Hosseini & Sabir [2025] FedCFamC2F 1260 | Case summary

Hosseini & Sabir [2025] FedCFamC2F 1260 | Case summary | Zoe

[8]

The father submits that it is in the children's best interest to have a relationship with him. He seeks the children spend indefinite supervised time with him on the first and third Saturday of every month for two hours. The father also seeks for the children to be able to communicate with the him as they seek to. He submits that the children are not at risk in his care, particularly if the time is supervised only. The father denies the allegation that the children are fearful of him and instead claims they miss him. He says termination of the relationship between him and the children would do greater harm to them. He believes the mother is the reason he has not seen the children for three years and that the mother exposes the children to adult issues. The father seeks to send cards, letters and gifts to the children. These orders were included in his final orders sought and raised briefly in submissions by his counsel however no cross-examination or further detailed submissions were made to this point. The mother and the ICL did not include such an order.
The mother and the ICL both submit it is in the children's best interest for the mother to have sole decision making for the children and that the children live with the mother and spend no time and have no communication with the father. The mother submits that due to the family violence the children have been exposed to, the father's denial of family violence and his refusal to acknowledge the children's views and wishes shows a complete lack of insight into the children's needs and that the children would be at risk in the father's care. The mother submits that the children are mature enough and the Court should feel confident in relying on their views.
The mother initially sought an injunction pursuant to s.68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ('the Act'). By the end of the trial, she no longer pursued this as there is a state intervention order in place until 2029. Counsel for the ICL also submits that the father is dismissive of the family violence allegations and the risk of exposure to family violence places the children at an unacceptable risk in the father's care. He further submits that there is no evidence before the Court about the contact centre proposed by the father and whether he would be able to follow the rules and successfully engage with a contact centre.

[25]

The mother and father were both born in Country C. The mother relocated to Melbourne in 2009 as a refugee after fleeing Country C to Country H at 12 years old after her father died. Both parties identify as Muslim. The father first came to Melbourne in mid-2011 via a spousal visa with his ex-wife. During this period the father was unable to work. In 2016 he was granted a bridging visa and his partner visa was approved in mid-2018.
Both parties are Australian citizens and refer to the importance of their religion and culture in their lives in their trial material and to the single experts. Both parties referred to their culture and its importance to the family report writer, Ms G and the single expert reporter, Ms F.
When discussing his upbringing with Ms F, the father described his relationship with his father and mother as positive. He said his father had two wives and he was one of 18. He described his father as rich and "big" and he had a lot of respect for him. He passed away in 2010. The father also described his mother as "nice" and a good mother and says he has a good relationship with her though she resides in Country C. He describes his culture to be very important to him. He says he would be disciplined by smacking as a child or he would be punished by not being comforted or not being taken him somewhere he wanted to go. He describes his childhood as happy and he spent his time reading religious books and playing outside.
To Ms F, the mother described her parents' 45-year long marriage as "very nice" prior to her father's passing in 1992. She said they had small disagreements but was not exposed to family violence. She describes her father as very good and if they were in trouble he would punish them by not letting them go to the movies. She was also disciplined by smacking and was often ignored as punishment if they had been bad. Overall, she describes a happy childhood playing, spending time with family, going to the movies and cooking cultural meals. Her father died in 1992. Due to this herself and her family were isolated and they were forced to flee. The mother reported feeling very scared and sad and felt constantly worried something would happen to her and her family.
To Ms G, the mother referred to engagement in her community as very important particularly as a refugee. The mother says she often attends Eid celebrations, and the local mosque however has not recently as she is in fear of the father attending. Eid is a significant cultural and religious event. The mother in her trial affidavit discusses how important cultural events are to her and engaging with her community as an immigrant. However, due to her fear of the father she has not attended many community events and has lost friends and feels incredibly isolated. The mother also advised Ms G that she and the children eat halal food.
Neither party claimed to have any issues with drugs or alcohol. The mother alleges the father used drugs (chewing herbs) during the relationship. It is a tea she alleges that he would chew with his brother and friends at the house when smoking shisha. She says after chewing herbs he would swear, shout at her and become angry at small things. The father was cross-examined by the mother' counsel in regard to his use of herbs. The father says it is not a drug and that every Country C person uses it but that he does not use it so the questions were irrelevant. There is insufficient evidence before me to make a finding about either party abusing drugs or alcohol.
Issues of culture and religion were not addressed during the trial despite these being important to the parties and despite culture being specifically mentioned in s.60C of the Act. This is not uncommon. Too often culture and religion are mentioned fleetingly in material as a factor to consider in parenting proceedings however no further evidence is provided about it. The father throughout his interviews with Ms F, Ms G and during cross-examination when asked about family violence denied committing any and referred to it being against his "culture" and that his culture "respects" women.
In particular to Ms F, the father described the children as the most important people in his life and says he misses them and denied ever committing family violence saying he is "not that kind of man" and referred to his Country C culture where they respect women and never hit them. Instead, he said he believes in talking politely if there are misunderstandings. He says he is "shocked" and does not know why the mother is "lying". The father states that he has a mother whom he loves, and a sister, and does not want to hit a woman as he does not believe in fighting.
I reject any suggestion that by reason of the father's religion and culture he would not commit family violence or disrespect women. Violence and disrespect cannot be excused due to culture or religion. Some religions and cultures are more conservative than others but that is a separate issue. Violence is a choice. It is a poor parenting choice and raises concerns about poor role modelling for children. It is unacceptable behaviour.

[26]

The mother alleges she was responsible for the full-time care of all three children since they were born. She would attend to their daily needs including, feeding, dressing, bathing and putting them to sleep. The mother says as the children got older the father still was not actively involved in the children's lives. She says he never took them or collected them from school, attended parent teacher interviews or assisted with their homework. The father also did not assist with any of the homemaker duties and when family or friends attended the home the mother was expected to do all the cooking, clearing and cleaning. The father denies this and says he was very involved in their daily activities.
The father says he provided for the children financially since they were born. If he finished work early, he says he would pick them up from school and him and the mother both shared the responsibility of bathing and putting the children to bed. On weekends he claims he took the children for swimming and bike rides and to his brother's house so they could play with their cousins. In cross-examination the mother said the father did not play with the children at home and he very rarely took them to swimming. She alleges he took the children to learn how to ride their bikes and then every other time the mother had to come along with them. If he had to take the children somewhere she said the father would decline and if the children had playdates, she would have to take them. She denied that they shared the bathing and nighttime routines of the children.
The father only speaks about the children superficially in a few sentences in his trial affidavit. To Ms G, the father advised that he was unable to describe the children as he had not seen them for three years. He did not provide any further insight into their developmental needs. During cross-examination, the father did not convey that he had any in depth knowledge of the children and their personalities prior to separation. During cross-examination when Counsel for the ICL asked the father to describe the children he could only give basic descriptions. He described X and Y as happy and confident but could not expand further. When asked to describe Z he said she was little back then.
Ms E, the father's counsellor, refers to the father in her report mentioning in one of his first sessions with her that he understood that time has passed and the children have grown and changed and that he seemed genuinely interested in learning about their interests now and to build connections based on these. His answers during cross-examination did not reflect this.
His evidence was in stark contrast to the evidence given by the mother when asked the same questions by the ICL's counsel. The mother described X as an intelligent girl who loves sports and dance. She is also currently a school leader. She described Z as delightful and that she enjoys reading and swimming. She wants to start doing sports like Y does. Y, she described as curious and enjoys swimming and sports.
The mother was also able to describe the children in detail to Ms G. She says now herself and the children go out for dinner together, clean together, go on bike rides and have movie nights at home. She described all children to be in good physical health. The mother described X as a good girl who is quiet, polite and very smart. She went on to describe Y as very emotional and gets anxious and cries a lot. She says Y wears a nappy at night as she sometimes will wet the bed. The mother believes this is due to the trauma of the violence she suffered from the father. The mother described Z also as a happy and good girl who is friendly and loves to play.
Since separation the mother has had fulltime care of the children. They have not seen their father since December 2021 aside from the incidences at J Store and at the family report writer interviews (detailed below).
The father's inability to describe the children even when they were younger is consistent with the mother's evidence about his lack of involvement with the children. It was clear from the father's evidence that he does not know his children. Despite not having seen them since December 2021, he has made little to no effort to reengage or maintain a relationship with the children. The father only filed an application in this Court in March 2024. He does not explain the delay. During the period before he made his application, he had no active involvement with the children. He has not made effort to contact the children's schools to have access to information about the children and how they are progressing.

[31]

The mother alleges the father would call her names such as "donkey", "useless" and "dumb". She says the father would beat her with his belt on the back of her arm if he thought she had not listened to him. He would also hit her on the back or face in front of the children. In his trial affidavit the father simply makes a general statement denying engaging in any violence at all at any time during the relationship. When he does respond to the mother's allegations it is to an affidavit that is not before the Court, and he denies the alleged family violence ever occurring. The father makes the same vague comments to various experts. This is in sharp contrast to the detailed evidence the mother gives in her trial affidavit, to experts and in cross-examination.
From 2012 until 2016 the father was on a bridging visa and was unable to work in Australia. The mother worked at K Hospital. During this period the mother alleges she provided financially for the family paying for groceries and the utilities. In 2016 the father began working in his brother's company as a transport worker however the majority of his funds went back to his family in Country C. She alleges the father was controlling of how she would use her money and would check the accounts and statements regularly and constantly question each payment she made. The mother refers to an incident where the father yelled at her for taking a taxi when it was raining. She says she was fearful to take a taxi again after this incident. After Y was born the mother ceased work and relied on Centrelink benefits. The father denies not financially supporting the family in his trial affidavit. He does not provide any great detail about this.
Following the approval of the father's visa in 2016 when he was able to work, the mother alleges he became more violent and aggressive. During this period from 2016 he would lose his temper and would continuously shout and scream at her calling her names. The father would often make statements to her in an attempt to scare her. These would include threats to kill including telling the mother how he would kill her and that he knew "bushes" to hide her body and he would get away with it and not even the police would be able to keep her safe. The mother does not provide dates for these incidences but instead general timeframes from when they occurred. This is not surprising as the type of coercive and controlling behaviour she alleges she was subjected to is not characterised by incidences but by a pattern of behaviour.
The mother alleges the father socially isolated her and would not allow her to see her friends. Throughout the relationship she says she lost many friends due to his controlling actions. She refers to this in the family report writer interviews. The mother relays that the father would not allow her to use skype or facebook to contact friends or family or use the phone. If she wanted to call her family, the father would monitor the call. The father would not allow her to visit friends without him accompanying her even if the event was for women only. She refers to the father threatening her that if she ever left the house whilst she was pregnant that he had to accompany her at all times.
The mother says the father would often humiliate her in front of family, friends and community members referring to an incident where he berated the mother for her head scarf being loose. The father denies this. The mother says her family and friends were shocked by his actions. To Ms G the mother details that the father would also make her cook and clean for all his friends when they would come over and he would yell at her the morning afterwards if she was washing dishes as the noise would upset him. The mother also referred to the father not allowing her to do the shopping and instead would require her to write a list for the father and that he would threaten to divorce her if she left the house. She also refers to having to go to the doctor in secret and that her doctor would contact her through a friend as the father would not let her go alone.

[32]

The mother alleges the children were also exposed to physical and verbal abuse by the father. She says the father would get very angry with the children when they were running around or playing and if he stood on one of their toys he would yell at her and the children. The mother says she therefore felt she had to always maintain the home to be perfectly clean to avoid the constant abuse by the father. She says when the father would get angry, he would hit the children on their behind, the face or on the soles of their feet. He would hit the children when he got angry with them for example if they were eating too slowly. The mother says she would try and get the children fed and in bed early to avoid being abused by the father. She says the children often hid from the father including behind the mother's legs. Due to the abuse, the father created a constant stress and fear in the house and the children could not play and act freely. She refers to one incident in her trial affidavit where X came to the mother saying she could not sit because she was too sore after the father had hit her.
The father denies ever having arguments or physically abusing the children. When cross-examined about having argument he says that he is a respectful father and that arguing just means that they did not understand each other. He said he always tried to be a good husband and a good father. In his trial affidavit the father asserts this in one sentence. He does not expand on this and only talks about paying child support post-separation. The father says he was overseas and did not return to Australia until December 2022. Between December 2021 and June 2022, the father says he transferred funds directly to the mother of around $1,000 to $1,500 bi-weekly. It is notable that he stops this in June 2022 which is when he says the mother stopped communicating with him. It was around this time that the father went overseas for several months. The father stopped working. Since then, the father paid child support of about $41.80 per month.

[33]

The mother refers to an incident in 2017 in her trial affidavit where the father, herself, X and Y travelled to Country C to visit family. She alleges she was pregnant at the time. Whilst in Country C the mother says she became aware that the father was having an affair and confronted him about it. As she went to check the messages on his phone a physical altercation occurred and he broke her phone. The father shouted at her and called her names such as "bitch" and kicked the mother in the stomach and broke a bone in her left hand. The mother says the incident resulted in her having a miscarriage. She received medical attention at a hospital in City L, and a cast was placed on her hand.
The mother says she attempted to return to Australia after this incident. The mother alleges she contacted a friend in Australia who contacted Centrelink on the mother's behalf to explain she was in danger in Country C. Eventually the mother obtained a number for the Australian Embassy in Country C through her friend who she called for assistance. However, she was unable to arrange an earlier flight and had to remain in Country C until mid-2017. The mother says during this time she stayed in separate accommodation to the father and his family. She alleges upon her return she noticed the father had drained her bank account. On the mother's return to Australia, she made an incident report to the police in mid-2017. The report was tendered and marked as exhibit 6 in the proceedings. The mother refers to reporting the incident to the police in Country C, but they were unable to locate the father as he fled after the incident. The mother also referred to this incident with the family report writer.
The father refers to this incident in his trial affidavit in response to the mother's previously filed affidavit not in evidence before me. He denies he cheated on the mother or kicked her and says he was not aware the mother was pregnant. The father also denies she had a broken hand and required a cast. He says the mother left for Country C to see her family three months prior to his arrival in early 2017. He remembers the mother being angry with him as she thought he was cheating on her. The father was cross-examined on this incident and taken to the police report. The father denied the mother was pregnant at the time and therefore did not miscarry and she did not need medical care. When asked about it the father said he was not aware that she went to the police and that it was false and if the mother had evidence, she could bring it forward. The father at first denied breaking the mother's phone during the incident despite admitting to this in his psychological assessment with Ms F.
The father told Ms F that his sister told the mother he was already married which was not true and that he and the mother fought over this and he broke her phone. He also acknowledged to Ms F that the mother obtained a FVIO against him at this time based on "false" statements. Eventually during cross-examination, the father agreed that they had an argument about his sister telling the mother he was already married, and he broke the mother's phone after she took his phone and passport. He again denied cheating on the mother and said she was trying to tear his passport. After this he walked out of the house.
The father was further cross-examined about the report the mother made to the police in mid-2017. The mother refers to mid-2017 walking the children in Suburb M near the McDonalds where she was waiting at the traffic lights. Whilst waiting the father pulled up in his car. She says he rolled down his window and made threats to her that she could go wherever she wanted but she would not be able to take the children or receive child support and that he would kill her. When cross-examined about this incident the father denied this ever occurred and said that he was a transport worker and was not even working in the area at the time and when the police interviewed him he showed the police his timesheet. The father claimed he would produce the document to the Court the next day. He did not. Exhibit 6 is the leap record which summarises the mother's complaint and notes the father was to be arrested and interviewed. It also refers to the parties agreeing to a FVIO. There is a reference to the brief not being authorised but there is no mention of the father producing any document to show he was not there at the time of the incident.
After making the police report upon her return to Australia the police took out a FVIO against the father. The mother says she intended to separate from the father after obtaining the FVIO however he apologised profusely and believed in giving him a second chance. After they reconciled the parties had their third child Z.
The father was very defensive and dismissive of this incident. This would have been a frightening experience for the mother. It is concerning how he does not see that breaking the mother's phone is an act of family violence. I prefer the mother's evidence about this incident.

[35]

In June 2021 the mother alleges the father attempted to choke her and Y came to help her. When Y approached the mother, she alleges the father threw her and Y hit her chin on a table and her chin was bleeding. The mother say she was very worried about her but the father at first refused to take her to the hospital. However, as Y's mouth became swollen the father allowed the mother to take her to the Hospital. She says she did not tell the doctors the real reason for Y's injury as the father threatened to kill X or Z if the doctors were told the truth. Instead, she told them that Y fell off the bed. The mother annexes a photo of Y at the hospital and a copy of the hospital discharge summary dated June 2021 to her trial affidavit. The documented attendance indicates that Y had a laceration under her bottom lip inside and outside her mouth which occurred due to her jumping on the bed and falling on the floor. Again, it is common for women in the mother's position not to disclose how an injury occurs.
The father in his trial affidavit denies picking up and throwing Y. Instead, the father says on that day he was playing on the floor with X and Y. Y was rolling on the floor and hit her face on the ground which caused the injury to her chin. After Y was injured, he says he did not stop the mother taking her to the hospital and she went straight away and he stayed at home and looked after the other two children. When cross-examined about this incident the father maintained his version of events and that it was an accident. Again, he kept saying "ask the children" if that happened and if it did then he "would go to jail". He denies choking the mother and threatening to kill the other children.
Y referred to this incident to the family report writer. She told Ms G that she had just finished praying when she saw her father hitting her mother. When she tried to stop the father, he picked her up and threw her on the couch which made her hit her chin on the table. Y showed the family report writer the scar on her chin and that when she looks in the mirror she is always reminded of it. When cross-examined about what Y told Ms G the father again denied it and said that it was wrong and a false statement. He says that Y knows that statement is wrong and he does not know why she would say that.
When the mother was cross-examined about this incident. She said the father's version of events is not true. She reiterated that when the father was choking her Y came to her aid and he threw her. She says the father is lying about not threatening to kill the children and that Y's injury did not occur by playing on the floor. The mother also referred to this incident with the family report writer. To the family report writer, she said the incident occurred when she was warming milk up which split, and the father began choking her for wasting the milk he bought. This is never mentioned in her affidavit or during the mother's cross-examination.
I find it hard to understand how Y could sustain the injury she did if she hit the underside of her lip on the floor as the father alleges. The father's evidence is not credible. This would have been a terrifying experience for Y and the mother. The father's insistence that Y was lying only increases the risk he presents if he were to see the children.

[39]

The messages also include a further message sent on the same day in Language C. The mother was asked to translate the message by the counsel for the ICL. However, no official translation was provided for this message.
In mid-July 2022 the mother says she spoke to her general practitioner about what had been happening, and they wrote a letter of support and encouraged the mother to report the incident to the police. When she found out the father was returning from Country C the mother says she was very frightened for hers and the children's safety and reported the incident to the police on in July 2022. The police then took out a second FVIO against the father. The mother's report to the police was tendered and marked as exhibit 10. The descriptor in the police record is consistent with the mother's evidence.
The mother refers to being so frightened that the father would turn up in the middle of the night that she would sleep with her legs intertwined with the children's. The father was served upon his return from Australia in mid-2022 and charged with a threat to kill.
The mother says she restricted her movements after receiving these messages from the father and whenever she left the house she was scared she was being followed. She says this incident left her feeling isolated from the community. In 2022 the mother and the children did not attend the community Eid event as the mother knew it was likely the father would attend and she was fearful.
The father was cross-examined extensively about this incident. The father maintains that the messages are fake and that he never sent them. He says she has created a fake WhatsApp. When cross-examined and asked if it was his photo in the WhatsApp, he said it was but the mother has created it. The father does not produce any evidence to support this claim. The father also referred to this incident with Ms F and denied sending them and that the mother fabricated them and that the Court "ignored it as it was a lie". This is wrong.
The notice of order dated 14 June 2023 was tendered and marked as exhibit 1. The Magistrate determined as the threats were not sent from within Australia they did not constitute a crime in Australia and as result dismissed the threat to kill charge due to lack of jurisdiction. The Magistrate did not make a decision on its merits. These are not the first threats the mother has alleged the father has made to her life. The father alleges the mother fabricated these messages and created a fake WhatsApp account. He does not produce a skerrick of evidence for this. Exhibit 10 is the police leap record with respect to the threat. The police rated it as a high threat, made enquiries with migration authorities and placed him on the Australian Federal Police alert list resulting in his arrest at the airport when he flew to Australia. For the police to take these actions they must have been satisfied that the messages were genuine.

[40]

The mother refers to another incident in her trial affidavit in April 2024. The mother and the children were at J Store in N Shopping Centre, Suburb O when they saw the father. She says Y and X were terrified and ran up to her saying they saw "the guy". When she asked for who they meant they pointed to the father. The father did not approach them. The mother says she was so shaken up that she could not drive. She says that night Y woke up in bed screaming and wet the bed.
The father refers to this incident in his trial affidavit. He says he did see the children but did not approach them due to the FVIO that was in place. The father says he was outside of the store and Y saw him and stuck her head out and said "Daddy". He says he was scared due to the FVIO and did not say hello and kept walking into the J Store. During cross-examination the father said he often goes shopping there as it is the closest shopping centre in Suburb O. He confirmed he was walking into the store when Y saw him. Counsel for the mother referred to the mother's evidence that the children were scared. The father said he did not know but he thought they were nervous. He denied seeing the mother. He says the mother is creating drama and lying. Counsel asked if it would have been a better idea for the father to have left instead of continuing to walk into the store. His answer was convoluted however he did not see much of a difference between the options. The father's evidence was hard to follow. Again, when asked about this incident with the family report writer he said that the children's behaviour at J Store showed that they miss him.
The mother was also cross-examined about this incident by the father's counsel. When asked if the children saw her shaking and scared she said all of them were scared and when she wanted to drive, the children told her not to as he could follow them. When asked if the children were just reacting to her being upset the mother said she was shocked and the children were trembling.

[42]

Ms F describes the father as presenting with significantly elevated positive impression management and considerable defensiveness during the clinical interview. The father appeared irritated and heightened particularly in regards to questions about family violence. She found it difficult to redirect the father back on track as he would go on tangents fixated on other people's actions.
The psychometric testing for the father showed that when he faces problems, he lacks insight into how to deal with them. It showed he has a predisposition towards self-enhancement. His results on the Paulhus Deception Scale (PDS) indicated a high likelihood of invalid responses. The father was also assessed using the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). His responses to the questions indicted considerable defensiveness. He is described as being motivated to show himself as exceptionally free of common shortcomings which others would usually admit to. He is unlikely to admit faults or even recognise them to himself. There may be a tendency to minimise his negative impact of his actions. There was no evidence of psychopathy but instead the denial or defensiveness is likely to be responsible for the generally trouble-free picture that the father reports as he is reluctant to admit to dysfunction or problems across many areas in his life and of himself.
The father presented with personality vulnerabilities such as hostility, grandiosity, interpersonally exploitive behaviour and lacking insight. His risk rating would increase if the Court were to find the mother's allegations of family violence to be true. Overall, his results on the Family, Strengths and Needs Assessment (FSNA) scale indicated that there is a moderate risk of the children being exposed to neglect or abuse in the father's care. His results suggest that he may be unable to identify his own parenting deficits or may be in denial. Ms F recommended that if the Court were to deem time occur between the father and the children that it be supervised.
Ms F's descriptions of the father are consistent with the father's presentation in Court and his presentation to others. Notably, in regards to the benefits of therapy, Ms F noted that due to the father's defensiveness he may not be willing to commit to therapy and engagement with it is likely to pose significant challenges. Exhibit 3 is a letter from P Centre dated 6 February 2025. He attended his attendance for the intake sessions on 16 January 2025 and 6 February 2025. The letter confirms P Centre assessed the father as being unsuitable for the men's behaviour change program because of the father's representation and repeated assertions that he did not use violence. This is because unless the individual is willing to take responsibility for their actions there is no utility in participating in the course.
The father's presentation in the witness box is consistent with Ms F's assessment of him.

[43]

The mother appeared anxious however was forthcoming with information when asked and answered questions concisely. She appeared emotionally dysregulated and tearful when discussing childhood experiences, the family violence allegations and the children.
The mother's PDS results show she is aware of her shortcomings but wants to appear acceptable publicly. Her test results were likely to be overly positive. This is fairly common in the context of family law matters. In regards to her responses in the PAI assessment, the results show she responded in a consistent manner however her responses may not have been completely forthright which can lead to an inaccurate impression. She also presented as relatively free of common shortcomings that others would admit and shows a tendency to repress or deny distress. Overall, Ms F indicates that the results indicate that the mother is quite distressed and although she is acutely aware of her need for help, her low energy, passivity, and withdrawal may make it difficult for her to engage with treatment. The mother also exhibits low self-esteem and reported feeling hopelessness, agitation, confusion and stress. The mother explained that she feels scared of her own shadow, her heart races and hand tremble, from fears that the father or a member of his family will find her and kill her or take the children.
Ms F indicates that the mother is experiencing affective and physiological signs of depression. Her results were indicative of someone who has experienced a disturbing traumatic event in the past that continues to distress her and produce recurrent episodes of anxiety. She believes the mother presented with post-traumatic stress disorder. Based on the FSNA scale the children are at a low to moderate risk in her care. Ms F notes that the threat to her life as a child, and subsequent displacement at the age of 12 along with losing her father in such tragic and violent circumstances to which she witnessed, likely caused considerable distress and had a profound impact on her psychological and emotional development. In the context it is understandable how the mother would be hypersensitive to perceptions of threats, risks and risk of safety for herself and the children. She did not recommend any time with the children and the mother be reduced, but recommends the mother engage with a psychologist with expertise in post-traumatic stress disorder.
The mother's presentation is highly relevant to the issue of supervised time and the father communicating with the children. Given the mother's exposure to violence and trauma any order for supervised time or the father communicating with the children is likely to negatively impact on the mother's parenting capacity. This would be compounded by the father's denials.

[44]

The father has been attending upon Ms E, counsellor at Q Centre since 4 February 2025. She swore an affidavit on 16 June 2025 in these proceedings annexing a treating psychological report of the father. Prior to writing her report, Ms E had not received any documents pertaining to the family law proceedings. Ms E gave brief oral evidence on the second day of the trial.
At the time of the report the father had attended five sessions with Ms E both online and in person. He had attended a sixth just prior to the final hearing commencing. Ms E described the father's engagement with therapy as open, having emotional presence and had a follow through on recommendations made during their sessions. When discussing the children he spoke with motivation about being a reliable and safe parent to them.
During cross-examination Ms E acknowledged that the father referred to the allegations of family violence however always denied them. In relation to police history she said this was briefly discussed at intake but the father denied any criminal charges. Ms E explained that her role was supportive counselling for the father which included psychoeducation on family violence, management of anxiety and frustration, distress and sadness.
In regards to the father's ability to adapt and deal with the changing behaviours of parenting, she says he has a good capacity to respond to these with practical foresight and emotional flexibility. She says the father was hopeful for a gradual and respectful reconnection process and that the approach would need to be flexible depending on the children's needs and acknowledged that the children may not be ready to see him.
Ms E states that the father has made significant practical plans to accommodate his children and openly reflects on the impact of court process in his sessions with her. In particular she refers to the father's acceptance of supervised visitation and child-centred contact progression as notable and clinically significant. However, during cross-examination by the mother's counsel, she acknowledged she had never spoken with the children and when asked if she could make recommendations about them she said no. I think the father has engaged in positive impression management. Supervision will not protect them from the psychological and emotional harm if forced to see the father. The father is likely to deny their lived experiences of violence.
It was clear Ms E's role with the father was supportive in nature. I am not critical of this role. Ms E did not have access to any of the Court material and was solely relying on the father's recollection and point of view when it came to the family law proceedings, family violence and the children.

[46]

Ms G reported that all children were friendly, respectful, lovely and happy. Besides from Y's bed wetting, she believed they were all meeting their developmental milestones. During their interviews she says all three children were very articulate and were able to describe their opinions and preferences with confidence.
X was 11 years old at the time of the interview. When speaking about the mother she appeared happy and says she enjoys living with her mother and her sisters. She described her mother as "very beautiful, loving, caring and kind" and that she loves her because she does not hit them. She described going to the movies, the park and visiting friends with their mother. X appeared sad when talking about her father. She said she last saw him two years ago and that she does not miss him. She described when living with the father he was physically and verbally abusive to their mother and would yell and hit her and Y. X referred to an incident when the father hit the mother and the mother put Y and Z in a different room. Z was described as crying and being scared. She says she does not remember any good things about the father and instead said he is "very mean, awful, rude" and "never cared" for them. X said the father would punish them by hitting them, but the mother would just take away their devices. She advised she wanted to live with her mother and not see the father.
Y was nine years old at the time of the interview and spoke lovingly about living with her mother. She referred to their father and being "very mean" and hitting them and being abusive. Otherwise, she referred to there not being anything good about him to remember. She referred to times when she and her siblings wanted to play and the father would yell at them for making noise. Y referred to the incident where her father threw her and she hit her underside of her lip on a table. She said she wants to continue living with her mother and does not want to see her father and if she was forced to see her father she would run away.
Z was also interviewed by the report writer. At the time of the interview she was six years old. She spoke positively about her mother and that she loves her and enjoys playing with her sisters. Z advised she did not remember her father but she does not want to see him because he "makes her sister sad".
The father told the family report writer that due to their ages there could not be much weight placed on their views. The mother was cross-examined about this. She says X remembers and so does Y and when she asks them if they want to see their, father they refuse. When asked if the children are basing this around the mother's distrust of the father she said she does not trust him in her own way, but his family violence made the children distrust him as well. I reject the father's contention about the weight to put on the children's views. I am satisfied that the children have been direct victims of family violence by the father. X and Y clearly remember the trauma. It is important not to minimise their experiences.
When cross-examined about the children's views, Ms G said X and Y were very clear and consistent about not wanting to see their father. Regarding Z, she acknowledged she was very young but was also consistent with how she responded. Given how tight knit the children are she does not agree with Z seeing the father without them. She said there were no signs of coaching. When asked about children with entrenched traumatic history changing their views when they are older Ms G said genuinely this does not happen, but some will. A lot of focus would need to be made on healing past trauma. She did not see a benefit in supervised time happening straight away if they have not addressed this. Ms G also noted that the children would benefit from the father admitting past behaviours and showing a genuine effort to change.

[47]

Whilst Ms G was speaking with Z, the mother, X and Y knocked on the door in what she describes as a distressed manner asking to be let in. When Ms G opened the door they fled into the room after sighting the father approaching the observation rooms. All three were crying and shaking. Z appeared confused as to what was going on and very scared. Ms G escorted them to another room as she went out to speak to the father and told him to wait in a separate waiting area where he had been previously told to wait. The father agreed and left. Y and X continued to cry and neither the children or the mother wished to talk about what they had just experienced and felt.
All parties and Ms G were cross-examined about this incident. The mother described the incident during cross-examination by the ICL's counsel. The mother recounted that Z was with the family report writer when Y and X came running to her as they all saw the father step out of the lift and walk towards them. The mother described the children as weeping and said that Y wet her clothes and that Ms G assisted with providing towels for Y. She says the children were clutching her and would not let go.
The father said when he attended the building he followed the instructions he was given and when he stepped out of the lift he saw the mother and the children. He says he turned towards the right which was away from the children and the mother. When the mother's counsel questioned the father about being instructed to wait downstairs, he said this was not correct. When Ms G told the father they cried because they were upset he denied that the children were upset. The father said the children were crying because they saw him and that they miss him. He repeated that it was because they missed him multiple times during cross-examination. However, in his trial affidavit at paragraph 44 he says he was "sad to see that [his] children reacted fearfully" to him.
When asked about this during cross-examination, Ms G said that she did not agree with the father that the children were crying because they missed him.
Ms G said she had no knowledge that Y wet herself but said she was visibly scared and both X and Y were shaking. When asked if this was a response she sees often she said no. Ms G did not see the interaction between the parties but the doors are glass and she saw him coming towards the office. She said the father did not follow instructions to wait downstairs and when she saw him she asked him why he had not followed these instructions. Ms G said her instructions were very clear to the father to meet in front of R Store. The email sent from Ms G to the parties was tendered and marked as exhibit 11. Ms G says to the father:

[50]

In her family report Ms G concluded that if the mother's account is accepted then the father has committed very serious acts of family violence during and post the relationship. These experiences would have undermined the mother's self-esteem, confidence and diminished her independence. Parental abilities of perpetrators and victims of family violence can be compromised. A perpetrator can put children at risk of emotional and physical harm due to the actions they make creating a parenting environment which is unsafe and unpredictable leaving the victim to have anxiety and fear. The pattern of family violence exhibited by the father and described by the mother if found occurred is concerning. Her experiences would affect her ability to trust the father and ability to communicate with him. In regards to the children, if they were exposed to family violence this may affect their strength of relationship with their parents and self-confidence. She recommends the father to learn the impact of his abusive behaviour on the children and to regulate this behaviour to prioritise their safety and developmental needs.
Ms G noted that both parents showed insight that the children should remain living with the mother. She said this may suggest the father has capacity to support the relationship between the children and the mother and it may suggest he was appearing child focused and respecting their wishes by not suggesting they live with him However she also said it may indicate he does not want to be the primary caregiver which could also be a cultural decision. I think Ms G's views are overly generous to the father. I find that the mother and the children have experienced various forms of family violence perpetrated during and after the marriage. The mother's evidence both in her trial affidavit, what she told experts and what she said when cross-examined is cogent and compelling.
Overall Ms G recommended the children remain living with the mother. If they were to reconnect with the father, she recommends the children undertake individual therapy for underlying trauma before any time would take place. Time with the father is not recommended until after he has actively and successfully engaged with programs including men's behaviour change so that he can address his issue of family violence and can be a safe and trusting parent. If after the trauma therapy and the father's engagement with resources is successful supervised time may occur. I am unable to make final orders in line with these recommendations. These are the type of orders the court warned about making in Oberlin & Infeld [2021] FamCAFC 66. I have no confidence that the father will engage meaningfully with any course of therapy. It is unlikely he will gain an insight.
Ms G recommended the children engage in therapy to address their underlying traumatic experiences. The mother during cross-examination referred to X and Y seeing a counsellor which she says they enjoy. She said at the moment the counsellor is not available but when they return the appointments will resume. She says they like going to the clinic in the city as it's on the top floor. When asked if she has noticed an improvement with the children she says yes as Y does not have urinary incontinence anymore and before X and Y were scared to hear a knock on the door. Now they no longer are. I have confidence that the mother will continue to ensure the children receive these supports. The mother also spoke about the benefits she has received from the counsellor she sees.

[53]

The children do not have any relationship with the father. Z does not remember him at all. X and Y have negative memories of the father based on their lived experiences of violence. Their fearful reaction of seeing the father at the family report interview is consistent with this. Making any order for supervised time would be contrary to the children's best interests. It would expose the children and the mother to further trauma. The father has done little to address the risks. It is telling that he did not make any enquiries about contact centres. There is a real chance that even if supervision was arranged the father would drop out if the visits did not progress as he thinks they should.
The children would be placed at an unacceptable risk of harm if forced to see their father. Professional supervised time cannot protect the children from the psychological and emotional harm they would experience. It is likely too that the mother would become distressed and there is the likelihood of that negatively impacting her parenting capacity. This would be a poor outcome for the children and the mother given that they have started the process of recovering from trauma.
I am minded that this outcome means the children will not have an opportunity to meet and develop a relationship with their younger half-sibling. Given the fact the father's wife and child live in Country C this would be a remote prospect. In closing the father's counsel said that the father's intention is that eventually his wife and son come to Australia. Again, there is no evidence to support this and it was not explored at trial. Contrary to the father's submissions the relationship between the father and children has already been terminated.
There is no benefit to the children receiving messages and gifts from the father. They are likely to be inappropriate and would cause further distress. The other possibility is that the father would not follow through with it yet the mother would be stressed about the possibility of having to deal with it. There were no questions raised about it at all. I reject submissions by the father' counsel that the evidence of Ms E supports the father's capacity to change.
I otherwise make the orders as they appear at the beginning of these reasons.

Hosseini & Sabir [2025] FedCFamC2F 1260 (10 September 2025)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (54 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (2)