of both parents (paragraph 84) and had no worries for her safety and wellbeing in the care of either of her parents (paragraph 87).

(b) So far as Y was concerned:

(i) Y was "happy enough with the current routine [of time spending with the father] remaining" (paragraph 71), and "would rather his parents decided for him, rather than he having to decide" (paragraph 78);

(ii) Y reported as feeling "safe" with each of his parents (paragraph 72);

(iii) Y was confident that the father was no longer drinking (paragraph 74); and

(iv) Y reported difficulties with sleeping and that he was seeking support from a professional about this issue (paragraph 76).

1. By the time of her second report, Ms H's views as to the appropriate arrangements moving forward for the children in summary provided for (at paragraphs 112-123):

(a) The parties to share decision making for the children;

(b) The children to continue spending five nights a fortnight with the father on alternate weekends from the conclusion of school Thursday until the commencement of school Monday, together with time in the intervening weeks from the conclusion of school Thursday until the commencement of school Friday;

(c) "Unless major concerns" arose following the July 2025 school holidays, all school holidays to be equally shared in a week about arrangement; and

(d) An ongoing testing regime for the father, together with a reduction of the father's time with the children to day time only in the event of any relapse;

(e) The father to engage in ongoing therapy.

1. During her oral evidence, a number of matters were put to Ms H by counsel for each of the parties. Ultimately by the conclusion of her evidence, Ms H had formed the opinion that that there was little difference between the children spending between five to seven nights each fortnight with the father, and that she did not support a reduction of the children's time spending with him to four nights each fortnight as proposed by the mother. She also accepted that provided the father's alcohol consumption was not a risk factor, there was nothing to suggest to her that the children would not manage living in a shared care arrangement.
2. Having considered the totality of Ms H's evidence (including those matters not specifically summarised herein), her views and opinions are accepted.

1. The expert evidence of Mr P which was before the Court was contained in a report of Mr P dated 24 June 2024 and annexed to an affidavit of Mr P filed by the mother on 5 December 2025. In the absence of challenge by either party, the contents of that report have been accepted.
2. As earlier identified, Mr P was unilaterally instructed by the mother in May 2024 to prepare an interpretive report in relation to the father's pathology testing results. To that end, Mr P was provided with the father's blood test results for 2 November 2023, 20 June 2022, 15 February 2021, and 3 January 2024.
3. Mr P's unchallenged view includes:

(a) The father's tests results of 2 November 2023 support a finding that the father had consumed alcohol averaging "6 standard drinks or more per day for a period of at least 2 weeks prior to 2nd November 2023", but that it was "not possible to quantify [the father's] consumption beyond this minimum level" (Affidavit of Mr P filed 5 December 2025, page 47).

(b) The father's test results of 7 December 2023 support a finding that the father continued to consume alcohol between 2 November 2023 and 7 December 2023.

(c) It is impossible to diagnose the father with a Substance Use Disorder (alcohol) based on his pathology testing alone.

THE INDEPENDENT PSYCHIATRIC ASSESSMENT OF THE FATHER

1. An order was made in the proceedings on 3 November 2023 for the purposes of obtaining a psychiatric assessment directed to the mother's allegations that the father suffered from alcohol dependency and an alcohol use disorder.
2. In compliance with that order, the parties jointly instructed Dr G to conduct an assessment of the father, by letter dated 11 December 2023. A raft of material was made available to Dr G at that time, including affidavits of the parties (which had annexed to them various documents including the Heads of Agreement signed by the parties on 24 February 2022 and various test results of the father including the CDT test undertaken on 7 December 2023 which also set out test results for 2 November 2023), an affidavit of Mr N, the order of the Court made on 3 November 2023, and the documents produced to the Court pursuant to the subpoena the mother had issued to Dr J (who was the father's psychologist, but whom the father ceased attending upon, as discussed throughout these reasons).
3. Dr G met with the father on 8 February 2024 and prepared a report that same day. That report was before the Court annexed to an affidavit of Dr G filed on 8 October 2025.
4. It is clear from the report and the information contained under the headings "History of relevant events" and "Review of file documents" that Dr G had read all of the material provided to him in preparing his report.
5. In his report, Dr G concluded (commencing at page 23 of the report):

In [Mr Fort's] case I note, he denied many assertions made about him. He said the children did not witness him being intoxicated. He denied being intoxicated when caring for the children. He denied a number of the allegations made by [Mr N]. He denied refusing to comply with a breath analysis after an accident. He denied hiding bottles of alcohol at home. He disagreed with the laboratories interpretation of the CDT results.

It is not the role of a medical expert to decide for the court what the facts of a particular case may be and, as such even the history in this report should be considered as assumptions of fact until the decision-maker/court accepts or rejects them.

When taking into account the factors I have just discussed, it is very difficult to comment on [Mr Fort]'s mental state given he rejected so many of the assertions made about him. If it is accepted that some of the assertions are correct then he probably has been suffering from an Alcohol Use Disorder which is in early remission. If [Mr Fort's] account is accepted, it is more likely that he has at times consumed excessive quantities of alcohol but has not been suffering from an Alcohol Use Disorder.

[Mr Fort] is not suffering from a Personality Disorder.

(Bold emphasis added)

1. Following the release of his report, the mother's solicitor asked questions of Dr G as permitted by r 7.26 of the Rules, by way of letter dated 21 March 2024.
2. Dr G responded to those questions by letter dated 22 March 2024. Of importance in that follow up letter, Dr G set out the diagnostic criteria for an alcohol use disorder as follows (commencing on page 4):

A problematic pattern of alcohol use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by at least two of the following, occurring within a 12-month period:

1. Alcohol is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended.

2. There is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control alcohol use.

3. A great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain alcohol, use alcohol, or recover from its effects.

4. Craving, or a strong desire or urge to use alcohol.

5. Recurrent alcohol use resulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home.

6. Continued alcohol use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of alcohol.

7. Important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of alcohol use.

8. Recurrent alcohol use in situations in which it is physically hazardous.

9. Alcohol use is continued despite know ledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by alcohol.

10. Tolerance, as defined by either of the following:

    a) A need for markedly increased amount of alcohol to achieve intoxication or desired effect.

    b) A markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of alcohol.

11. Withdrawal, as manifested by either of the following:

a) The characteristic withdrawal syndrome for alcohol (refer to Criteria A and B of the criteria set for alcohol withdrawal, pp. 499-500).

b) Alcohol (or a closely related substance, such as benzodiazepine) is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms.

(a) That if the father's denials about the various allegations made regarding his alcohol consumption were not made out, then the father lacked insight and was in denial about his relationship with alcohol;

(b) If the father's assertions about abstaining from alcohol consumption were accurate then "he probably wouldn't meet the diagnostic criteria for an Alcohol Use Disorder and therefore he would be seen to be in the early stages of remission" (page 7 of the letter);

(c) If the father had maintained abstinence since November 2023 then his progress was "good" and there was cause for optimism about his prognosis (page 7 of the letter).

(d) There was a risk of relapse if the father was suffering from an alcohol use disorder in early remission.

1. An updated report from Dr G was provided and dated 2 May 2025 ("the updated report"). In that report Dr G expressed the following opinions of significance:

(a) The father was not suffering from "any psychiatric diagnosis" but that "he may have previously suffered from an alcohol use disorder, but this appears to have been in remission for over 12 months" (pages 15 and 16 of the updated report);

(b) The father was not suffering from a personality disorder;

(c) The father's prognosis was considered to be "favourable" (page 19 of the updated report);

1. Again the mother's solicitors posed a series of follow up questions to Dr G. The answers to those questions were contained in a further letter from Dr G dated 4 August 2025.
2. During his oral evidence a number of the father's concessions and admissions were put to Dr G, which assisted Dr G to express the following views:

(a) It was not for the father to self diagnose an alcohol use disorder, but rather it was something a psychiatrist would need to diagnose;

(b) The father's admissions about his past alcohol consumption would suggest that he had suffered from an alcohol use disorder between at least 2019 and November/December 2023; and

(c) An alcohol use disorder was a "chronic relapsing condition" with the likelihood of relapse in the first few years being between 40 and 60 per cent but that once abstinence had been maintained for a period of five years, then on a gradually reducing scale of risk, the risk of relapse reduces to 15 per cent.

1. Both of the parties gave oral evidence in the proceedings and were the subject of focussed cross examination by counsel.
2. Having assessed the evidence of both parties I am satisfied that they each gave evidence to the best of their abilities and that they were both candid with the Court, making appropriate and obvious concessions and admissions.
3. The mother's evidence was at times easier to follow as she had a clearer presentation style.
4. The father's evidence was initially impacted by his apparent desire to make it clear to the Court that his intention was to maintain his sobriety indefinitely. However, once it was made it clear to the father that his evidence in that regard had been understood, throughout the balance of his evidence, the father appeared to become less pre-emptive in answering questions to convey that narrative, and he made a number of significant concessions freely.
5. Of significance the following concessions by the mother were made, and are accepted by the Court:

(a) She considered that since approximately December 2023 the father had taken steps to bring his alcohol misuse under control, such that she no longer considered that the children were at risk, other than by way of any relapse.

(b) She considered that the children have a close and loving relationship with the father (and her) and enjoy spending time with the father.

(c) She accepted that reducing the number of handovers would be beneficial for the children.

(d) She accepted that, currently, the children do not feel unsafe while in their father's care.

(e) She accepted that Y's sleeping difficulties were not limited to the father's home, but also occurred at her home, during sleepovers and on school camp.

(f) Other than the father's alcohol misuse, she had no major criticisms regarding the father's care of the children.

(g) She considered that the father had not presented at handover as being affected by alcohol, nor had the children reported any instances of unusual or intoxicated behaviour within the past two years.

(h) She acknowledged that, in her communications with Mr N, they had discussed matters pertaining to the proceedings, including Mr N disclosing to the mother information relating to the legal advice the father had received from his solicitors.

(i) She accepted that it was possible some of the father's breathylser test results may have been "false positives" and that it was unlikely he had another person blow into the breathalyser unit.

(j) She considered that the testing regime in place since December 2023 had been suitably protective and enabled her to support ongoing time spending between the children and the father.

(k) She accepted that there had been a turning point in the father's behaviour in November 2023 and thereafter the father had sought professional support in relation to his alcohol misuse.

1. So far as the father is concerned, the following important concessions were made by him, and are accepted by the Court:

(a) Specific admissions were made at the commencement of the final hearing about a number of the mother's allegations in her trial affidavit regarding his alcohol consumption (see Exhibit H1) including:

(i) When living in the UK:

• Binge drinking, including whilst the mother was pregnant with the twins;
• Passing out in taxies on the way home and being difficult to rouse or remove from the taxi;
• Being asked to leave a bar for doing pull-ups on the ceiling rafters and knocking over a "whole table of drinks":
• Drinking in secret, hiding or minimising the scale of his drinking, which included hiding consumed empty bottles of vodka in drawers and bags whilst living with the maternal grandparents;
• Drinking excessively and secretly, despite promising the mother he would not drink on the evening the mother planned to tell her parents that she was pregnant in 2012;
• Going out once or twice a week, binge drinking and coming home intoxicated after the mother had gone to bed; and
• Becoming intoxicated during a flight overseas, denying the same to the mother, drink driving thereafter resulting in a drink driving conviction which was concealed from the mother.

(ii) Following the relocation of the family to Australia:

• Admissions as to numerous episodes of binge drinking, coupled with periods of abstinence of two to three months before resuming binge drinking;
• Admissions that the children (and the mother) had witnessed the father on various occasions in an intoxicated state and/or passed out following an episode of binge drinking, and/or found empty bottles of alcohol he had consumed
• Ongoing concealment of his alcohol consumption including hiding empty bottles of vodka which he had consumed about the home, his car and work or travel bag and denying his alcohol consumption to the mother;
• The father remaining at a party in March 2019 after the mother had left to relieve the babysitter and having to be put into a taxi home in a drunken state at the conclusion of the party;
• In November 2020, shutting Y in a bathroom with the lights off when he was drunk, which caused Y to panic;
• Sleeping in the garden after coming home intoxicated, dishevelled and having urinated in his pants;
• Hitting X on the bottom whilst drunk in December 2019;
• Becoming intoxicated at a neighbours Australia Day brunch, refusing to leave with the mother and the children, and needing to be helped home by the neighbours in an intoxicated state and put to bed;
• Returning from a staff dinner intoxicated in March 2021, requiring help from the mother to enter the home;
• Becoming intoxicated at dinner during a family holiday in Town W in the presence of the children, rendering him unable to talk or eat properly and thereafter banging into tables, swaying and swerving, and ultimately passing out, with the mother later discovering the father had taken a plastic bottle to dinner containing vodka which he had consumed;
• Failing to take X to her scheduled tennis matches because he had gone out drinking, requiring the mother to make last minute alternate arrangements; and
• Drink driving home in the morning after failing to come home the previous evening on the morning of 16 December 2021.

(b) Further admissions were made by the father during cross examination as follows:

(i) He accepted that he had an alcohol use disorder for a period of 18 months to two years prior to separation.

(ii) That the position he put before the Court at the interim hearing in November 2023 that he did not have a problem with alcohol was misleading.

(iii) He accepted that both during the relationship and across 2023 he had taken steps to conceal his alcohol use and misuse from the mother which included putting alcohol in plastic water bottles and/or brown kombucha bottles and hiding alcohol in bags and drawers around the home.

(iv) He accepted that he had sent the mother abusive messages on at least one occasion when she had asked him to submit to random breath testing during the course of these proceedings.

(v) He accepted that he had denigrated the mother's legal representatives to her.

(vi) He accepted he had driven with Y in the car with alcohol in his system (whether intoxicated or hungover).

(vii) He accepted that his communication with the children was at times inappropriate and not child focussed.

(viii) He accepted that he had ceased attending upon Dr J for therapy in relation to his alcohol misuse in circumstances where he knew that she would not prepare a favourable report about the progress of his therapy. This being in light of the admission that he had attended an appointment with her in June 2023, early and affected by alcohol and that when Dr J sent him away until the appointed time, he proceeded to consume further alcohol and otherwise drove his vehicle to and from that appointment.

(ix) He accepted that he had misled the mother and/or been less than candid with her in relation to a number of matters during the course of these proceedings including:

• when and why he had terminated his involvement with Dr J (the same coming to light only when the mother issued a subpoena for Dr J's notes on 19 October 2023);
• he had not provided the mother with the results of a CDT test he had taken on 2 November 2023 despite an order of the Court made on 3 November 2023 (as amended on 9 November 2023) for that test to be undertaken and the results filed with the Court within seven days of receipt; and
• he had not provided the mother with what he described as "false positive" test results for both the interlock device fitted to his car and the breathalyser unit he was using, with the mother only finding out about the same when the full logs of both devices were obtained by her some months later.

(x) He admitted to on occasions drinking within 24 hours of children coming into his care including on Christmas Eve 2022 before spending time with children the following day, and on 15 September 2022 prior to collecting children from school on 16 September 2022.

1. Importantly, the father also acknowledged various propositions put to him around the future management of any relapse as follows:

(a) An acknowledgment that some form of ongoing testing regime until the children were 18 years of age, would give the mother some comfort about the children's safety when in his care.

(b) Acceptance that the Court cannot rely on the children to detect if he has used alcohol and that there is a possibility that in the event of relapse, the children may not detect his drinking if he kept it hidden from them.

(c) Acceptance that relying on the children to detect whether he is drinking has the potential to place the children's physical and emotional safety at risk.

1. When cross examined regarding Mr P's evidence, the father accepted that in the two weeks prior to the CDT test undertaken on 2 November 2023, his drinking on average was the equivalent of 84 drinks over that fortnight in circumstances where he was binge drinking, vacillating between days of abstinence and days of binge drinking excessive amounts.
2. These various admissions made by each of the parties render the need for the Court to make any additional findings unnecessary.
3. What was clear to the Court during the final hearing, and that which I am satisfied of, is that there is a significant ongoing level of mistrust between the parties. On the mother's part, that mistrust appears to stem from what she describes as the father's long term alcohol misuse and the deceptive behaviours associated with his attempts to conceal the same, both during the relationship and post separation, which placed both her and the children at risk. On the father's part, at least since separation, that mistrust appears to stem from the mother's alignment and inveiglement of Mr N, whom the father had been in a relationship and otherwise acquainted with for approximately 12 months across 2023. That alignment, based on the mother's evidence, included Mr N providing the mother with information about the father's alcohol consumption and, of particular significance in terms of the betrayal the father feels, "real time" updates as to the father's legal advice in the context of these proceedings.
4. Having heard the evidence of the father in particular, it is clear that he has now made some significant acknowledgments about his past alcohol use and abuse. Noting Dr G's opinion that "denial" is a significant feature of those suffering from an alcohol use disorder, it is perhaps unsurprising (but not excusable) that the father previously made such denials. The father, however, ought also understand that his past alcohol related behaviours and associated denials have caused considerable damage to and undermined the mother's trust in him, and that too is hardly surprising; particularly given her legitimate concerns regarding the safety risks (physical, emotional and psychological) the father posed to both her and the children.

1. I have already considered and discussed a number of the factors outlined in s 60CC of the Act earlier in these reasons. I accordingly do not propose to repeat those matters here. Rather, I only propose to consider below those factors that have not otherwise been discussed earlier and that are relevant in my determination of the matter.

What arrangements would promote the safety of the child and each person who has care of the child (s 60CC(2)(a))

1. I am satisfied that the only matter to be addressed from a safety perspective regarding these children are the risks associated with any relapse of the father in his problematic alcohol consumption.
2. To that end, I am satisfied that the protective regime agreed to by the parties and reduced to orders made by consent on 17 December 2025, appropriately mitigates against the risk of harm to these children.

Any views expressed by the children (s 60CC(2)(b))

1. The Court has had regard to the views of the children as expressed to Ms H.
2. Their views however are not determinative, but are merely a factor to be taken into account, and I have done so.

The developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child (s 60CC(2)(c))

1. Both children appear to be developing well and by all accounts, each of their parents and Ms H consider the children to appear to be "delightful" children who are meeting their respective developmental milestones.
2. Whilst the Court has had regard to Y's sleeping difficulties, I am satisfied from the evidence that both parties are capable of assisting Y through these difficulties, and that they have each done so appropriately and sensitively.

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 (s 60CC(2)(d))

1. As earlier identified, I am satisfied that both parents have the ability to, and indeed they have shown the capacity to have met the children's needs in every way.
2. I am satisfied that, provided the father does not return to the problematic drinking patterns and behaviours he previously exhibited, he will continue to be able to meet the children's needs. Should he however return to the same, the parties have agreed a regime which is both protective of the children but also maintains the children's relationship with the father.

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 (s 60CC(2)(e))

1. As earlier outlined, both parties have made it clear that they consider it to be in the children's best interests that they each maintain close and meaningful relationships with each parent. The Court agrees with the parties in that regard.

1. Having considered all of the evidence in these proceedings (regardless of whether specifically referred to or not in these reasons), and in particular the protective measures the parties have agreed to implement, it is the considered view of the Court that these children would benefit from moving to a week about time spending arrangement between each of the parents. Handovers shall take place on Fridays, as proposed by the father, at either the conclusion of school on a school day or at 4.00pm on a non-school day to maintain consistency with the conclusion of school time.
2. Accordingly, orders shall be made providing for the same together with consolidating those orders made by consent on 17 December 2025 into the final orders to be made this day.

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT CONCERNS REGARDING THE FATHER'S COUNSEL

1. Regrettably and despite counsel for each of the parties properly, professionally and competently advancing their respective client's cases, the Court is having to turn its mind to conduct issues concerning the father's counsel, Mr Dillon.
2. The circumstances which have given rise to the Court's need to do so are as follows:

(a) As earlier identified the proceedings were listed for final hearing by orders made on 10 April 2025 with the same to commence on 3 December 2025 (with an eight day time estimate).

(b) At the commencement of day six of the final hearing (15 December 2025) when the Court was scheduled to hear closing submissions, the father's counsel, advised the Court that he had an interlocutory hearing before Judge McGinn in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2).

(c) After reprimanding the father's counsel about the impossibility of being in two places at once, the Court was advised by the mother's counsel that a draft minute of order was circulating between the parties (regarding the subsequently agreed orders made by consent at the conclusion of the trial), and that time was required to deal with the same and she would be ready to proceed with the final hearing in approximately one hours time.

(d) On this basis the hearing on 15 December 2025 was adjourned until 11.00am.

(e) Having adjourned the proceedings and following enquiries made by my chambers staff with the chambers of Judge McGinn, I was advised that the hearing before Judge McGinn in which the father's counsel was engaged, was listed for a full day with oral evidence.

(f) These proceedings were thereafter immediately recalled, in the absence of the father's counsel and stood down until 2.15pm, with the Court indicating that any application for costs thrown away by the mother would likely be favourably entertained.

(g) When the hearing resumed at 2.15pm, counsel for each the mother and the father were present and amongst other things:

(i) The court received the agreed minute of order;

(ii) The mother's counsel advised the court that no application for costs thrown away would be made by the mother; and

(iii) Final submissions were heard by the Court.

1. Whilst ultimately the mother did not press any application for costs thrown away, that does not detract from the fact that court time was lost on the seeming assumption made by the father's counsel that the Court should and would acquiesce to the fact that he had accepted a brief to appear before another judicial officer in another court during the currency of the final hearing in these proceedings. Court resources are finite. Any time wasted during hearings in these proceedings necessarily means that another family waiting to have their dispute adjudicated is impacted. What should also not be forgotten is that the parties themselves were required to wait for the father's counsel, foreseeably having the potential to heightening anxieties and have each of them incur additional costs. This conduct by the father's counsel was discourteous in the extreme, but additionally not in keeping with professional conduct obligations.
2. Whilst it is not known when the hearing before Judge McGinn was listed and/or when the father's counsel accepted that brief, and/or the father's counsel discovered that he was impossibly scheduled to be in two places at once, common sense ought have prevailed and the father's counsel ought have realised that he would not be able to appear in the interlocutory hearing whatsoever given his engagement in the final hearing in these proceedings.
3. The South Australian Legal Practitioners Conduct Rules 2022 (SA) ("the Conduct Rules") govern the conduct of legal practitioners (lawyers and barristers) who practice in South Australia. Part A of the Conduct Rules applies to all lawyers practicing in South Australia (Pt A, r 1), whilst Pt B of the Conduct Rules applies specifically to barristers (Pt B, r 6).
4. Whilst those rules impose a "paramount duty to the court and the administration of justice" ahead of any other duty (Pt A, r 3.1 of the Conduct Rules), of specific relevance to counsel here is Pt B, r 104 of the Conduct Rules, which provides:

A barrister must not accept a brief to appear on a day when the barrister is already committed to appear or is reasonably likely to be required to appear on another brief if by appearing on one of the briefs the barrister would not in the normal course of events be able to appear on the other brief or briefs.

1. On any view, the father's counsel does not appear to have complied with this obligation. Proffering an apology to the Court does not excuse this conduct.
2. It is for these reasons that an order shall be made referring the conduct of Mr Dillon to the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner for further investigation.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and twenty-one (121) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Kari.