Gillies & Batt [2025] FedCFamC2F 1130 (19 August 2025)

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 proceedings concern X who is now eight years old.
2. X lives with his mother, Ms Batt, and does not currently spend time with his father, Mr Gillies.
3. It is agreed that Ms Batt will have sole parental responsibility for X and that X will continue to live with her.
4. Mr Gillies proposes that X commence spending professionally supervised time with him, increasing to a single unsupervised overnight period each fortnight in March 2026, and to two nights each alternate weekend in 2027. The particulars of his proposal are contained in Exhibit A1.
5. Ms Batt and the Independent Children's Lawyer propose that X continue to spend no time and have no communication with Mr Gillies.
6. The parties rely on the documents identified in their Outlines of Case.
7. The applications fall to be determined by reference to Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). I am guided by the objects of that Part.[1] X's best interests are the paramount consideration.[2] In determining those best interests, I am to consider the matters prescribed by section 60CC of the Act.

1. Civil courts generally refrain from making specific adverse credit findings against parties if the disposition of the case can legitimately be achieved otherwise. In parenting proceedings adverse credit findings are only necessary to determine real issues joined between the parties.[3] Credit findings are apt to inflame passion rather than quell controversy.[4]
2. Regrettably, two central issues arise for determination in these proceedings that require general findings of credit to be made. The first is the extent of Mr Gillies' cannabis use and whether it poses an unacceptable risk to X's safety. The second is the extent of Mr Gillies' use of family violence and whether it poses an unacceptable risk to X's safety.
3. Mr Gillies failed to adduce ordered expert evidence to assist in the determination of the first issue. He failed to call evidence from other lay witnesses who would assist the Court determine both issues. Significantly, he denied extensive reports made to Victoria Police and child protection authorities, which would constitute contemporary materials that would ordinarily form the preferred basis for judicial findings.[5] Because the authors of those documents and the reporters to those authorities did not give direct evidence, I am left with no alternative but to reach general conclusions about Mr Gillies' credit in order to resolve the identified issues.
4. Mr Gillies' oral evidence was replete with internal inconsistencies. He was repeatedly encouraged to think carefully about his answers before he gave them. Nevertheless, he commonly gave an initial answer to a question and subsequently contradicted himself shortly thereafter.
5. In relation to the first central issue arising for determination, he gave the following inconsistent evidence:

COUNSEL FOR [MS BATT]: Are there occasions when you take cannabis in the morning instead of - or during daytime instead of nighttime?

[MR GILLIES]: No.

COUNSEL FOR [MS BATT]: It's always night time is it?

[MR GILLIES]: Yes. Unless, like, if I had a really, really stressful day, you know, then, you know - yes, if I needed to sleep through the day or if my pattern was changed or - you know what I mean, or something like that. That's about it.

1. A further example was Mr Gillies' evidence in relation to driving a vehicle. It included the following:

COUNSEL FOR [MS BATT]: You don't drive at all?

[MR GILLIES]: No, I don't drive. No.

COUNSEL FOR [MS BATT]: Not at all?

[MR GILLIES]: No.

COUNSEL FOR [MS BATT]: Okay. And...?

[MR GILLIES]: Especially not with the kids in the car.

....

HIS HONOUR: Do you drive in general?

[MR GILLIES]: I do drive, yes. I drive a car, yes.

1. Another example was when he was asked about a police report of a discussion with his mother:

COUNSEL FOR [MS BATT]: When the police attended, they spoke with your mother. She stated that the medication was affecting your behaviour and - and you were right before, you were drinking, yes?

[MR GILLIES]: What medications are you referring to?

COUNSEL FOR [MS BATT]: I'm just reading it. Yes?

[MR GILLIES]: I wasn't on any medication in those years anyway.

HIS HONOUR: You weren't on any medication?

[MR GILLIES]: No, on the years she's talking about. So I'm...

HIS HONOUR: So that's another lie from your mother is it?

[MR GILLIES]: The medication my mother reported that I was on back during this incident; I wasn't on no medication. I was on cannabis.

HIS HONOUR: Right. So she was lying?

[MR GILLIES]: Yes. I wasn't on medication. Yes

COUNSEL FOR [MS BATT]: So she was lying. All right. Okay?

[MR GILLIES]: I could have been - that could have been when I was on Mirtazapine, possibly, from my doctor because I was on antidepressants and things like that, and they had me on mirtazapine. I can't exactly confirm the date.

When the issue was sought to be further clarified with him, he claimed that he didn't know whether he was on medication at the time.

1. These passages are but three of many in which Mr Gillies gave a definitive answer to a question, was given opportunities to clarify it, then gave completely inconsistent evidence. Despite such inconsistencies being pointed out to Mr Gillies, and him being repeatedly asked to consider his evidence before giving it, he continued to give inconsistent oral evidence.
2. Even in his written evidence, Mr Gillies was untruthful. Despite being afforded opportunities to correct that evidence orally, he failed to correct those inaccuracies prior to being cross-examined on them.
3. Mr Gillies deposes: "I reside in a four-bedroom home in [Town B] with my partner [Ms C] and our three sons."[6] Inconsistently, he gave oral evidence that he lives in a two-bedroom home. He blamed his solicitor for the error.
4. Mr Gillies deposes that:

A concern that [the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing] had with me was that I had been casually using cannabis. I was using cannabis as a way to keep my anxiety and poor sleep under control. I completed a significant amount of drug tests during the time that they were involved. There were a couple of tests that I failed due to smoking cannabis.[7]

He ultimately accepted in oral evidence that there were significantly more than a couple of tests that he failed. He accepted there were multiple tests that were positive for cannabis and that he failed to undertake multiple drug screens upon request from the Department.

1. Mr Gillies also deposes that after breaching an Intervention Order in 2018, he has "not been charged with any criminal offences or breaches of an Intervention Order."[8] Inconsistently, he gave oral evidence that in 2023 he was charged with the assault of a police office. He sought to explain the inconsistency by suggesting that his evidence related only to criminal offences involving Ms Batt. His written evidence was clearly not so limited.
2. Given the multiple internal inconsistencies in Mr Gillies' evidence, it is impossible for me to generally accept it. The deficiencies are not ameliorated by his submission that the "years between aged 16 and 22 are turbulent for people and they don't have a perfect memory of what happened" and "having a baby in that period is a very challenging experience for anybody of that age". He submits that he could be forgiven for his failures in memory and those inconsistencies. It is immaterial to this determination whether he could be so forgiven. I am required to decide justiciable disputes by conventional adversarial procedure between imperfect litigants on the available evidence according to law.[9]
3. By contrast, Ms Batt's evidence was given carefully and thoughtfully. When she was challenged on whether particular events occurred, she gave compelling evidence of further particulars for each episode. The only inconsistency in her evidence which she freely admitted was her affidavit evidence that "[d]uring [the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing]'s involvement with our family, between 2016 and 2019, I undertook all assessments, programs, and counselling recommended by them."[10] She accepted that she was not initially co-operative with the Department, and only became so subsequently. There was nothing about the manner in which she gave her evidence that suggested to me that it was in any way unreliable. No submission was made to the contrary.
4. I accordingly generally prefer Ms Batt's evidence to Mr Gillies'.

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

1. Mr Gillies has used cannabis from at least the age of 18 years. Ms Batt's unchallenged evidence is that she saw him regularly smoke cannabis during their relationship and recalls "rarely seeing him sober".[11] She also gives unchallenged evidence that Mr Gillies becomes "unpredictable, erratic and violent under the influence of alcohol or cannabis".[12] I accept her evidence.
2. Mr Gillies admits being intoxicated in 2016 at the time of X's birth. Child protection authorities then required him to undertake urine drug screens. His first test was undertaken in October 2016, detecting "[h]igh levels of cannabis".[13] His test in October 2016 revealed "[s]ignificant increase in cannabis use: levels > 400ug/l".[14] He failed to undertake required testing in October 2016. His next test in October 2016 revealed "Levels over 400".[15]
3. In January 2019, Mr Gillies attended child protection offices. It is reported that:

[Mr Gillies] refused to provide voluntary drug screens, although consistently advised me he was not using substances. [Mr Gillies] was sighted [in] January at the office. Multiple staff suspected [Mr Gillies] to be substance effected due to mumbled speech which was difficult to understand, red, blood shot and glassy eyes and a considerable amount of weight lost in the face since the most recent court date.[16]

1. Later that month, child protection authorities report that "[in] January that [Mr Gillies] has requested to purchase Cannabis and MDMA on a Facebook group and evidence of this has been sent to [them]".[17]
2. Between January and June 2019, child protection authorities made 57 requests of Mr Gillies to undertake urine drug screens. He failed or refused to do so on each occasion. In February 2019, he was observed to dispose of documents from child protection authorities to undertake drug screening in the bin at Court. It is reported that:

To date, [Mr Gillies] has not addressed the protective concerns. [Mr Gillies] has provided 0 drug screens despite being directed and screens being sent to [Mr Gillies] on multiple occasions. [Mr Gillies] stated that the reason for not completing screens was due to being "too busy" and has stated that he "doesn't feel comfortable having old birds looking at his cock" and "doesn't want a 70 year old woman supervising him". [Mr Gillies] stated prior to court on the last occasion that he would provide 1 screen for court to which he did not provide, and has recently stated the same for the upcoming court date.[18]

1. Mr Gillies now consumes cannabis. He gave evidence that he does so to help him sleep. He has prescriptions for cannabis from several doctors.
2. Consistent with his conduct during child protection authority involvement, he has failed to comply with Orders of this Court with respect to drug screening.
3. He was ordered to undertake hair follicle drug screening forthwith pursuant to interim consent Orders made 28 July 2025. He failed to attend the appointment scheduled for him by the Independent Children's Lawyer on 4 August 2025. I accordingly have no forensic medical evidence of Mr Gillies' current consumption of cannabis.
4. Mr Gillies has undertaken previous hair follicle testing. In November 2023, he produced a sample which detected cannabinoids, being more than 90.0 pg / 10mg of CarboxyTHC. That was 90 times more than the confirmation cut off for the screen. In September 2024, he also produced a sample that detected more than 100pg / 10mg of Delta 9 CarboxyTHC. That was 100 times more than the confirmation cut off.
5. In December 2024, the Family Report writer, Ms D, opined that:

[Mr Gillies] needs to provide a report from a Melbourne GP who he attends in regard to his medicinal marijuana. Such a report also needs to address the dosage prescribed, then [Mr Gillies] should do a hair follicle test so a comparison can be made as to the prescribed quantity compared to the actual quantity as shown in a hair follicle test result. It would assist the Court for [Mr Gillies]' GP to write a brief report as to whether his prescribed medical marijuana is all the quantity shown in the results of a hair follicle test. It would also be helpful to have an account as to when the prescribed marijuana started and the reason for such. In addition, it would assist if the GP is able to provide information as to whether [Mr Gillies]' parenting capacity would be impacted from the use of this medicinal marijuana.

...

[Mr Gillies] must arrange for his GP to write a report to include why [Mr Gillies] takes medicinal marijuana, as well as the dosage. [Mr Gillies] must do a hair follicle test with the results provided to his GP for clarification that the amount of marijuana shown on the hair follicle test coincides with the prescribed dosage.[19]

1. Mr Gillies has produced no medical reports which seek to compare the levels detected in his hair follicle tests with his prescribed cannabis. I am without evidence as to whether the levels detected are consistent with his prescriptions or not.
2. On 7 March 2024, the Court made the following Order:

Within 21 days the father shall file and serve an affidavit annexing a report from his General Practitioner addressing the following:

1. father's medical diagnosis and the reasons for being prescribed with medicinal marijuana;
2. The type of medicinal marijuana;
3. the possible side effects of medicinal marijuana; and
4. impact of the medicinal marijuana upon father's functioning and capacity to provide care for the child.

Mr Gillies has failed to comply with that Order at any time.

1. The absence of the recommended and ordered medical evidence is significant in light of Mr Gillies' oral evidence that he has recently smoked cannabis. I am not satisfied, in the sense of feeling an actual persuasion,[20] that his use of the term "smoked" is consistent with him only using a vaporiser as he later sought to assert. His evidence in relation to smoking cannabis was as follows:

HIS HONOUR: You can't tell the court that is deciding the case about your son's best interests when you take cannabis?

[MR GILLIES]: I can't say I smoked it Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. But I can't exactly recall every single day. Your Honour, I've had a lot of things happening

HIS HONOUR: You smoke it too, do you?

[MR GILLIES]: Pardon?

HIS HONOUR: You smoke it too, do you?

[MR GILLIES]: I thought that's what you said, your Honour. "I smoke cannabis".

HIS HONOUR: Take cannabis, I said. You said "smoke". I'm asking you now. Do you smoke it?

[MR GILLIES]: No, your Honour. I don't.

HIS HONOUR: Why would you say you can't tell me when you smoke it?

[MR GILLIES]: I use it in tea. I was - normally people do smoke cannabis. It's a referral as I was saying it. Figure of speech.

HIS HONOUR: I'm not interested in anybody else, [Mr Gillies]?

[MR GILLIES]: I can understand that.

HIS HONOUR: When did you last smoke cannabis?

[MR GILLIES]: Not yesterday. The day before. I use cannabis in a tea.

HIS HONOUR: When did you last smoke it?

[MR GILLIES]: Smoke cannabis? It's been a while, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: When?

[MR GILLIES]: Over six months. 12 months. Six to 12 months.

HIS HONOUR: So during the course of these proceedings you have been smoking cannabis?

[MR GILLIES]: At home. As prescribed by my doctor, yes. Because I'm allowed to smoke it in a dry herb vaporiser.

HIS HONOUR: Let me just be really crystal clear. Your doctor has prescribed cannabis for you to smoke?

[MR GILLIES]: In a dry herb vaporiser. It's a medical approved device.

1. As can be seen, Mr Gillies initially referred to smoking cannabis. He then denied smoking it. He then claimed to have smoked it in a vaporiser as prescribed. The inconsistencies in those answers leave me with no confidence in his uncorroborated evidence in relation to his cannabis use.
2. Mr Gillies has produced a letter from one of his doctors which reports that he is prescribed medical cannabis due to his unspecified "chronic medical condition".[21]
3. The report records the following:

The impairment duration of cannabis medications may only apply to THC containing medications: 6-8 hours for oral or capsulated medications and 2-4 hours for inhaled medications.

...

Regardless of dosages, this patient has been advised not to drive, operate heavy machinery and/or care for minors if impaired.[22] (emphasis added)

1. Mr Gillies denied that he had ever been advised not to care for minors while impaired on cannabis. He gave inconsistent evidence as to whether or not he had read the letter attached to his own affidavit.
2. All of the prescriptions cited by the doctor's report are described as containing THC. Accordingly, according to that report, Mr Gillies has been advised not to care for minors for six to eight hours post ingestion of oral or capsulated medications which he claims to be the only ones he currently uses.
3. On Mr Gillies' own evidence, he consumes cannabis both during the daytime and at night time, despite asserting that he equally cares for the three children he has with his partner. Mr Gillies did not call his partner to give evidence. I infer that her evidence would not have assisted him.[23] Given my findings in relation to Mr Gillies' credibility, I decline to accept his uncorroborated evidence that he uses cannabis during the day "maybe once a month".
4. The medical evidence, such as it is, supports the conclusion that Mr Gillies has been advised not to care for children after consuming cannabis products. He uses cannabis both during the day and at night time. His capacity to care for children is impaired for six hours thereafter. Mr Gillies proposes no restraint on him using cannabis or other substances prior to or during any time X were to spend with him. He makes no proposal for any other person to care for X in the event he is impaired due to cannabis use during any time X spends with him.
5. The Child Impact Report writer, Ms E, opines that:

Parents struggling with drug dependencies typically have trouble prioritising their children's needs. Their emotional availability may be reduced, and their mood and affect may be unstable and inconsistent. Drug dependency can also be associated with increased antisocial and criminal behaviour, and lifestyle factors that present risk to children.[24]

1. X's safety is at unacceptable risk of being neglected in Mr Gillies' care due to his cannabis use. I accept Ms Batt's submission that while he is impaired by cannabis, he could cause serious psychological or emotional harm to X.

Any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving X or a person caring for X (whether or not the person had parental responsibility for X)

1. Ms Batt gives unchallenged evidence that, during their relationship, Mr Gillies "was always quick to get angry at [X] and would yell and swear at him and throw things around".[25] I accept her evidence.
2. In 2021, X reported to Ms Batt that if he went near to a puddle his father would "push him in".[26] X also told Ms Batt, her mother, and his kindergarten teacher that his father told him "if he jumped in a puddle [Mr Gillies] would punch him in the head".[27] Ms Batt was not challenged on her evidence. I accept the accuracy of X's reported threats made to him by his father.

1. Ms Batt's evidence of Mr Gillies committing family violence towards her was in large part unchallenged. Mr Gillies' challenges to some aspects of that evidence were ineffectual. Given my findings in relation to Mr Gillies' evidence generally, I reject his blanket denial of having perpetrated family violence other than on those occasions for which he received a criminal conviction. I accept Ms Batt's evidence.
2. During their relationship, Mr Gillies demanded to borrow money from Ms Batt for his personal expenses and did not repay her. This often left her without enough money for her and X's expenses. He accordingly unreasonably denied the financial autonomy Ms Batt would otherwise have had. I am satisfied his conduct in that respect constitutes economic or financial abuse. I am satisfied that it was behaviour that controlled Ms Batt and accordingly amounts to family violence.[28]
3. Mr Gillies isolated Ms Batt from her family. He told her that it was her mother and family members' fault that child protection authorities had become involved. He would not permit Ms Batt to see her family members without him being present as he controlled her. His behaviour amounts to preventing Ms Batt from keeping connections with her family and I find it to comprise family violence given it involved controlling her.[29]
4. Mr Gillies often yelled at Ms Batt, swore at her, and called her names. He called her "fuckwit", "idiot", "mutt", and "trash".[30] He often got close to her face and screamed at her causing her to feel very scared. He spat on her face on at least one occasion. These repeated derogatory taunts and other behaviour caused fear and constitutes family violence.[31]
5. Ms Batt repeatedly tried to end her relationship with Mr Gillies. He often threatened to kill himself if she did not return to him. If he became upset while driving, he would drive dangerously over the speed limit with Ms Batt in the car while screaming at her. In May 2016, Ms Batt left with the assistance of police. Afterwards, Mr Gillies smashed her phone. I find such behaviour caused Ms Batt fear and is accordingly family violence.
6. Ms Batt deposes that:

In 2016, when I was [...] pregnant with [X], the Father drove away from a petrol station without paying for the petrol. The [p]olice found him and pursued him. The Father drove fast away from them until he hit a bridge which sent the car out of control and into a fence.[32]

1. Mr Gillies put to Ms Batt that the incident did not take place. She gave compelling further evidence that:

... it happened. We were in a [motor vehicle] - and we went into a side of the school, where he proceeded to help me over a chain link fence so that we wouldn't get caught. I told him to leave me in the vehicle, as I thought I had lost my son.

1. I formed the clear impression that Ms Batt was accurately relaying accurate details of the event. I accept her evidence.
2. Ms Batt deposes to Mr Gillies talking "about wanting to commit suicide or hurting himself" at times during the relationship.[33] Mr Gillies put to Ms Batt in cross-examination that he denies ever voicing suicidal thoughts. She maintained her evidence and gave unchallenged evidence that:

I have text messages from [Mr Gillies] and messenger messages that would state otherwise.

...

So [Mr Gillies] has specified that he would kill himself in regards to - if something with the [D]epartment hadn't gone his way or in regards to just in general things not going [Mr Gillies]'way.

1. I accept her evidence.
2. Ms Batt was asked questions about an incident in 2017 when Mr Gillies was very intoxicated after attending his sister's father's funeral. She deposes:

When he returned to his parents' house, he was very upset and went to take a shower. His mother asked me to follow him to make sure he did not try to harm himself. I found him in the shower clutching a photo from the funeral and visibly very upset. When I tried to comfort him, he spat in my face. When he came out of the shower he started demanding car keys from various family members. He was frantic and he kept telling me that he wanted to just take [X] for a drive with him. I was very concerned that the Father was suicidal, and that he would hurt [X]. He was clearly not safe to drive in his emotional and intoxicated state. I was able to hide the kids away in another room, and his family members did not allow him to take any of the cars. Ultimately, the police were called and deescalated the incident.[34]

1. The questions asked of Ms Batt about the incident did not successfully impugn her evidence. I accept it. I find that Mr Gillies spat in Ms Batt's face on that occasion.
2. Ms Batt deposes that in 2016, when she was pregnant with X, Mr Gillies "held a knife to [her] pregnant belly and threatened to cut [X] out and run away with him."[35] Ms Batt was asked about Mr Gillies' denial of the evidence. She gave further compelling oral evidence, which I accept, that:

[Mr Gillies] was possibly intoxicated, or under the effects of something. He came into our bedroom at the time, when we were living at [Ms F]'s, with a knife and held it underneath my stomach, saying that he would cut my son out because he thought that I was going to run with him. And he wasn't even born.

1. After the parties' separation in late 2016, Mr Gillies harassed Ms Batt, including calling her more than 80 times in an hour. He smashed her phone twice. He refused to allow her to take baby items needed for X.
2. In November 2016, Mr Gillies took Ms Batt's phone during an argument which left bruising on her arm.
3. My findings in relation to Mr Gillies' perpetration of family violence towards Ms Batt are consistent with child protection authorities substantiating harm in relation to X, in part, "due to an incident of family violence whereby the maternal grandparents had to intervene to protect" Ms Batt from Mr Gillies.[36]
4. In February 2018, Ms Batt and X were at Mr Gillies' home visiting him. Ms Batt sought to leave after an argument with Ms Batt's mother. She deposes that:

The Father then became aggressive with me, threatened me, and locked [X] in another room of the house. As the argument progressed, he moved to several other rooms sometimes locking himself in with [X] and sometimes locking [X] in by himself. [X] became quickly distressed and was banging on the door to be let out during this. He was also crying out, trying to get back to me. The Father then threw a used nappy at me, hitting me in the side of the head, and threatened to remove me from the property by any means necessary. The Father also said that he would not let [X] see me again until our parenting matters went to Court. I messaged my friend [Ms G] to come and pick me up, but then I told her not to come because I was afraid of her being hurt by the Father. When [Ms G] arrived the Father still would not let me hold [X]. I remember crying and falling to the ground begging the Father to let [X] come to me. When he refused I went outside. A short time later [Ms G] found me in the bushes outside. She told me that she had picked up [X], but the Father had taken him away from her by force, and pushed her to the ground. [Ms G] and I went back into the house after this and I told the Father I would not leave him. The Father accepted this answer. When he went to sleep, I took [X] and [Ms G] drove [X] and I home. After a short time, serious bruises appeared on [Ms G]'s skin.[37]

1. This evidence was unchallenged by Mr Gillies. It is corroborated by photographs of bruising which are in evidence. Ms G applied for an Intervention Order against Mr Gillies after the incident.
2. I accept Ms Batt's evidence. It is consistent with contemporaneous materials. In March 2018, child protection authorities found that Mr Gillies "was assessed responsible for actual harm caused as well as a likelihood of causing harm to [X], harm for exposing [X] to a physical incident of family violence, locking him in a bedroom unsupervised and [X] being struck to the face during the ordeal".[38] That report is inconsistent with Mr Gillies' evidence that child protection authorities re-opened their file at that time "due to concerns about [Ms Batt's] mental health".[39]
3. In early 2018, an Intervention Order was made requiring Mr Gillies to return to Ms Batt her car, her belongings in her car and some of X's things. He failed to do so.
4. In March 2018, in breach of an Intervention Order, Mr Gillies posted about Ms Batt and X on social media.
5. In mid-2018, the parties met to talk in a park. Ms Batt told Mr Gillies she would not reconcile with him. She deposes that he then raped her. Ms Batt was asked about Mr Gillies' denial of the incident. Once again, she gave further compelling evidence that I accept:

We had originally met up to talk about [X]. We went to - it was - it's like a green area between two courts. I refer to it as a park half of the entire time I've lived there. We sat by a tree talking. I called him a "posey", yes a "posey", and he decided that that was permission to push me back, get on top of me, and insert himself. It didn't last more than seconds before I got him off me. I'm sorry, but I can't accept he has denied that allegation.

1. Mr Gillies put to Ms Batt the inconsistency between her report of that violent sexual assault and her advice to Ms E, in February 2024, that Mr Gillies "had not been physically violent towards her".[40] Ms Batt gave evidence of having had COVID at the time of the online meeting with the report writer. When asked to explain the inconsistency, she gave evidence that:

I have post-traumatic stress disorder due to trauma throughout my life.

...

complex post-traumatic stress disorder due to trauma throughout my life. Memories of traumas can be very difficult for me to put down once I pick up. So I'm sorry if I didn't go into extreme detail about everything. I need to preserve my mental health for my son.

1. I found that evidence to be compelling. I accept it. I find that Mr Gillies raped Ms Batt in mid-2018.
2. In early 2019, while an Intervention Order was in force protecting Ms Batt from Mr Gillies, he called her and told her to "go find Nemo".[41] She subsequently found a small stuffed toy of the fish Nemo from the movie Finding Nemo in her yard. She deposes that:

The Father told me that he had left it there for [X], but this made me scared because the Father has obviously come to my house to throw it over the fence. I knew that he was not allowed to contact me or come to my house because of the Final [Family Violence Intervention Order].[42]

1. Mr Gillies' oral evidence in relation to this issue was remarkable, firstly for its inherent inconsistencies, but even more significantly for its lack of insight into the effect of his behaviour. It was as follows:

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER: Do you recall this incident?

[MR GILLIES]: I remember the breach but I don't remember the incident, no.

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER: You didn't throw a fish into her backyard?

[MR GILLIES]: That was accused, yes.

HIS HONOUR: You did or you didn't do it?

[MR GILLIES]: Yes, I did throw it. Not into the backyard, to the front yard.

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER: You threw a fish into her front...?

[MR GILLIES]: No, was a teddy. I put it over the fence. A soft toy, not a fish.

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER: Moments ago when I - sorry, moments ago when I asked you whether you threw something into her backyard, you said that was what was reported...?

[MR GILLIES]: It was reported that I put a...

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER: instead of saying hey...?

[MR GILLIES]: toy there, yes.

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER: Why don't you say I threw something into her front yard, not her backyard?---

[MR GILLIES]: Because I was answering the question.

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER: Why throw a teddy into her front yard?

[MR GILLIES]: I think was Christmas.

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER: That's your way of giving Christmas gift to her or [X]?

[MR GILLIES]: To [X].

HIS HONOUR: This is a loving gesture towards your son, is it?

[MR GILLIES]: I left him a present.

HIS HONOUR: Is this a loving gesture towards your son?

[MR GILLIES]: I'm not sure what you mean, your Honour. Is what loving gesture? The fact that I...

HIS HONOUR: Throwing a -?

[MR GILLIES]: gave him a toy?

HIS HONOUR: ...toy in the front yard. Is that a loving gesture?

[MR GILLIES]: Well, popping a toy, not...

HIS HONOUR: Is that a loving...?

[MR GILLIES]: No, it's not, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: ...gesture? So why do it?

[MR GILLIES]: I wouldn't have been - no, obviously not clearly thinking at that time, your Honour, and I admit my mistake.

1. Significantly, this incident took place long after Mr Gillies attended 13 sessions of a Men's Behaviour Change Program in 2018. Mr Gillies' evidence demonstrates a complete lack of insight. Insight is, to some degree predictive, of whether there will be a repetition of conduct.[43]
2. In March 2019, again while an Intervention Order protecting Ms Batt was operative, Mr Gillies called her and told her he was around the corner from her house. She saw him walking past her house, apparently drinking alcohol. Mr Gillies was unable to give any satisfactory explanation of his presence anywhere near Ms Batt's property. He showed no remorse for having done so.
3. In December 2019, also while an Intervention Order was in place for Ms Batt's protection, Mr Gillies approached her at a party after becoming drunk and was aggressive towards her. He threatened to damage her car.
4. Mr Gillies otherwise breached the Intervention Order on many occasions by contacting Ms Batt on social media, calling her, sending her text messages and swearing at her at court hearings.
5. Significantly in light of Mr Gillies' ongoing use of cannabis, Ms Batt deposes that Mr Gillies' abuse of her would worsen when he was under the influence of alcohol or cannabis.

Mr Gillies' violence towards other family members

1. Mr Gillies reluctantly conceded in oral evidence that he has been abusive towards other family members. He also conceded that he has been violent towards other people and admitted he has been violent or abusive towards his grandmother. He also conceded that he had been abusive towards his own mother.
2. In mid-2017, Victoria Police record that:

At approx. 10:40pm [Mr Gillies' mother] has contacted 000 re [Mr Gillies] heavily alcohol affected after attending a funeral for his step father today and has been punching in the walls of her house and yelling. When police attended, [Mr Gillies] was sitting in [his mother's] vehicle with a friend who was trying to calm him down, the vehicle was parked in the driveway. [Mr Gillies] got out of the vehicle very wobbly on feet and was slurring his speech. He stated he did not know why police were there and that if [Mr Gillies' mother] called to speak with her. [Mr Gillies' mother and brother] have stated that [Mr Gillies] has damaged a wall and a door inside the house. They also stated that [Mr Gillies] has been verbally abusive to [Mr Gillies' mother]. [She] left the house as she was scared that [Mr Gillies] would escalate the incident further. [Mr Gillies] told members that he might have 'slipped' and put his foot through a wall when queried again as to why police were called.[44]

1. Mr Gillies gave evidence he couldn't recall the incident. Consistent with the contemporaneous records and his own general admission of being violent and abusive, I find that Mr Gillies was verbally abusive towards his mother in mid-2017, damaged a wall and a door inside her house. I find that his conduct caused her to fear for her safety.
2. In December 2018, Victoria Police report that after receiving a call from Mr Gillies' sister, they attended Mr Gillies' mother's home. They record that:

A verbal dispute occurred in regards to [Mr Gillies' mother] owing [Mr Gillies] money. [She] has told [him] that she only had a $50 note and would pay the money back when she broke the $50. This has angered [Mr Gillies] and the verbal dispute has continued. [Mr Gillies] has hit the flyscreen door cause a minor tear in the flyscreen.[45]

1. I do not accept Mr Gillies' denial of the incident. He was unable to explain why his sister would call the police. I find Mr Gillies to have had a verbal dispute with his mother and damaged a flyscreen on that occasion.
2. In mid-2019, Mr Gillies gave evidence that he was consuming a gram or two of cannabis each week, substantially less than he now consumes.
3. In April 2019, Mr Gillies' sister's partner called police after Mr Gillies attended requesting a battery charger and banging on front windows demanding it. In May 2019, police were called in relation to another verbal dispute between Mr Gillies and his mother. In May 2019, Mr Gillies' mother called police and reported that Mr Gillies had grabbed a baseball bat and walked around the house after she retrieved her mobile phone from him. In June 2019, police report that Mr Gillies became verbally abusive towards his mother and grandmother after his mother told him to turn his music down. Mr Gillies denied recalling the incidents. I find the events to have occurred as contemporaneously recorded by police.
4. Victoria Police record that in August 2019, Mr Gillies, his mother, her two adolescent daughters and her 30 year old daughter:

... were at [Mr Gillies' mother's] home address when an argument occurred over [Mr Gillies] using [his mother's] computer without her permission. This argument continued as [Mr Gillies] followed [his mother] in the laundry. Whilst in the laundry [Mr Gillies] has picked up an unknown object and struck [his mother] in the left side of her face with it. [Mr Gillies'] 30 year old sister ran into the room and contacted 000 for Police assistance causing [Mr Gillies] to flee over the back fence. As a result of this incident [Mr Gillies' mother] has received a laceration to her left eye brow causing bruising and her left eye to swell shut. [Mr Gillies' mother] was taken to the [...] Hospital by a friend where she received medical treatment for her injuries. Police hold serious concerns for the safety and welfare of [Mr Gillies' mother] and believe an Intervention Order with exclusion conditions is essential to ensure the safety and welfare of [Mr Gillies' mother] and the children.[46]

1. Mr Gillies denied any recollection of the incident . I find that denial to be fanciful in light of the severity of the recorded incident and his admission that he recalled the Intervention Order that was subsequently issued. Mr Gillies' mother was present throughout the final hearing. She was not called to give evidence. No explanation was given for that failure. I infer her evidence would not have assisted Mr Gillies' case.[47] Consistent with the contemporaneous record, I find that in August 2019, Mr Gillies struck his mother with an object causing laceration to her face and her left eye to swell shut.
2. In November 2020, Victoria Police record that Mr Gillies' 11 year old sister reported:

... a verbal argument took place as [Mr Gillies] was jealous about someone talking to his girlfriend. [Mr Gillies] had walked outside with a knife as he was doing something.[48]

1. I do not accept Mr Gillies' evidence that his sister was lying, even if she was inaccurately recorded by police as being 11 years old when she was 14. I find Mr Gillies to have conducted himself as reported.
2. In June 2021, child protection authorities ascertained that Mr Gillies had "a significant history of family violence, and that he had been recorded for 19 previous incidents between 2012 and 2020, of which he had been the respondent (RESP) in 18 of the incidents".[49] Consistent with my findings in relation to his perpetration of family violence, Mr Gillies admitted that this significant history "could have been" from his "previous involvement with [his] mother".
3. In July 2021, X told Ms Batt about family violence between Mr Gillies and his partner, Ms H, including arguments and a physical confrontation. Ms Batt was not challenged on her evidence and I accept it.
4. In November 2021, police record that:

[Mr Gillies] was at home in the lounge room saying offensive things about his mother. His grandmother (...) took offense to the abusive things he was saying and took a swing at [Mr Gillies]. [Mr Gillies] turned around and pushed [his grandmother] across the room. She fell backwards to the floor and hurt her back and bottom. [Mr Gillies' grandmother] states [Mr Gillies] regularly verbally abuses her and threatens to damage or steal her property. [She] was visibly shaken and distressed in police presence.[50]

1. In light of his admission that he has been violent towards his grandmother and the other inconsistencies in his evidence, I reject Mr Gillies' denial of the allegation of pushing his grandmother to the floor. I also reject his attempt to explain the record by reference to his grandmother "struggling with dementia at the minute". I prefer the contemporaneous police record and find that Mr Gillies regularly verbally abuses his grandmother, and that in November 2021, he pushed her across the room to the floor causing her injury.

Any family violence order that applies or has applied to X or a member of his family

1. In late 2016, Ms Batt applied for an Intervention Order against Mr Gillies. She subsequently withdrew it as a result of pressure from Mr Gillies. She was too afraid of him to continue with the process. Child protection authorities nevertheless continued the application on X's behalf, protecting him from contact with Mr Gillies.
2. In early 2018, police applied for an Intervention Order for the protection of Ms Batt and X from Mr Gillies. An interim Order was made in early 2018 and a final Order made in Mr Gillies' absence in early 2019 for a period of twelve months.

1. Despite the absence of recent convictions for family violence, or involvement by child protection authorities, I am not satisfied that Mr Gillies has shown any insight into his perpetration of family violence. Despite having attended 13 Men's Behaviour Change Program sessions in 2018, he has continued to perpetrate family violence thereafter. Whatever learnings he now professes to have acquired in the program, they did not prevent him continuing to behave violently towards family members.
2. In July 2024, the single expert witness psychologist, Ms J opined that:

... [Mr Gillies] was observed to justify and minimise his engagement in unhelpful behaviours. Additionally, he made several comments, which appeared to externalise responsibility for past actions. This behaviour may be indicative of difficulties in accountability, insight, and awareness.[51]

That opinion is consistent with my impression of Mr Gillies. He took no real responsibility for his conduct. Significantly, he has failed to undertake any recommendations made in these proceedings to address his use of family violence.

1. Mr Gillies' extensive perpetration of family violence, his lack of insight into it, together with his continued use of cannabis, leads me to the conclusion that X's safety requires him to spend no time with his father. Put another way, X spending time with his father leaves him at unacceptable risk from exposure to family violence, neglect, and other harm.

1. X and his parents attended upon Ms D in December 2024. She reports that:

When I went to take [X] to have an observation session with [Mr Gillies], [X] was surprised that he was seeing his father. At that point, [Ms Batt] said that she had not informed [X] that this would happen. [Ms Batt] then asked [X] if he wanted to see [Mr Gillies] and [X] replied enthusiastically yes. [X] came willingly to meet up with [Mr Gillies] whom he had not had contact with for two years. Overall, [X] appeared to be gentle and calm as well as a sensitive child. [X] also seemed like a "little professor".[52]

When [X] was asked what three wishes he would like he said, "Wish to see my dad again. Wish to have a good life. Wish to be more kind. I am kind but I want to be more kind."[53]

Ms D agreed with Mr Gillies' counsel that X's statements represent a fairly unequivocal statement from him about his wish to see his father.

[X] was asked how he would feel if the adults decided that he could spend some time with [Mr Gillies] on alternate Saturdays he replied, "Yeah, that's what I would like every Saturday." [X] was asked how he would feel seeing [Mr Gillies] with his half-brothers, he replied, "I'd love to be there with my brothers."[54]

...

When [X] was asked if there was anything further, he would like to tell the Judge, he replied, "That I would really like to see my dad. That I would like to come over to his house."[55]

1. Ms D facilitated a meeting between X and his father. X is reported as describing feeling good about meeting with his father that day, despite saying he was "a little bit scared cause [he hasn't] seen him for a long time".[56] Ms D reports that:

[X] then came into the room where [Mr Gillies] was. They then verbally greeted each other which was comfortable. [X] seemed quiet but comfortable which appeared to be quite quickly.[57]

1. Ms D gave oral evidence that X clearly felt okay, he felt comfortable and it happened quite quickly compared to other children who sometimes take longer to be comfortable when they haven't seen a parent for a long time. She also gave oral evidence that X clearly remembered his father and felt comfortable.
2. The Independent Children's Lawyer spoke to X on 23 July 2024. She reports that:

... he informed that he missed "dad", "sometimes when he doesn't hurt me, I feel safe, pushed me in to a puddle, hurt my mum, she told me". When asked what dad could do to make things better, safer for him, [X] replied "he could take me out and not push me into a puddle". [X] remembered his dad and missed him.[58]

1. The Independent Children's Lawyer again spoke to X on 31 July 2025 and reports that "he has been consistent with his views, misses dad, wants to see him, recalls seeing him, 'it was good'".[59]

The developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of X

1. X suffers with Autism (level 1) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. He also has other mental health needs as a result of his exposure to early life trauma. He is engaged with a paediatrician, psychologist, speech therapist and optometrist. He receives additional supports at school and at home. X is not emotionally where he should be at this point and is emotionally stunted.

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

1. Ms Batt has been responsible for meeting X's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs. At times, she has been assisted by her mother in doing so. It is to their great credit that X is happy, healthy and safe, as well being very smart, creative and brilliant.
2. There is no suggestion that Ms Batt is doing anything other than an exemplary job in attending to X's needs. She is engaged with supports necessary for meeting those needs.
3. Pursuant to interim Orders made 7 March 2024, Ms Batt has sole parental responsibility for X. It is common ground that she will retain that responsibility for him. Mr Gillies is accordingly not a person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for X.

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

1. It is agreed that X will continue to benefit from living primarily in Ms Batt's care.
2. X lives with Ms Batt's other child, K, who is now six years old. Ms Batt has been K's primary carer since birth. X has a close relationship with him. X also has a close relationship with his maternal grandparents. He will continue to benefit from those relationships.
3. As is clear from the terms of the relevant statutory consideration, I am to consider the benefit to X of having a relationship with his father only if it is safe to do so. For reasons previously given, it is not.
4. Regrettably the conclusion I have reached about X's safety means that X will not have a relationship with his three half-siblings to Mr Gillies.

Anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of X

1. As has been seen, X has expressed unequivocal views that he wishes to see his father and have a relationship with him. X met with Mr Gillies in the presence of Ms D in December 2024. Regrettably, Mr Gillies has failed, over an extended period, to take steps that have been deemed necessary to facilitate X having a normalised relationship with his father.
2. In 2016, child protection authorities, in their protection application, recommended a condition that Mr Gillies "must go to a psychologist and or psychiatrist" for "assessment and or treatment".[60] In 2017, the same authorities recommended a condition that Mr Gillies' psychological or psychiatric treatment was to "include anger management".[61] In April 2018, child protection authorities again recommended a condition that Mr Gillies "go to a psychologist &/or psychiatrist" for "assessment & treatment".[62] In October 2018, child protection authorities recommended a condition that he must attend "a psychologist for counselling including family violence counselling".[63] In January 2019, child protection authorities made the same recommendation again.
3. Mr Gillies repeatedly failed to attend visits with X that had been organised by child protection authorities. He only attended five out of 21 such sessions from December 2016 until February 2017, seven out of 24 such sessions from May to August 2018 and five out of 34 such sessions from February to June 2019. He could offer no explanation for his failures. They reflect poorly on his attitude to spending time with his son and his capacity to provide for his needs.
4. Despite the repeated recommendations for Mr Gillies to undertake psychological treatment, the only written evidence he adduces on the topic is to having attended eight sessions with a psychologist in late 2018 and early 2019 .
5. In May 2024, Ms J, who's evidence is unchallenged before me, opined that "[Mr Gillies] requires intensive intervention with an experienced clinical psychologist over a period of one to two years to address personality vulnerabilities."[64] In December 2024, Ms D also recommended that Mr Gillies "start attending a clinical psychologist for treatment as recommended by [Ms J]."[65]
6. Despite his affidavit having been executed on 29 July 2025, Mr Gillies gave no evidence therein of having taken any steps to see a psychologist in line with Ms J's recommendation. He gave oral evidence that he was aware of the allegation, and said "well, it was recommended. I - in that sense, I wasn't ordered, so I didn't do it back then to be honest".
7. Mr Gillies gave oral evidence that he had obtained a mental health care plan in January 2025 and has attended three of four scheduled sessions with a psychologist in the weeks preceding the final hearing. He gave evidence he will get a total of six sessions with the psychologist. I took no comfort from his evidence that he would be able to thereafter afford further sessions which he said would cost him $200 each.
8. Sadly, Mr Gillies has chosen not to commit himself to undertaking therapeutic intervention as recommended by child protection authorities and the experts in these proceeding. In circumstances where it is opined he needs one to two years of therapy, I draw no comfort from the fact he says he has attended three sessions in the month leading up to the trial. As Ms D opined orally, "he would be nowhere near a stage where it would impact on him - he would be able to make positive change".
9. It is also regrettable that, despite Mr Gillies giving evidence that he could give up cannabis at any time, he has chosen not to do so. He offered no satisfactory explanation for his decision-making in that respect. There is no evidence to support the proposition advanced by Mr Gillies in closing address that "arguably using medicinal cannabis is a safer course than using cannabis on the black market".
10. It has been observed that if litigants are genuinely motived to improve their parenting capacity, they will do so without any order to regulate their decision.[66] Mr Gillies failures to engage in therapeutic intervention or adequately address his cannabis use reflects poorly, both on his present parenting capacity and his motivation to improve it.
11. Whether Mr Gillies can or will undertake recommended psychological intervention or cease using cannabis in the future is a matter for him. I am to take him as I now find him. It is not my task to make aspirational directions about how he might improve his parenting capacity in the hope of enhancing X's familial experience.[67]
12. Tellingly, when it was put to Ms Batt that Mr Gillies was no longer the person he was at 19, 20 or 21, she convincingly gave evidence that "I do apologise, I see nothing to say that he has change in any form or way." He has continued to use cannabis and family violence and has demonstrated no insight into his behaviour.
13. X is not an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child.

1. The unfortunate reality in these proceedings is that X's desire to have a relationship with his father cannot be safely accommodated. Mr Gillies has not demonstrated that he is a person who has the necessary capacity to safely care for X.
2. In oral evidence, Ms D was advised of the evidence that had been adduced in the proceedings in relation to Mr Gillies' cannabis use. He made no objection to the recitation of that evidence to her. In light of Mr Gillies' evidence as to his cannabis use, his failure to undertake drug testing, and failure to adduce recommended medical evidence, Ms D gave this evidence:

Look, under the circumstances that you have described and explained, through his testing in court, I would have lot of concern about any unsupervised time. And I think that then leads into, well, okay, he has supervised time, but then where does it go from there? So that then leads back to, well, clearly supervised time for the long term isn't an appropriate for [X] to have to live, and sooner or later [X] would question what was happening. So it really gets back to whether or not he's a person who is capable caring for [X]. From the information I've been provided with today, it doesn't appear to me that he is a person who is capable of caring for [X] unsupervised. So that then leads to the question of whether there should be spend time at all, and goes back to, then, whether he just sends cards, presents, writes letters and so on to [X], or whether he just, in the future, spends - I think it's five or six times supervised each year at a children's contact centre, so that [X] is able to keep his paternal identity going through his life and have that contact with his father, and he will then have that opportunity to understand more about his father as he proceeds through life. But certainly, at this point in time, I can't recommend that spend time progresses. (emphasis added)

1. Ms D was thereafter taken through the evidence before the Court in relation to Mr Gillies' perpetration of family violence, not only towards Ms Batt, but also towards his own family members. Again, Mr Gillies took no objection to the way in which that evidence was put to Ms D. She opined that:

... Very serious family violence I'm hearing about. Under those circumstances, it would actually be difficult to make any recommendation that he spends time with [X]. And I think under the circumstances with [Ms Batt], hearing all that he has done, the serious violence he has perpetrated, even not whilst he was with her, to other family members, paternal family members, that's a major concern about whether [X] should spend time with him.

1. Ms D was then advised of Mr Gillies' lack of engagement with recommended counselling or treatment, again without objection from Mr Gillies. She opined that:

Under all of those circumstances, I would be struggling to see what benefit there could be for [X] to continue to have face-to-face time, identity time with his father under all of those circumstances. I think at some stage in the future [X] will need to have some support and some therapy to assist him to understand more about his father. I think, particularly through his teen years, is when children, mostly males, have difficulty in coming to grips with these sorts of issues about their father. So I think with [Ms Batt] clearly knowing all of these issues and background, the seriousness of his family violence to other people would clearly not be her best interest to have to take [X] to spend time with his family - with his father, sorry.

1. Mr Gillies' counsel put to Ms D that there has been a period of a couple of years in which Mr Gillies has not faced a criminal charge nor had involvement with child protection and noted that the parties were very young at the time X was born. Ms D gave evidence that those matters had no effect on her recommendation that X not spend time with his father. Considering X's clear wish to see his father, Ms D opined that:

Now, in light of what I have heard today, it - that has no bearing on what I recommended. I think that it's well and good that a child may appear to get along well with a parent, but I think the overriding factor is family violence, and where there has been serious family violence that takes precedence over any other information. In addition, there was the doctor's information that, under the influence of marijuana, [Mr Gillies] would not be able to care appropriately for young children, if I heard that right.

1. Ms D ultimately recommended that X spend no time with his father. Whilst I am not bound by that recommendation, a failure to follow it requires explanation.[68] Mr Gillies' submissions do not provide such an explanation.
2. Mr Gillies submits that the matter needs to be looked at through the prism of the fact that he and Ms Batt had X when they were aged 18 and 19 years and that nearly 10 years has now elapsed. He submits that he is currently in a settled relationship and has made "significant changes in his life". He submits that there is no evidence of any behaviour of domestic violence in recent years. The difficulty with the submission is that Mr Gillies has taken no responsibility for his extensive family violence use. As recently as 2022 or 2023, he spat at a police officer. Further, a significant number of the family violence incidents to which I have referred occurred after he partially attended a Men's Behaviour Change Program. He has not obtained the recommended therapeutic intervention he needs to address his use of violence.
3. It is true, as Mr Gillies submits, that he accepts he perpetrated family violence on those occasions for which he has been convicted. They are two breaches of an Intervention Order. They are but a small number of the episodes of violence he has perpetrated. Similarly, his concession that Ms Batt retain sole parental responsibility for X was a relatively minor component of the dispute and is not, in my view, demonstrative of any significant degree of insight into his past behaviour as he submits.
4. Similarly, Mr Gillies' acknowledgement that any time would need to commence in a supervised fashion cannot be taken to be demonstrative of any significant degree of insight in the circumstances. He proposes that, regardless of whether such visits occur, or whether he continues to use cannabis, X commence spending unsupervised overnight time with him in March 2026.
5. I accept Mr Gillies' submission that more than a little weight ought be afforded to X's unequivocal views. Nevertheless, the weight I can afford to them is far less than the weight I determine to accord to X and his mother's safety. On no version of the evidence before me, and particularly that of Ms D, ought X have unsupervised time commence without any safeguards at all. Mr Gillies does not even propose to be restrained from using cannabis during X's time with him.
6. There is no proposal before me for X to spend supervised time with Mr Gillies on an ongoing basis. Whilst such orders are not prohibited, they are generally discouraged as undesirable.[69] Ms D did not ultimately support such an outcome. I have no evidence as to the availability of an appropriate service or its cost. I also have an extensive track record of Mr Gillies failing to attend scheduled supervised visits. I am not satisfied an order for X to spend ongoing supervised time with Mr Gillies is in his best interests.
7. I conclude that X's best interests are served by spending no time, and having no communication with, Mr Gillies.
8. Mr Gillies made no submissions with respect to the further relief he sought. I am not satisfied it is in X's best interests in light of the conclusions already reached.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and thirty-eight (138) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Glass.

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

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

[3] Adamson & Adamson [2014] FamCAFC 232; (2014) FLC 93-622 at [89] quoting with approval from Carlson & Fluvium [2012] FamCA 32 at [165] to [169].

[4] Cizek & Mihov [2024] FedCFamC1A 151; (2024) FLC 94-206 at [42].

[5] Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at [31].

[6] Affidavit of Mr Gillies filed 30 July 2025, paragraph 44.

[7] Affidavit of Mr Gillies filed 30 July 2025, paragraph 13.

[8] Affidavit of Mr Gillies filed 30 July 2025, paragraph 35.

[9] Lainhart & Ellinson [2023] FedCFamC1A 200; (2023) FLC 94-166 ("Lainhart & Ellinson") at [28].

[10] Affidavit of Ms Batt filed 8 July 2025, paragraph 19.

[11] Affidavit of Ms Batt filed 8 July 2025, paragraph 24.

[12] Affidavit of Ms Batt filed 8 July 2025, paragraph 29.

[19] Family Report dated 20 December 2024, paragraphs 60 and 69.

[20] Keane & Keane & Another (2021) Fam LR 190 at [73] and the cases there cited.

[23] Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Limited [2011] HCA 11; (2011) 243 CLR 361 at [63].

[24] Child Impact Report dated 19 February 2024, paragraph 31.

[25] Affidavit of Ms Batt filed 8 July 2025, paragraph 63.

[26] Affidavit of Ms Batt filed 8 July 2025, paragraph 84.

[27] Affidavit of Ms Batt filed 8 July 2025, paragraph 84.

[28] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 4AB.

[29] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 4AB.

[30] Affidavit of Ms Batt filed 8 July 2025, paragraph 44.

[31] Family Law Act 1975(Cth), s 4AB.

[32] Affidavit of Ms Batt filed 8 July 2025, paragraph 49.

[33] Affidavit of Ms Batt filed 8 July 2025, paragraph 21.

[34] Affidavit of Ms Batt filed 8 July 2025, paragraph 22.

[35] Affidavit of Ms Batt filed 8 July 2025, paragraph 50.

[37] Affidavit of Ms Batt filed 8 July 2025, paragraph 54.

[39] Affidavit of Mr Gillies filed 30 July 2025, paragraph 17.

[40] Child Impact Report, 19 February 2024, paragraph 21.

[41] Affidavit of Ms Batt filed 8 July 2025, paragraph 59.

[42] Affidavit of Ms Batt filed 8 July 2025, paragraph 59.

[43] Darmadi & Binjori [2023] FedCFamC1A 29; (2023) FLC 94-136 at [19].

[47] Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd [2011] HCA 11; (2011) 243 CLR 361 at [63].

[51] Affidavit of Ms J filed 9 July 2024, page 18.

[58] Independent Children's Lawyer's Outline of Case filed 1 August 2025, page 8.

[59] Independent Children's Lawyer's Outline of Case filed 1 August 2025, page 8.

[64] Affidavit of Ms J filed 9 July 2024, page 20.

[65] Family Report dated 20 December 2024, paragraph 75.

[68] Lancaster & Danton (2024) FLC 94-228 at [36] and the cases there cited.

[69] Lainhart & Ellinson at [36] and the cases there cited; Bielen & Kozma [2022] FedCFamC1A 221; (2022) FLC 94-123 at [67] and the cases there cited.