Housing Commission (NSW) v Tatmar Pastoral Co Pty Ltd

1. The mother have sole decision-making authority for all major long-term issues affecting the children.

Children's Living Arrangements and Communication

1. The children will live with the mother.
2. Pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the father is hereby restrained and an injunction shall issue restraining him from communicating or attempting to communicate with the mother and/or the children save as otherwise provided for in these orders and approaching:

(a) the mother or the Children;

(b) the residence of the mother or the Children;

(c) the place of employment of the Mother NOTING that place is currently B School; and

(d) the place of education of the Children.

1. The father is at liberty to send each of the children a card and/or a gift on no more than four occasions per calendar year.
2. For the purposes of Order 6 above:

(a) the father is to ensure his communication does not refer to any dispute he has with the mother, does not contain any negative or otherwise derogatory content regarding the mother, or the extended maternal family and is child-focused;

(b) the mother is at liberty to review the contents of any cards and/or gifts she receives from the father for the children;

(c) within 21 days of the date of these orders, the mother shall provide the father with a postal address to where the cards and gifts for the children may be sent; and

(d) it is at the mother's discretion to provide any such cards and/or gifts she receives to the children.

1. The mother shall not denigrate, or permit any other person to denigrate, the father in the presence or hearing of the children
2. The mother have leave to provide a copy of these Orders to:

(a) the children's school(s); and

(b) the mother's employer.

1. Pursuant to s 65Y(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the mother is permitted to travel overseas with the children without the father's consent.
2. Pursuant to s 11(1)(b) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) the children X born in 2012, Y born in 2016 and Z born in 2017 be permitted to have a passport or an Australian travel document (as defined by s 6 of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth)) for each of the children or any other documents deemed necessary for the purpose of overseas travel and be permitted to travel internationally.

1. The appointment of the Independent Children's Lawyer is hereby discharged.
2. All outstanding parenting applications are otherwise dismissed and removed from the list of cases requiring finalisation.

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

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

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

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

1. This matter involves the applicant father, Mr Peel born in 1979 ("the father") and the respondent mother, Ms Switzer born in 1984 ("the mother") in relation to the parenting arrangements for the children, X born in 2012 ("[X]", Y born in 2016 ("[Y]") and Z born in 2017 ("[Z]"), collectively ("the children"). There is an Independent Children's Lawyer ("ICL") appointed in the matter.
2. This matter came for final hearing on 15 December 2025. The mother and ICL were represented by counsel and the father represented himself. By reason of the existence of current family violence orders, the father was prohibited from cross examining the mother by reason of the operation of s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act").

1. The father initiated proceedings on 16 August 2024 seeking orders that the parties have joint long-term decision-making responsibility for the children and that he spends time with the children each alternate weekend.
2. The father did not file any trial affidavits nor an Outline of Case specifying orders sought. In discussion with the bench at the final hearing, the father indicated he sought joint decision-making responsibility for long-term decisions relating to the children and unsupervised time with the children. He advised the Court that he would not participate in any supervised time with the children. The father was given the opportunity to address the Court which he did at some length and without substantial interruption. He then affirmed that what he had related to the Court was true and correct. He was not cross-examined.
3. The mother is employed as an educator.[1] The parties commenced their relationship in 2010, lived together from 2012 and finally separated in 2017. The children have been in the mother's care since that time.
4. The mother's evidence is that the children spent time with the father on alternative weekends from about the end of 2020 until mid-2023. The father's time was then reduced by agreement to one day per fortnight due to the father's changed living arrangements. The father last spent time with the children on 30 December 2023.[2]
5. The father continued to have, as described by the mother, almost daily communication with the children until 22 January 2024.[3] Due to the behaviour of the father during communications with the children on 20-22 January 2024, the frequency of these calls reduced.[4] The father proceeded to have sporadic communications with the children in February 2024 before communication ceased on 19 February 2024 when the father said that he would no long text or call the children.[5]

1. The mother seeks orders that she have sole decision-making authority for all major long-term issues affecting the children, that the children live with her, the children spend no time with the father and that there be various restraints on the father pursuant to s 68B of the Act. She also seeks orders to enable international travel with the children. The ICL supports the mother's position with the addition of an order that the mother is to communicate with the principal and/or assistant principal of the children's school in a civil manner via email in regards to issues with the children.
2. As noted above, the father did not file any material, including proposed orders. During the final hearing, the father informed the Court that he sought orders which would allow him to spend time with the children every second week, on special occasions and half of all school holidays. As noted above, he was not willing to spend any supervised time with the children.

1. The father did not file any material for the hearing.
2. The mother, by way of her Outline of Case filed 11 December 2025, relies upon:

(a) mother's trial affidavit filed 4 December 2025;

(b) Specific Issues Report filed 21 November 2025;

(c) section 67ZBE Response - Tasmania Police dated 25 November 2025;

(d) Amended Response to Initiating Application filed 19 May 2025;

(e) section 67ZBE Response - Tasmania Police dated 28 April 2025

(f) updated s 67ZBE Response - SFSK dated 4 December 2024;

(g) Child Impact Report filed 30 October 2024;

(h) section 67ZBE Response - Tasmania Police dated 10 October 2024;

(i) section 67ZBE Response - SFSK dated 3 October 2024; and

(j) Notice of Risk filed 20 September 2024.

1. The ICL, by way of their Outline of Case, relies upon:

(a) section 67ZBE Response Tasmania Police dated 25 November 2025;

(b) DECYP Education Records dated 25 November 2025 and 10 November 2025;

(c) Tasmanian Health Service records dated 10 November 2025 and 30 October 2024; and

(d) section 67ZBE dated 28 April 2025.

1. In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to the children, I must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.[6]
2. Section 60CC(2) of the Act sets out the list of matters that the Court must consider in determining what is in the children's best interests.
3. Orders in respect of children are made under Part VII of the Act, where the meaning of a "parenting order" is defined (s 64B). The Court may make such parenting orders as it thinks proper (s 65D(1)), within the context of the objects of the legislation (s 60B). The objects of Part VII of the Act are to ensure that the best interests of children are met, including by ensuring their safety, and to give effect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989.[7] My decision is guided by those objects.
4. The Act confirms that safety includes safety from family violence, abuse, neglect or other harm.[8] Family violence and abuse are defined in the Act as "violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family or causes the family member to be fearful".[9] Examples of such behaviour include assaults, repeated derogatory taunts, intentionally damaging property, unreasonably withholding financial support and preventing a family member from keeping connections with his or her family and friends.
5. The Explanatory Memorandum indicates further that "other harm" allows me to consider whether these children are affected by issues such as inter-parental conflict.[10]
6. "Safety" is not defined in the Act. I note that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Family Law Amendment Act 2023 states that s 60B(a) of the Act is "intended to make it clear to all users of the Family Law Act that safety is a fundamental consideration when considering the best interests of the child."[11] It goes on to state that Courts should consider "what arrangements would encourage or support a removal, reduction or avoidance of harm".[12]
7. In considering these matters I must include consideration of:

(a) any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child; and

(b) any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child's family.[13]

1. Parental responsibility for children is vested in their parents (s 61C(1)), regardless of whether they live together or are separated (s 61C(2)), but that situation only applies whilst ever no order is made to change it (s 61C(3) and s 61D). Parental responsibility is defined to encompass all duties, powers, responsibilities and authority conferred by law upon parents (s 61B).
2. I am not required to resolve every controversy raised by the parties' evidence or to refer to all the evidence raised by them. I refer to that evidence which is relevant to the issues that must be determined by the Court (Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon [2003] HCA 48; (2003) 200 ALR 447 at [62]. See also Housing Commission (NSW) v Tatmar Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 378).
3. In Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97; (2022) FLC 94-092 the Full Court held that the task of the Court in relation to questions of unacceptable risk is to undertake a qualitative analysis of the evidence directed not just to the existence of the risk of harm but also to the magnitude of the possible harm. An assessment of the probabilities is not the measure by which a future risk of harm is determined. A possibility may be sufficient basis upon which to find an unacceptable risk.

**Section 60CC(2)(a)

What arrangements would promote the safety of the child (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of the child and each person who has care of the child

Section 60CC(2A)

In considering the matters set out in paragraph (2)(a) the Court must include consideration of any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child (whether or not the person had parental responsibility for the child) and any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child's family**

1. The Court had the benefit of a Child Impact Report by Court Child Expert, Ms C, dated 28 November 2024 ("CIR") and a Specific Issues Report prepared by Court Child Expert, Ms D, dated 21 November 2025 ("SIR"). Ms C recommended that the father spend supervised time with the children on a weekly or fortnightly basis for an interim period. This was recommended on the basis of the father's presentation which will be discussed further below. Ms D summarised the children's views which were, in effect, that they were wary of spending time with the father. Helpfully, the SIR also summarised the subpoenaed medical records in relation to the father's mental health and involvement with the criminal justice system.
2. The Tasmania Health Services records indicate that the father has a history of mental health admissions dating back to 2003 with concerns related to psychosis, antisocial personality disorder and aggressive behaviour. The records also indicate that the father has long-term issues with illicit drug use.
3. It appears that the father was not admitted for mental health treatment between the years 2007 and 2016. In 2016, he presented to emergency for treatment for drug induced psychosis where he experienced paranoia and was admitted to a mental health ward for one-two days. The records note that the admission was a part of a series of presentations to the emergency department that related to family violence incidents involving the mother.
4. The father's mental health issues have remained largely unresolved, and he is significantly affected by them. The CCE noted at paragraph 49 of the SIR:
   1. Despite the alleged manipulation of the children and the degree of influence that seems apparent, [Y] and [Z] did want to see [Mr Peel] at the time of the CIR and both boys would likely to be open to it again in the future if they were reassured of changes to [Mr Peel's] presentation and parenting behaviour. It is a difficult and sad situation that [Mr Peel] has been unable to receive the mental health support that may enable him to better focus on the children and be a positive and active part of his children's lives. It is apparent that this loss is felt heavily by all the children, with [X] angry, [Y] disappointed and [Z] at this stage oblivious to how significant the issues are. While the possibility for change by [Mr Peel] cannot be ruled out, the information available suggests he has yet to commence the process of stabilising his mental health. Until there is evidence of established, sustained change it is unclear how the children could be adequately supported to reconnect with him.
5. The father presented to the Court has having a whole range of grievances against numerous government bodies, the police, the courts and the mother. He also holds a number of theories whereby he believes that he is subject to a web of actors who are persecuting him. He was unconstrained in addressing the Court, although, I must emphasise, that he was not disrespectful to the Court and did calm himself when directed to do so. Whilst the Court did not have the benefit of an independent medical assessment of the father, it is apparent from his history and from his presentation to the Court that he has significant ongoing mental health issues which impact on his behaviour.

1. I accept the mother's evidence that the father engaged in abusive and violent behaviour both during and after the relationship. Her accounts of incidents of abuse and physical violence are detailed, and I accept her evidence in that regard.
2. The records maintained by Tasmania Police note the father as the perpetrator of family violence in multiple relationships commencing in 2006 until 2023. In particular, the father has been recorded in 22 family violence incidents between the years of 2006 and 2023 and in 13 intervention orders. The records show that there were nine incidents involving the mother and the children. The last incident occurred in September 2023 when the father attended the home of the mother's partner. Most recently, the father was charged with breaching a family violence order in November 2025 after sending an email which, amongst other things, included:[14]

...

I will have my children... returned safely to ME while their mother, one [Ms Switzer] is investigated for any involvement in and/or with crimes and this entire situation of ALL crimes mentioned already and others still others unmentioned in this email committed against myself and in or against the corporate entitle name of [the father],

...

1. It is further recorded that the father had 19 court matters between 2000-21 which included multiple breaches of family violence orders, multiple offences and drug related charges. The police records note that the father is extremely hostile towards the police.
2. It is further recorded that the father has had 78 police holdings between 2003 and 2024. The records also highlight various interactions including that in July 2024, the father attended upon the police station saying that the mother is ruining his life by making him pay child support and engaging in this Court. The police advised that they could not assist, but the father was recorded as belligerent and non-accepting of the advice. He stated that he was being "gang stalked" and receiving "dark magic threats". It was noted that the father appeared either under the influence of drugs and/or has a mental health condition.[15] A further entry in September 2025 noted that the father was outside a police station and said to police staff "keep on smiling Cunts, I don't give a fuck how smug you are". It was noted in the entry that the father had recently been coming into the station and verbally abusing staff for no apparent reason and that he does not attempt to report anything.[16]
3. In an entry recorded by a staff member at the children's school in June 2025, it was recorded that the father contacted the school requesting information pertaining to the children. In the record, the staff member notes that the father was "extremely agitated", "the call was becoming extremely uncomfortable", "[the father] said to me several times that I was not to hang up... I have had several interactions with [the father]... I believed that if I did hang up [the father] would visit the school" and that when he contacted the school, the father became "very aggressive" and wanted "every piece of information that has ever been sent home with his children down to sex education".[17]
4. The father's history family violence as recorded by the mother is set out in comprehensive form in part 3.2 of her Outline of Case. I accept that as an accurate summary of the allegations that she raises in her affidavit evidence. Her Outline of Case and affidavit also refer to the father's conduct in court on occasion through the course of these proceedings. Given the father's conduct before me, I accept those statements as being an accurate account of his behaviour in court before other judicial officers, although, as noted above, he was not aggressive or disrespectful towards the Court during the final hearing. In previous hearings, he has made threats and acted in a disrespectful way towards the presiding judge.
5. Regrettably, the possibility of future harm is significantly high where the father lacks insight into his behaviour and his mental health issues remain untreated. He informed the Court that he has ceased taking his medication since 2017.
6. The father's presentation, history of family violence and his untreated mental illness all significantly impact on his capacity to parent and, in my view, the only time that the father could sensibly spend with the children is in a supervised setting to ameliorate any risk. Given that he is adamant that he does not wish to see the children in that setting, there is no option other than the father spending no time with the children. It will be of detriment to the children that they are placed in a position where they anticipate spending supervised time with the father and the father does not attend or attends sporadically, particularly given the views expressed by X at paragraph 15 of the SIR that Y felt neglected by the father, Z reporting at paragraph 23 of the SIR that when it was his birthday he was sad that his father did not speak to him and Y raising at paragraph 33 of the SIR that the father has not called in a year and "ghosted" them and they "had not done anything" to the father with the father "not taking up the chance to "see [them] at the childcare centre"". At paragraph 51 of the SIR, it was noted that the children will benefit from stability in their childhood and protection from the father's volatile behaviour. This is in the best interests of the children in circumstances where they are being well-cared for by the mother and any interaction with the father is attended with significant risks and more than likely negative consequences involving emotional and possibly physical harm.

**Section 60CC(2)(b)

1. The Court was advised that the ICL spoke to each of the children who had been clear in expressing their views that they did not wish to spend time with the father. The responses of the children as recorded in the CIR and SIR were more nuanced. In the SIR, being more recent than the CIR, X recounted negative memories involving the father and expressed that she did not wish to see him. Y stated that he did not "really want to" see the father and indicated that he did not feel safe around the father. Notwithstanding, he expressed that he would willing to give the father "another go" if he would not "keep acting this way". Whilst he said he would be happy to receive letters and gifts from the father, he stated that this "does not make up for anything". Z recalled positive memories of the father and expressed that it would "be good" to see the father but that the father might also make negative comments about the mother.
2. It appears, on consideration of the reports, that the children, particularly Y and Z, would like to be able to have a relationship with the father but are concerned about his presentation and behaviour.

**Section 60CC(2)(c)

The developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child**

1. X is aged 13 years, Y is aged 9 years and Z is agreed 8 years. They are each in good health. Again, at paragraph 51 of the SIR, the CCE stated that the children will benefit most from stability within their childhood and protection from the volatility created by the father's poor mental health and associated behaviours of drug use and family violence. I agree with that assessment particular having observed the father.

**Section 60CC(2)(d)

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

1. There is no evidence before the Court to suggest that the mother lacks any capacity to provide for the children's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs. The children seem to be engaged in a range of activities including music and sport and are all regularly attending school.
2. Unfortunately, the father's long-standing mental health issues means that his capacity to parent is significantly impacted.

**Section 60CC(2)(e)

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

1. As noted above, the children would like to be in a position to have a relationship with their father but due to his significant ongoing mental health issues this has become problematic. In addressing the Court, the father spent very little time discussing the children and their needs and was mostly concerned with exploring various persecution theories involving himself. I find that it is most unlikely that the children will obtain benefit from orders for them to spend time with the father, whether supervised or unsupervised.
2. It was raised with counsel during the final hearing the possibility of the father being permitted to send the children cards/gifts on special occasions each year. Whilst this was not strongly opposed, I was referred to Lainhart & Ellinson [2023] FedCFamC1A 200; (2023) FLC 94-166 at [29] where the Full Court said:
   1. Courts must take the litigants as they find them when determining causes of action under Pt VII of the Act. Courts are not, and cannot operate like, therapeutic agencies, using litigation as the vehicle to meddle by making aspirational directions about how litigants should improve their parenting capacity in the hope of enhancing their children's familial experiences.
3. In this sense, it was submitted that making provision for such orders may be aspirational. In circumstances where X and Y both expressed a willingness to accept such cards/gifts and Z was willing to see his father if he could behave appropriately, I find that it is in the children's best interests to not be completely excised from the father and that the provision of cards/gifts will beneficial in maintaining a relationship with the father safely. The Court does have concern regarding the contents of the material the father may send to the children given his mental health concerns and the tenor and contents of his communications with the Court, therefore the orders will make provision for it to be at the mother's discretion to provide such having reviewed their contents.

**Section 60CC(2)(f)

Anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the children**

1. There is nothing further which is of relevance.

1. Given my findings above, it is appropriate that the mother have sole decision-making responsibility for long-term decision regarding the children. She will have care of the children, and I accept that she has the capacity to make long-term decisions for their benefit.

1. For these reasons, the Court will make the orders as sought by the mother with the addition of allowing the father to provide each of the children with cards and gifts for several occasions per year.

I certify that the preceding forty-six (46) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice McNab.

[1] Affidavit of Ms Switzer filed 5 December 2025 ('Mother's affidavit') at paragraph 70.

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

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

[8] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC(2)(a).

[9] _Family Law Act 197_5 (Cth) s 4AB(1).

[10]Explanatory Memorandum, Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 (Cth) 20 at [36].

[11] Explanatory Memorandum, Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 (Cth) 18 at [17].

[12] Explanatory Memorandum, Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 (Cth) 19 at [30].

[13] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC(2A)