Frey & Larsen (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2F 1534 (5 November 2025)

(a) retain parental responsibility for the elder child and will jointly make decisions concerning major long term issues as defined in s 4(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth); and

(b) are to each make decisions about the elder child's day to day care and activities when the child is living with or spending time with that parent.

1. The elder child live with the father in New South Wales.
2. The elder child spend time with the mother in Tasmania during the New South Wales school holiday periods as follows:

(a) Summer school holidays in December 2025/January 2026: for 28 consecutive nights, departing for Tasmania on 27 December 2025 and returning to New South Wales on 25 January 2026;

(b) Term 1 school holidays in 2026: for 11 consecutive nights, departing for Tasmania on 4 April 2026 and returning to New South Wales on 15 April 2026;

(c) Term 2 school holidays in 2026: for 12 consecutive nights, departing for Tasmania on 27 June 2026 and returning to New South Wales on 9 July 2026; and

(d) Term 3 school holidays in 2026: for 8 consecutive nights, departing for Tasmania on 27 September 2026 and returning to New South Wales on 5 October 2026.

1. The parents shall pay the following costs associated with the elder child's return airfares between New South Wales and Tasmania when spending time with the mother as follows:

(a) The father will purchase the elder child's airfare for the flight to Tasmania for the commencement of time in accordance with Order 4 of these Orders; and

(b) The mother will purchase the elder child's airfare for the flight returning to New South Wales at the conclusion of time in accordance with Order 4 of these Orders.

1. Both parents will be at liberty to communicate freely with the elder child whilst he is in the other parent's care and ensure that the elder child's mobile device has the necessary credit for this to occur AND THE COURT NOTES THAT the elder child has his own mobile device.
2. All communication between the parents will be via email, SMS message, or messenger application, and the parents will keep each other updated about significant changes for the elder child.

1. Within 2 business days of the date of these Orders, the father file and serve a written Undertaking in accordance with the prescribed form and providing that he:

(a) Will maintain his residence in the condition and state depicted in the photographs filed in evidence, being Exhibit A13; and

(b) Will ensure that his residence is regularly cleaned and tidied.

1. The father will facilitate the elder child's prompt attendance at appointments with his most recent treating psychologist with such frequency and for such future period of time as recommended by that psychologist.
2. The father is to pay the initial cost of the any appointments arising out of the preceding order and is to recover 50 per cent of that cost from the mother by providing the mother with a copy of any invoice and proof of applicable rebate along with details of his nominated bank account.
3. The mother will then pay 50 per cent of the cost of any psychological appointment arising out of Order 9 and Order 10 of these Orders by paying the amount owed into the father's nominated account within 7 days of being provided any invoice, proof of rebate and nominated bank account details.
4. The Independent Children's Lawyer has leave to provide a copy of these Orders and the reasons for judgment published 5 November 2025 to the elder child's treating psychologist.

1. Orders 9 to 12 of these Orders inclusive were made by consent of all parties

1. By consent, the Independent Children's Lawyer and Judge Taglieri communicate the terms of these Orders to the elder child by Webex on 6 November 2025 at 9:00am and the father with ensure that the elder child is dialled into a computer of mobile device for that purpose.
2. By consent, the parents and the maternal grandfather MR LARSEN and maternal grandmother MRS LARSEN are restrained from communicating the terms of these Orders with the elder child or with Y born in 2010 until after 10:00am on 6 November 2025.

1. Orders 10 and 11 have been amended pursuant to rule 10.13 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) on 11 December 2025.

1. Pursuant to ss 65DA(2) and 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 are set out in Attachment A and these particulars are included in these Orders.

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

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

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

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

1. These are parenting proceedings between the applicant father Mr Frey ("the father") and the respondent mother Ms Larsen ("the mother"), who have two children X born in 2008 who is nearly 17 years old ("the elder child") and Y born in 2010 who is 15 years old ("the younger child") (collectively "the children").
2. The current proceedings are in respect of the elder child only and were commenced by the father on 22 July 2024 by Application for Final Orders ("the current application"), when the mother withheld the elder child in her care in Tasmania contrary to the terms of final orders made by consent on 6 December 2021 ("the final orders").

1. The parents have a long history of family law proceedings in respect of the children. There have been six substantive applications, being as follows:
   • Application for Final Orders filed 16 November 2012 by the father;[1]
   • Application for Final Orders filed 9 February 2016 by the mother;[2]
   • Application for Final Orders filed 29 January 2019 by the mother;[3]
   • Contravention Application filed 10 December 2020 by the father;
   • Application for Final Orders filed 2 June 2021 by the father; and
   • The current application.
2. These applications have thus far resulted in five orders containing parenting orders made on a final basis, being:
   • By Baker J on 28 February 2014;[4]
   • By Baker J on 24 October 2017, by consent;[5]
   • By Baker J on 15 February 2019, by consent;[6]
   • By Dunkley J on 19 March 2021, on the Contravention Application filed 10 December 2020; and
   • The final orders.
3. The parents' disputes have always centred on whether the children ought to reside with the father in New South Wales ("NSW") or with the mother in Tasmania and, consequently, what time and communication they ought to have with the other parent. All previous final parenting orders have provided for joint decision making in respect of major long-term issues for the children.
4. At the time that the current application was filed, the final orders in substance provided that the children live with the mother from 6 December 2021 until 2 January 2023, and during that period spend time and have video communication with the father. Then, from 3 January 2023, the arrangements essentially reversed so that the children live with the father and spend time and communicate with the mother.
5. There is no dispute that the parents facilitated the change in residence for the children in 2023 as required by the final orders or that the children have since spent time with the mother in Tasmania.
6. In January and June 2024, dispute arose in relation to the elder child's return to NSW after spending time with the mother in Tasmania. On both occasions, the elder child sent text messages to the father expressing his wish to remain in Tasmania.[7] It is his wishes and the weight to be attributed to them on which the parents have become focussed.
7. In the current application, the father sought that the Court issue a Recovery Order under s 67U of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act"). The matter came before me on 7 October 2024 and I set the matter down for interim hearing on 15 October 2024. On 15 October 2024, I made interim orders by consent that the elder child return to NSW on 17 October 2025.[8]
8. The proceedings were then relisted before me on 21 October 2025 as the elder child was still in Tasmania. I made an order for the mother to return the child to the care of the father and further for changeover to be assisted by a Court Child Expert ("CCE").[9] That changeover was successfully effected on 21 October 2024 with the assistance of CCE Ms B ("CCE Ms B"), who reported the outcome in a Memorandum to Court dated 25 October 2024.[10]

1. Neither parent seeks to disturb the final orders in so far as they apply to the younger child and the parties do not seek any orders concerning her.
2. The issues for determination by the Court are:

(a) Whether it is in the elder child's best interests to live with the father in New South Wales or with the mother in Tasmania; and

(b) Who ought to make decisions about major long-term issues for the elder child.

1. The mother raised a prior misunderstanding on her part at the time the final orders were made that the children living in NSW from January 2023 was a "trial only" and that further psychological reports as to their wishes may see them return to live with her in the future.[11] At the time of the hearing, she acknowledged that this was an incorrect interpretation of the final orders.

1. The father filed a Case Outline on 9 September 2025 and relied on his affidavit filed 22 August 2025 (Exhibit A1). By his Application for Final Orders filed 22 July 2024, he sought a Recovery Order in circumstances where the elder child had been withheld in the mother's care in Tasmania. In effect, he seeks to enforce the final orders made by consent on 6 December 2021. He also relied on the following documents:
   • Notes from NSW Department of Communities and Justice ("DCJ") (Exhibit A2);
   • Text messages between the father and the elder child in January 2024 (Exhibit A3);
   • Text messages between the father and the elder child in June 2024 (Exhibit A4);
   • Facebook messages between the father and the maternal grandfather Mr Larsen ("the maternal grandfather") at various times (Exhibit A5);
   • Text messages between the maternal grandfather and the younger child (Exhibit A6);
   • Messages between the children and the father (Exhibit A7);
   • Emails exchanged between the father and C Centre (Exhibit A8);
   • Solicitor communications attaching the elder child's psychologist invoices (Exhibit A9);
   • D School semester 1 2025 report for the elder child (Exhibit A10);
   • D School semester 2 2024 report for the elder child (Exhibit A11);
   • Affidavit of the father's partner Ms E ("the father's partner") filed 22 August 2025 (Exhibit A12);
   • Photos of the father's home taken by the father's partner in July 2025 (Exhibit A13);
   • The Single Expert Report dated 11 October 2024 ("the SIR") and authored by CCE Ms F (Exhibit A14); and
   • Memorandum to Court dated 25 October 2024 and authored by CCE Ms B (Exhibit A13).
2. The mother filed a Case Outline on 9 September 2025 and relied on it together with:
   • Her affidavit filed 27 August 2025 (Exhibit R1); and
   • The affidavit of the maternal grandfather filed 27 August 2025 (Exhibit R2).
3. The Independent Children's Lawyer filed a Case Outline on 9 September 2025, and relied upon the Family Report dated 10 April 2025 ("the Family Report") authored by Panel Family Consultant Ms G ("the Family Reporter") (Exhibit ICL 1).

1. The affidavit of the father was read unopposed, and the Court received the exhibits to which I referred earlier in these reasons.
2. The father was cross-examined, and the focus of that cross-examination related to two issues. First, an allegation that the father has a hoarding disorder and that he unnecessarily and excessively collects items at his home. Second, that the father did not acknowledge or respect the elder child's expressed wish to live with the mother.
3. While the father agreed that his household had been investigated for hoarding by DCJ, he denied that there had been any risk to the children and maintained that the items in the home were either necessary or a product of the house being occupied by his parents, him, his partner, and all their children.
4. The father denied that many of the items in the home were "rubbish", but he agreed that there were far too many items in the home. He also denied that the state of the home as depicted in the photos the elder child took demonstrated reduced parenting capacity. However, he agreed that it was reasonable to state that he had been neglectful as a parent for allowing the living room to get into the state depicted.
5. The father maintained that the first he had heard of the hoarding concerns raised by the elder child and DCJ was when he read about it in the Family Report. He agreed that the photos of the home presented a bad view, but he maintained that the tidy up involved his partner removing her business items and materials, and he had no difficulties with DCJ inspecting the home in the future.
6. The father agreed that the mother's residence was now safe for the children to stay or live in, despite concerns that he had previously held about the state of the accommodation and unapproved works on the property.
7. Although the father agreed that the elder child was thoughtful, he added that although he was capable of independent thought, it depended on the subject. The father did not agree with the suggestion that the elder child was articulate and considered.
8. The father stated that he would agree for the elder child to live with the mother if they were in fact his genuine views. However, he did not accept that they were genuine because, contrary to information given by the mother, the elder child did not have friends at J School and he did not appreciate the impact that changing schools would have on him.
9. When cross-examined on behalf of the ICL, the father stated that he now appreciates that the state of his home is important to the children, but added that they had never raised concerns about it before late 2024.
10. When asked, the father described some of the photos of his house which are in evidence. He identified parts of his house and the items depicted. In particular, he identified: tiles to be used for renovating the bathroom and the bathroom supplies bought in bulk which were stored in a hallway and laundry;[12] his living room containing toys and supplies from his partner's business stored on a pool table to keep them out of the reach of small children;[13] a child's bedroom containing their toys, clothes and other belongings;[14] the kitchen containing groceries which had not been stored;[15] the laundry containing clothes waiting to be washed;[16] and, outside the back door, showing children's toys and other items not in use.[17]
11. In the context of those photos, the father said he took issue with being described as a hoarder, but agreed that the home was messy. He also said he could understand how the elder child would feel reluctant to have friends visit the house, and added that the elder child does not do a lot that is social, unlike the younger child.
12. While the father acknowledged that he had read the elder child's wishes as expressed in the Family Report and agreed that they should be considered, he saw them as a reflection of the pressure or influence from others, particularly the mother and maternal family.
13. The father agreed that the elder child should have input into where he lives, but added that he should be allowed to form his view free from influence.
14. In regard to what the harm would be if the elder child lived with the mother, the father stated that there is no one of his own age in the home or mother's family, that a move would require him to abandon his friends and school, that he would have to leave his job which he enjoys, and that consequently he would lose the connection with his work colleagues.
15. The father conceded that there is a risk of harm if the elder child felt that the Court had not listened to him, but only if the views he has expressed are his own.
16. The father stated that he had sought to communicate with the mother about the children, but the mother had communicated little in return.
17. The father agreed that the parent with whom the elder child lives should make major long-term decisions for him. He added he would have concerns about schooling decisions made by the mother because, contrary to the mother's claims, the elder child's close friend at J School had moved back to South Australia three years ago and the elder child tends not to socialise outside of school. The suggestion was that the elder child's experience in Tasmania would be poor in contrast to his positive experience in NSW where the elder child has study sessions with school friends and is taking initiative for exam preparation.

1. The father's partner was cross-examined. She was forthright and spoke plainly and directly. She identified the photographs in Exhibit A13 as photos she had taken of the home between July and August 2025 after she had undertaken clearing and tidying of the home.
2. During cross-examination, the father's partner:

(a) Stated she could not remember describing the father as a hoarder to DCJ, but she did not deny saying it;

(b) Stated that DCJ had attended the home on three occasions, but that it was not all in relation to concern about hoarding. She said that in 2016 there had been a mix-up with Region K District Health which led to them visiting, and that she had no idea why they attended in 2020;

(c) Disputed that the home had not been cleaned up until DCJ had visited in March 2025;

(d) Spoke about the elder child in an informed, loving and sensitive way. She stated that they had first met when he was four years of age, that they spoke regularly, and that she was shocked to hear that he said he wants to live with the mother;

(e) In response to the suggestion that it was important to recognise and acknowledge the elder child's views as expressed to the Family Reporter because he is 17 years of age, she replied that there are aspects of the proposal that he does not fully comprehend. For example, that he will not be able to work in his current job, that he will not be able to regularly spend time with his cousins, siblings and friends as he presently does, or the impact that changing schools will have on him;

(f) Stated that the photos of the living room taken by the elder child had included personal belongings of the paternal grandparents and her business items, and that it only took a couple of days for her to sort out the house by storing unused things in a bus on the property;

(g) Stated that she was confident that she could maintain the home in the state as depicted in the photographs which she took; and,

(h) Said that each day she does laundry, washes the dishes, and cleans the kitchen floor. Her daily routine involves regular cleaning and caring for the family, which is necessary given the large family size.

1. The mother was cross-examined about her evidence in chief, and in summary she:

(a) Admitted the children have been through six court applications and have been subject to five sets of final orders, with the ones which will be made on the outcome of this defended hearing being the sixth;

(b) Does not regret the repeated family law proceedings, saying that on this occasion she is supporting the elder child, who wants to live with her;

(c) Agreed that the elder child is "doing okay" in NSW, despite preferring to live in Tasmania. She added that she would respect his wishes if he wanted to remain in NSW;

(d) Said she had encouraged the elder child to finish his education and does not believe he is just saying what she wants to hear;

(e) Has a history of depression and has received psychological counselling for stress, and agreed she had sometimes showed distress in front of the children;

(f) Continues counselling, which is now related to a compensation claim arising from her previous employment with the military;

(g) Accepted that the children know that she misses them, and could not say if they were aware of her mental health issues;

(h) Admitted both parents delayed getting the children psychological assistance after the final orders were made;

(i) Said she could not recall telling the children that the final orders for them to live with the father from 2023 onwards were a "trial period" or that the father breached the final orders, but said they may have overheard her say such things;

(j) Had told the elder child that she had investigated whether he could stay in Tasmania and that it may be possible;

(k) Agreed that any return to Tasmania, if it were ordered, should happen before the school term starts rather than during term time;

(l) Maintained that she cannot move interstate due to family and work commitments in Tasmania, including helping with the family business and caring for her partner, who is disabled;

(m) Said she has served in the defence forces, including on deployment in Country L. Her compensation claim relates to her time onboard a military ship, but is not related to combat experiences;

(n) Believes the elder child genuinely wants to live in Tasmania and is not saying so just to please her. He enjoyed school in Tasmania and had no issues attending; and

(o) Agreed that children can change their minds, and appeared to acknowledge there was risk to always do what children want.

1. The affidavit of the maternal grandfather filed 27 August 2025 was read as part of the mother's case.[18] When on oath, the maternal grandfather had difficulty remembering swearing his affidavit, however, once he reviewed a copy of it he confirmed the contents of the affidavit to be true. This suggests that the maternal grandfather had difficulty with memory as the affidavit had been made less than a month earlier.
2. His evidence under cross-examination by Counsel for the father was as follows:

(a) He has a close relationship with the mother;

(b) He agreed that he has supported the mother through these proceedings and with other challenges in her life, but denied that he has become overinvolved in the dispute between the parents;

(c) He denied that he sent messages to the father via Facebook Messenger as contained in Exhibit A5, while he agreed with the sentiments expressed. He initially added that he does not communicate on Facebook Messenger, but then said he has only used it for a few weeks prior to the final hearing;

(d) He accepted that the account from which the messages in Exhibit A5 were sent used his given name and that the account profile picture was a photo of his dog;

(e) He did not accept that he might have forgotten sending the messages;

(f) He confirmed that he communicates with the younger child by text message. However, he denied sending her the messages contained in Exhibit A6, stating that the manner in which they were written do not reflect how he talks to her;

(g) He does not discuss the children's living arrangements with them, only with the mother. Further, he has never tried to convince the younger child to return to Tasmania to live;

(h) He agreed with the mother's position about where the elder child ought to live. When asked if the elder child was aware of that, he said that the elder child has expressed to him that he never wanted to return to NSW; and

(i) He agreed that the elder child is probably aware of the mother's poor mental health and the effort required for her to support her partner, but maintained that his wish to return to Tasmania is because he does not like living in NSW rather than to alleviate some of the mother's distress.

1. Counsel for the ICL did not seek to cross-examine the maternal grandfather.
2. I sought clarification from the maternal grandfather that he did not remember swearing his affidavit but now accepts that he did so, which he confirmed. I asked whether, in light of that, he could have sent the messages in Exhibit A5 and Exhibit A6 and subsequently forgotten doing so. He said that was not possible because "it is not the way I write messages" and has only used Facebook Messenger for the past six months, which contradicts his earlier evidence that he had only been using it for a few weeks.

1. The Family Reporter gave evidence at the hearing to expand on views expressed in her Family Report.[19] Her evidence was as follows:

(a) The elder child's views were similar to the mother's, but were genuinely his own;

(b) The main conflict for the elder child is the ongoing dispute between his parents;

(c) She recommends a structured, prescriptive order for the elder child's time with each parent;

(d) There is no clear "best" proposal for the elder child's living arrangements. However, she noted that as the elder child is nearly 17 years old, not getting his wish could cause problems as he might feel unsupported;

(e) She could not predict if the elder child would "get over" not getting his way, saying it was outside her expertise;

(f) She considered that the elder child and the younger child would need support to maintain their relationship if they live in different households;

(g) The elder child had told her that he was old enough to arrange his own flights. She was not told this by the mother;

(h) She agreed that the elder child was aware of his mother's mental health struggles and that this might influence his wishes;

(i) She believes that the elder child's desire to live with his mother is genuine, based on his presentation and consistency. Further, the elder child considers Tasmania home and finds the father's house overcrowded;

(j) She thinks that the elder child is desperate to be heard and that, while he might be influenced by his mother, he could still express his own views;

(k) Having spoken with the principal of D School, she believes that the elder child could transition between schools if needed; and

(l) She did not agree that the father was dismissive of the elder child's views.

1. She said not granting the elder child's wishes could negatively affect his mental health. However, if he remains in the father's care, he will likely cope if the decision is explained to him by the person who made the decision or by the ICL.

1. DCJ records indicate that there have been historical concerns about the condition of the father's home, it being variously described as indicative of hoarding, cluttered, or messy. They have investigated the historical concerns and the concerns raised this year due to the Family Reporter's mandatory reports, and, in summary, have not intervened to take any child protection action.
2. Relevantly, an earlier DCJ assessment identified that the physical living conditions were hazardous or threatening to the children's health and safety.[20] They identified that the father's partner is able and willing to undertake clearing and decluttering and did not reach the view that the father was a hoarder, although the report implies that the father is responsible for the collection of items that are surplus to use and that he has difficulty disposing of them.
3. A subsequent assessment indicates that DCJ were later satisfied with the condition of the father's home after it had been given attention by the father's partner. They concluded that the elder child is safe in the home and in his father's care.[21]
4. The elder child's school records for semester 2 in 2024 and semester 1 in 2025 at D School were received in evidence.[22] It can be inferred from those that his attendance and school performance fell in 2024, likely due to being withheld in Tasmania and not completing schoolwork which was sent to him. The 2025 report demonstrates considerable improvement and engagement at school, with results or marks reflecting this.

1. In closing, Counsel for the father submitted that the Court should make findings on the evidence before it that:

(a) The elder child's life in NSW is enriched by his school environment and community, his social connections, and his employment;

(b) The elder child's wishes have been directly or indirectly influenced by the mother and/or the maternal family;

(c) In the Court's determination of what is in the elder child's best interests, other considerations take precedence over the wishes he expressed to the Family Reporter in February 2025;

(d) It is not in the elder child's best interests to live separately from the younger child; and

(e) On the balance of all factors, it is in the elder child's best interests for him to live with the father in NSW, to attend D School, and to spend expanded time with the mother during school holidays.

1. Her submissions in support of the findings were, in summary, that:

(a) Neither parent now took issue with the other's living arrangements or circumstances or the ability to care for the child. When I enquired, Counsel conceded that the Court has power to make restraining orders in relation to maintaining the father's home free of unnecessary clutter, provided that it was linked to a parenting order. However, it was asserted that such an order would be complicated. Instead, she proposed that the father could give an undertaking as a means of addressing the issue;

(b) The elder child would lose his employment and established social connections were he to live in Tasmania, and he would experience a period of adjustment to not living with the father and the younger child. This loss of continuity would be destabilising for him;

(c) The father accepts that the elder child's views should be taken into account, but that he should be free from influence of either parent. In his submission, the elder child's wish to live in Tasmania is influenced by his awareness of the mother's own wishes. The children would have knowledge of the stress caused to the mother by the children not living with her, her PTSD symptoms deriving from her military service, and the effects of her partner's disability;

(d) The mother's position that the elder child should live with her in Tasmania is based solely on the child's expressed wishes rather than a broader view of what is in his best interests;

(e) The maternal grandfather loves the mother and the children, but he inserts himself into the dispute between the parties and makes the children aware of his views. The Court ought to find that the maternal grandfather wrote the messages in evidence which the father attributed to him. His denial indicates, at best for him, that he has forgotten doing so;

(f) It is unlikely that the elder child would abscond from the father's care as he has not done so in the past since he returned to the father's care, despite his views. These proceedings are distinguishable from Ellis & Hawkins [2024] FedCFamC2F 1617 as the subject child in that matter was younger and did not have a good relationship with the parent with whom she was ordered to live; and

(g) The CCE's position under cross-examination became ambivalent when she was provided with further information relevant to the elder child's circumstances in NSW.

1. Counsel for the father further submitted that if I make an order for the elder child to remain in NSW, it is appropriate that I, as the decision-maker, inform him of the outcome of proceedings. The basis for this is that it is against his expressed wishes, and the mother would likely be too emotional and disappointed in such an outcome to explain it to him in a child focussed manner.

1. Counsel for the mother submitted that it is in the elder child's best interests to live with the mother in Tasmania and attend J School, which is in line with the wishes he has expressed to the Family Reporter and to DCJ. In support of this, he submitted the following:

(a) The father has a longstanding and significant issue with hoarding and household clutter, which was only addressed after intervention by DCJ. This has negatively affected the elder child's mental health and influenced his wish to live with the mother. Counsel conceded that there is no direct evidence of psychological harm, but submitted that there is an inescapable inference that it has occurred based on DCJ records[23] and the Family Report at [66];

(b) Although the father's house has been tidied under the oversight of this Court, it is likely to reoccur due to the history and extent of the hoarding. I asked Counsel what I am to make of the mother's concession that the father would "stay on top" of household clutter, and he responded that it should be given little weight as the concession cannot be viewed in a vacuum. He again emphasised the history and extent of the problem;

(c) While the elder child may not have raised directly with the father that the household conditions were an issue for him, the father knew it was as issue as there had been DCJ investigations focussed on hoarding in 2016 and 2020;

(d) The Court cannot make a finding that the elder child did not discuss hoarding with his psychologist. While he conceded that the psychologist would have mentioned it to the Family Reporter if it had formed a large part of her discussions with the elder child, he stressed that the primary aspect of their discussions were about the elder child's social relationships. He maintained this submission, emphasising the Family Reporter's evidence that sometimes a child will not mention an impact on them unless directly asked;

(e) When I put to Counsel that an undertaking or injunctive order may address the risk of a relapse in the condition of the father's home, he said that an undertaking would be insufficient as the father does not acknowledge that the state of his house is or has been a problem. He stated that an injunctive order would be "better" than an undertaking;

(f) There is an increased likelihood of the elder child being exposed to neglect if it was ordered that he remain living in NSW with the father, noting that the father himself conceded he had been neglectful as a parent in allowing his house's condition to deteriorate;

(g) As to the elder child's wish to live in Tasmania with the mother, the submissions for the mother emphasised that:

(i) An object of Part VII of the Act at s 60B is to give effect to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which at Article 12 provides that children have the right for their views to be given weight in accordance with their age and maturity;

(ii) The Family Reporter assessed the elder child as considered and thoughtful. On this basis, the Court ought to give his views significant weight and would need a compelling reason to make orders inconsistent with them;

(iii) His views have developed due to the overcrowding and hoarding in the father's house, because he has a closer relationship with the mother than the father, and because of his desire to attend J School; and

(iv) His views are firm and longstanding, and the Family Reporter gave evidence that they are unlikely to change;

(h) The weight which ought to attach to the father's evidence about the quality of the elder child's life NSW needs to be considered in light of the fact it is self-serving and that he has denied that he has issue with hoarding.

1. Counsel reiterated that the mother, under cross-examination, had accepted that the elder child could attend school in Tasmania from the commencement of the school year in 2026. Such an approach, he submitted, would alleviate any concerns the Court would have about disrupting the child's education part-way through the 2025 school year.
2. When asked about the Family Reporter's acceptance that the elder child's views were also shaped by the conflict between the parties, this was acknowledged.

1. The ICL supports the elder child remaining in the father's care in NSW. Counsel for the ICL asserted that continuity for the elder child between now and the conclusion of his schooling is the most important factor for the Court to consider when determining what is in his best interests. While his wishes ought to be considered and given weight due to his age and maturity, the Court is not bound by them and ought not to simply acquiesce to the elder child's preference.
2. Counsel for the ICL also submitted the following:

(a) The elder child's wish to live in Tasmania appears to be considered and based on cogent reasoning, but Counsel agreed that they are also based on his preferences at any given point in time, which appeared to be subject to influence;

(b) The parent with whom the elder child lives ought to have sole decision-making responsibility for major long term issues;

(c) The greatest risk to the elder child comes from the dispute between the parties, which has spanned 13 years and numerous applications before the Court. Emphasis was placed on the need for this dispute to cease for the limited time for which orders made on the current application will be in effect, given that the child will turn 18 in November 2026;

(d) The Family Report at [116] states that the elder child's wishes ought to be considered, and the clearest way to demonstrate to him that this has occurred is for me as the decision-maker to advise him of what orders are made. Counsel expressed that the ICL would also be willing to participate;

(e) The state of the father's household does not rise to the level of neglect. If it did so, DCJ would have intervened and commenced proceedings in the state court. These proceedings are lacking any evidence of neglect of the children from sources where the Court would expect to find it, such as child welfare authorities, the police, or their schools;

(f) The ICL is in favour of the father signing an undertaking that he will maintain household cleanliness and tidiness to a particular level, and for that undertaking to be explained to the elder child;

(g) While the principal of D School is confident that the elder child's schooling experience could be replicated at J School, Counsel for the ICL agreed that this had not been explored in any detail and that subject opportunities may differ; and

(h) There is no indication that the elder child would abscond from the father's care if the Court made an order contrary to his wish to live in Tasmania. Indeed, he returned to NSW pursuant to interim orders of this Court, and there is no evidence that he has experienced negative consequences.

1. In determining what parenting orders are in the best interests of the elder child, the principles of law are well established. As I addressed in Garrido & Garrido [2024] FedCFamC2F 634 at [21] to [23], this case is to be determined according to the provisions of Part VII of the Act which commenced from 6 May 2024.
2. The Court is required to make parenting orders relating to the competing proposals of the parties by determining what parenting orders are consistent with the objects of the Act in s.60B and are in the best interests of the child according to the non-exhaustive, non-hierarchical considerations in ss 60CA and 60CC(1), (2) and (3) of the Act, and the discretionary evaluation of the same.[24]
3. Considerations of family violence, if relevant, inform a child's best interests,[25] as do the wishes of a child.[26]
4. As the elder child's wishes were a prominent feature of the mother's case, the principles expressed in Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte [2017] HCA 8 at [41]- [44] and R & R Children's Wishes [2000] FamCA 43 will be applied. For ease of understanding, these principles were distilled in Ellis & Hawkins [2024] FedCFamC2F 1617 at [65] in the following terms:

(a) Trial judges must give proper weight to children's wishes but may depart from those wishes in appropriate circumstances.

(b) A child's wishes are not to be simply treated as a factor in the determination of the child's best interests without giving them further significance.

(c) If a trial judge makes orders contrary to a child's validly held and expressed wishes, good reason should be given for doing so.

(d) It is not necessary to determine that the wishes of a child are unsound, founded on improper considerations or influenced by others in order to make orders contrary to their wishes. Such factors are relevant but are not the only relevant considerations and the weight to be given to a child's wish will vary from case to case given the circumstances.

(e) It is undesirable and impossible to catalogue or confine the factors that inform the weight to be given to a child's wishes when assessing what is in their best interest. Instead it is a process of intuitive synthesis on the part of any trial judge weighing up all the evidence relevant to the wishes of the children and applying it in a common sense way as one of the factors in the overall assessment of the children's best interests.

(f) The reference to the "validity" of the child's wishes is not confined to considering if the child's wishes were unsound, founded on improper considerations or influenced by others. It is a reference to the overall validity of such wishes against the factual background found by the trial judge in the case in question.

1. Furthermore, in determining what orders should be made, the Court should adhere to the guidance that, as parenting proceedings are adversarial civil proceedings, there is no need to make findings about disputed facts or issues upon which the parties do not rely or which are not relevant to the parenting dispute between the parties.[27] Relevantly, neither party relied upon family violence as a feature of their case.
2. The making of a parenting order in relation to with whom the elder child should live involves evaluation of the following considerations in s 60CC of the Act, in respect of which I make findings and give reasons as follows.

Safety and protection from harm or risk of harm?

1. I reject the contention of the mother that the condition of the father's home puts the elder child at actual harm or risk of harm or otherwise impacts negatively on his safety. Although the father conceded that he had been neglectful in maintaining the home by allowing it to be messy and cluttered, he did not accept that he had neglected the elder child.
2. I accept the submission on behalf of the ICL that the cluttered condition of the home likely has been a longstanding issue but does not constitute neglect of the elder child. Had DJC considered the children were being harmed, they would have exercised statutory powers to protect them.
3. While DJC identified that the physical living conditions in the home were hazardous and threatening to the children's health and safety,[28] potentially conveying that they posed a risk of harm to the children, they did not specifically identify the nature of the hazard or threat. Plainly they did not consider it to be a serious risk as the only action taken was to request a clear up/clear out, with which they were then satisfied.
4. While I accept that the elder child has had some concerns about the condition of the father's home, they were only raised after the Court had made interim orders for him to return to live with the father, in the midst of appreciation about the parenting dispute and after he had expressed conflicting legalistic messages about whether he wished to return to NSW or remain in Tasmania. There is no evidence that his concerns were expressed to the father or the mother at an earlier time and there was no evidence this was raised with his psychologist once he began seeing her in early 2025. Accordingly, I do not accept that the condition of the father's home has been a particularly significant factor in the elder child's expressed wish to live with the mother in Tasmania.
5. I accept the evidence of the father's partner and find that the home was and will likely be regularly cleaned and it is unlikely to pose actual harm either physical or psychological to its occupants.
6. I am not satisfied that the condition of the father's home poses a likely risk of harm to the elder child, particularly now that it has been cleared up/decluttered and can be maintained in such condition by an injunction or undertaking.
7. While I accept that the condition of the home did pose a degree of discomfort and embarrassment to the elder child as suggested by the Family Reporter, I am not satisfied this rises to causing him emotional or physical harm, given that he was attending school and work and has engaged positively in his daily life in NSW.
8. In arriving at this conclusion, it must be emphasised that there are up to 11 adults and children in the father's household at any given time and it is unrealistic and unreasonable to expect that the condition of the home be impeccably neat, uncluttered and clean at all times.
9. For completeness, there is no evidence that the elder child has been abused or subjected to family violence in the father's care.

Views of the elder child and weight to attach to them?

1. I find that the elder child has expressed a view that he wishes to live with the mother in Tasmania. I also accept that this view is genuinely held and it is his own view, although it is similar to the mother's wish that he lives with her and may have been subject to influence.
2. Accepting the views of the Family Reporter, I find that it is important that the elder child's views be heard and given significant weight. I have heard them and very carefully considered them.
3. Despite these findings, it is critical to acknowledge that the Family Reporter also expresses views indicative that the elder child may not fully appreciate the consequences of a change in primary residence at this stage of his life. In particular, the Family Reporter stated that:
   • He may not have the maturity to understand the significance of sibling relationships, and consequently, I infer, the impact of a separation from the younger child and his paternal half-siblings;[29]
   • His socialisation is limited to family and peers at school, although she was unaware of his socialisation through work;[30]
   • The physical home environment was a driving factor for the elder child's view about where he wanted to reside;[31]
   • The mother's mental health, if unmanaged, has capacity to adversely impact the children in her care;[32] and
   • The elder child is quiet and does not have close friends either in Tasmania or NSW.[33]
4. I attach significant weight to the elder child's views but must weigh this conclusion in the context of the Family Reporter's evidence, the reasons above at [72], and other s 60CC factors.

Developmental, emotional and psychological needs of the child?

1. The mother's case relied on the Family Report at [102] to support the mother's submissions that the father is not attuned to the needs or wishes of the elder child, who is not comfortable raising the hoarding issues with the father. This reliance is misplaced.
2. The submission oversimplifies the views of the Family Reporter, which should be read in context of the Family Report [101] also. The Family Reporter overall identifies that the elder child has felt unable to openly share his views "regardless of which parent he lives with" because of the parents' disputes and inability to agree and that the father has been constrained by the terms of the court orders from informing himself about the child's views.
3. Accordingly, in my view, the constraints that the elder child has apparently endured in being able to express himself openly, contrary to expected development of a 16 year old adolescent, is unlikely to be due to a fundamental lack of understanding of the elder child or his needs by the father.
4. Rather, I find that the father is understanding of the elder child's needs and attributes, but does not inform himself of those needs solely on the basis of his more recent expressed wishes. Instead, he takes into account the need for the child to consistently attend school, satisfactorily complete his education, positively engage in society and employment, and the importance of his sibling relationships to his identity and emotional development. I also find that the father has demonstrated capacity to ensure that these needs are met.
5. By contrast, the mother demonstrated a somewhat compromised understanding and capacity to meet the elder child's broader developmental needs. Her evidence plainly conveyed that she had pursued these proceedings solely because she believes the elder child should now live with her on the basis that he has expressed a wish to do so.
6. I consider it more likely that the mother has also been motivated to pursue an order for the elder child to live with her in Tasmania because she misses him, would have emotional and other support from him being present in her household given her concessions at [36(g)] of these reasons and the evidence of the Family Reporter referred to at [41(h)] of these reasons. I find that the mother has difficulty in separating her own needs from the child's needs and what is likely to be best for him.
7. I only partly accept the views of the Family Reporter in the Family Report at [104] because, while it is important for the elder child's views to be heard, his needs extend beyond his immediate views about where he ought to live, as those views have been informed narrowly or without reference to all his physical and emotional needs.

Benefits of maintaining relationships with each parent, siblings and extended family?

1. If the eldest child were to live with the mother, I find that he would experience and enjoy established, meaningful and loving relationships with the mother and his maternal grandparents. The mother's partner also resides with the mother, but there is little evidence about the nature of his relationship with the elder child. As the mother only re-partnered in June 2023, I infer that the elder child's relationship with the mother's partner is not particularly strong or meaningful as the elder child has lived with the father in NSW for the duration of that relationship.
2. Were the elder child to live with the father, he would continue to experience significant, meaningful and loving relationships that he has established with the father, the father's partner, the younger child, his half-siblings, his cousins, and the paternal grandparents. I find that these relationships are particularly important to the elder child in view of the evidence of the Family Reporter,[34] the father's partner,[35] and the father,[36] which I accept.
3. The Court also must consider the impact of making the orders sought by the mother on both children as sibling relationships are particularly important.[37] Noting the views of the CCE at [114], there is a risk that the relationship between the elder and younger sibling will be fractured and they will likely carry the burden of maintaining the relationship, which I consider to be undesirable. While I accept that orders could be made for the elder child to spend holiday time in NSW within the father's household if he lived with the mother, due to his age and development it is possible that there could be resistance to spending time in NSW, especially if he wants to support the mother and assist her around the home and with care of her partner[38].
4. In view of the findings and reasons at [81] to [83] of these reasons, I find that there are greater relationship benefits to the elder child if he remains living with the father for the foreseeable future. Further, it is highly likely that his relationship with his mother and maternal family will be preserved as he will be motivated to spend holiday times in Tasmania for the purpose of seeing his mother and assisting her.

Capacity of each parent to promote a relationship with the other parent and their family?

1. The mother and father do not communicate with one another, and I accept the views of the Family Reporter that the children are acutely aware of the conflict between their parents and the entrenched dispute about their parenting arrangements. I find that both children have for years lived with the burden of wanting to experience settled and positive relationships with each parent, unsupported by the parents themselves.
2. I find that the mother has involved the elder child in the dispute about where he should live and has likely influenced the elder child to live with her. This influence has indirectly arisen from a combination of factors which I find were:

(a) Her overt distress at missing the children;

(b) Her struggle with mental health and demands of work and care for her partner, of which the elder child was well aware;

(c) Effectively conveying to the elder child that the father was wrong to not allow him to remain in Tasmania in 2024. The impression she gave the elder child were that the orders made for him to live with the father from 2023 were "a trial" and that the father had breached the orders by not booking a psychologist appointment. However, the terms of the orders do not provide that the move to NSW was a trial and the failure to make the psychologists appointments was caused by both parents; and

(d) Telling the elder child that she had made enquiries, the outcome of which may be that he is able to remain living in Tasmania.

1. In contrast, I find that the father has not involved the elder child in the current dispute and has abided by existing orders not to discuss the parenting proceedings with him.[39]
2. The evidence of the maternal grandfather was unsatisfactory and telling. His presentation, tone and demeanour were quite aggressive and rude. While this may be in part due to being defensive of the mother as his daughter, to whom he is close and provides support, it also conveyed the nature of his communications and inter-personal style.
3. Although he denied sending the messages in Exhibit A5 and Exhibit A6, he contradicted himself about whether he ever used Facebook Messenger and, despite having demonstrated that his memory had been poor about swearing his affidavit, could not reasonably concede the possibility that he may have forgotten sending the messages in Exhibit A5 to the father and in Exhibit A6 to the younger child.
4. Further, I do not accept his evidence that he had not sent the messages consisting of Exhibit A5 and Exhibit A6 because he admitted that the profile image on the messages was a photo of his dog and the messages are rude, offensive and disparaging in tone consistent with how the maternal grandfather presented in giving his evidence.
5. Considering the maternal grandfather's attitude and demeanour towards the father, I find it unlikely that he will promote and support the elder child having a relationship with the father. Further, I strongly doubt that the mother could shield and protect the elder child from the maternal grandfather's attitudes towards the father.
6. While I am not confident the father will actively promote the elder child's relationship with the mother and her family, I am satisfied he will not obstruct it and will ensure he complies with orders of the Court.

1. The mother's case amounted to prioritising the child's wishes to live with her against all other considerations in s 60CC of the Act that inform the determination of what is in the elder child's best interests. Counsel for the mother referred to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child at Article 12 in the context of the objects of the Act, but did not expand or explain how Article 12 should impact the Court's orders. Nonetheless, the Court has determined what orders should be made for the elder child entirely consistent with Article 12 because:

(a) The elder child has been capable of forming and expressing his own view about where and with whom he should live;

(a) The Court has given due weight, namely significant weight, to the elder child's views consistent with his age and maturity; and

(b) The elder child has had opportunity to be heard and has been heard through interviews with the Family Reporter and communication with the ICL.

1. In effect, the mother invites the Court to accept that, in determining with which parent the elder child should live, his expressed wish to live with her and attend J School is tantamount to his best interests.
2. It is trite but necessary to say that a child's best interests are not to be determined alone on the basis of their view or preference about with whom they should reside, even if the child is nearly 17 years old. Despite this, applying the principles referred to at [58] of these reasons, I give significant weight to the elder child's wish and preference to live with the mother in Tasmania.
3. I take into account the benefits to the elder child remaining in the father's care in NSW, including:

(a) Continuing the loving and meaningful relationship with the father, his siblings, the father's partner, and the extended paternal family;

(b) Stability and continuity of school to complete his Year 11 and Year 12 education;

(c) Stability and continuity of his established school peer relations and friendships;

(d) Stability and continuity of his established casual work and friendships with co-workers; and

(e) That the elder child is more likely to be able to maintain his loving and meaningful relationship with his mother and her family, given the findings at [84] of these reasons, than to maintain the relationships with his paternal family were he to live in Tasmania.

1. If the elder child were to live in Tasmania with the mother, he would benefit from a neater and quieter home environment and his wish about with whom he lives will have been yielded to. He would also be able to spend more time with the mother, with whom he is likely more emotionally connected. However, the move likely would carry disadvantages, being:

(a) Fracturing of or greater separation from his relationship with the father, the younger child, and his extended paternal family;

(b) Disruption to his education. Although the evidence appears to be that a transition could occur from D School to J School, the effect of this transition between Year 11 and Year 12 of education is unknown. There is no evidence about whether the subjects available are compatible with his study objectives or how and if the completion of Year 11 in NSW and Year 12 in Tasmania will impact on his future education or career choices and options. Further, his expected familiarity with the J School could well be misplaced as he left there some two years ago;

(c) Severing of his friendships at D School. In arriving at this conclusion, I take into account that there was no specific evidence about who his "friends" would be here in Tasmania and that when he was living with the mother in 2024, contrary to court orders, he did not socialise or spend time with friends;

(d) Cessation of employment and severing of relations with co-workers, both of which he enjoys;

(e) Exposure to the mother's emotional fragility and a risk that he will become burdened with supporting her and helping care for her partner as he did when he was in Tasmania in 2024;

(f) Due to the findings at [88] to [91] of these reasons, probable exposure to negativity about and disparagement of the father, and a failure to promote and support his relationship with the father, the younger child, and the extended paternal family;

(g) Based on the evidence contained in the Family Report and the parties evidence about how the elder child spent his time in Tasmania when he was withheld, I consider there is a risk that if he lived with the mother, he would be less engaged in school and normal adolescent activities. There is no evidence that he did activities outside of the mother's home in this period and although he had schoolwork sent to him, he did not do it.

1. In the circumstances of this case, the elder child has been conflicted about where he would live because he has a good relationship with both his parents, albeit is perhaps closer to his mother. He has tolerated the interim orders that required him to live with the father, and he has prospered at school and otherwise while living there. He has been unable to communicate his preference to live with the mother in Tasmania to the father, not out of fear, but more likely because he is conflicted and lacks confidence and does not wish to hurt his father. I have found that he has been motivated by factors other than his own personal well-being to form a view about his living preference and he has not fully considered the implications of now changing his residence from NSW to Tasmania.
2. Weighing and assessing all the considerations relevant to the elder child's best interests, the foregoing findings and reasons lead me to conclude that the elder child should remain living with the father in NSW. I have departed from making an order which yields to the elder child's wishes because that wish has been influenced in part by a desire to protect the mother and has been formed without full appreciation of the implications of the move. In my assessment, the benefits of remaining in NSW in the short time that remains until the elder child becomes an adult outweigh the weight attributable to his wishes. There would likely be negative impacts on him if he moved to Tasmania for the final year of his studies and childhood life. It is notable that the impact of the change on him is untested whereas the arrangements in NSW are stable and known, they do not involve actual detriment, and the risk of emotional harm is small and highly unlikely.
3. In conclusion, I am comfortably satisfied that the elder child will manage a decision that he remain living with the father in NSW, and even though he has himself identified a capacity to independently book flights and travel to Tasmania, he has not done so. This indicates to me that his concerns about the living conditions in the father's home do not rise to the level where he is sufficiently motivated to leave the father's care independently, and that he appreciates the other benefits of living with the father in NSW.
4. There was little attention given to what order the Court should make, if any, in relation to major long-term decision making. There was no apparent dispute that if the elder child remained living with the father, he should complete his Year 12 education at D School. There are unlikely to be other major long-term decisions to be made for him.
5. As such, despite the submission of the ICL that the parent with whom the elder child is to live should make major long-term decisions for him, I decline to make such order. Consistent with the previous final orders by consent which provided for equal shared parental responsibility and consistent with the position at law that each parent has parental responsibility for a child,[40] it is in the elder child's best interests that an order for joint major long-term decisions be made.
6. I am satisfied that the orders sought by the mother in relation to communication between her and the elder child should be made. The father did not seek specific orders which would have left the previous communication orders made in 2021 enforceable in so far as the elder child is concerned. I do not consider this desirable given his age and degree of expected independence, which equips him with capacity to communicate with the mother to suit his schedule of school, work, and other activities. Further, in light of the views of the Family Reporter, I am confident that the elder child will communicate at reasonable times with the mother and accordingly the orders the mother seeks are in his best interests.
7. All parties agreed that the Court should inform the elder child of the final orders and the reasons for judgment. I agree this is entirely appropriate given the long history of the parenting disputes, along with the elder child's age and expected comprehension and maturity. The Independent Children's Lawyer will be asked to be present when this occurs.

1. To give effect to the conclusion that the elder child remain living with the father in NSW, it will be necessary to pronounce final orders relating to the elder child as the Court's orders of 15 October 2024 discharged the final orders made on 6 December 2021 in so far as they related to him. There were also interim orders made by consent on 11 November 2024, varying the final orders for the elder child to spend time with the mother.
2. There was no real dispute about the elder child spending school holiday time with the mother in Tasmania should he remain living in NSW with the father.
3. I consider it preferable to pronounce final orders confined to the elder child which essentially and simply provide for:

(a) The elder child to live with the father in NSW;

(b) The elder child to spend time with the mother during school holidays according to the mother's proposal;[41]

(c) The father to pay for the elder child's airfares to Tasmania for holiday time with the mother in Tasmania;

(d) The mother to pay for the elder child's airfares to return to NSW at the conclusion of holiday time with her;

(e) The mother communicate with the father and the elder child in accordance with the orders she has sought;[42] and

(f) Joint decision making for major long-term issues for the elder child and specifying that the parents need not consult about day to day issues or decisions for the child.

1. Further, to ensure the elder child is not exposed to the unlikely and small risk of emotional harm due to the physical state of the father's home as it was prior to July 2025, the Court will require the father to give a formal undertaking to maintain the home in the uncluttered and tidy condition depicted in the photographs taken by the father's partner, being Exhibit A13. It is pertinent to emphasise that there is absolutely no persuasive evidence of actual emotional or physical harm to the elder child since living in the father's home in the condition it has been.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and eight (108) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Taglieri.

[11] Affidavit of the mother filed 27 August 2025 at [31].

[24] Family Law Amendment Act 2023 (Cth), Schedule 1, Part 1 and Part 2; and Aldridge & Keaton [2009] FamCAFC 229; (2009) 235 FLR 450.

[25] See ss 60CC(2A), 60CF and 60CG of the Act.

[26] Sections 60B, 60CC(2)(b) and 60CD of the Act.

[27] Lainhart & Ellinson [2023] FedCFamC1A 200; Carlson & Fluvium [2012] FamCA 32 at [165] onwards; Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249 at [87].

[31] Family Report at [68] and [111].

[36] At [30] and [33] of these reasons.

[37] Cottey and Backe (No 2) [2020] FamCAFC 206 at [74]- [77].

[39] Order 5 of the interim orders made 15 October 2024.

[42] Amended Response filed 27 August 2025.